The importance of knowledge

I resurrect this blog from a long absence to just relay my thoughts on knowledge. Whether educational, spiritual, or work related knowledge can empower an individual to truly believe in themselves and what they are capable of. I think knowledge is what keeps life interesting, there is always something new to learn and hence the impossibility of knowing everything gives life a certain pleasant spice. Through further learning one acquires a taste of perfection of which is only attainable through higher education. Hence the importance of knowledge.

The Soul of Four Souls

In Four Souls by Louise Erdrich, the "soul" was referenced several times and in one particular chapter Nanapush alludes to the soul as the irreducible, the story. However, what is the soul of Four Souls in this case? Is it the story, the actual tale about Fleur or is it the relationship between Nanapush and Margaret? Or maybe it's the story of John Mauser and his greed. It is my opinion that the soul referenced in Four Souls is the actual story of a soul that achieves ultimate happiness and content with life and there are several characters which fit this description in the story. The character that I think embodies the soul that's content with life the most is Polly Elizabeth, however Fleur and Nanapush also reach this state by the end of the story as implied from the narration in the last two chapters. Polly Elizabeth in the beginning of the story viewed everything from their outward appearances whether it was a human being or an inanimate object. One of those people that she despised because of his outward appearance was Fantan, however as later evident in the story that displeasure dissipates as Polly Elizabeth begins to realize that people should not be judged by their physical appearance but rather by their conduct. When she finally does achieve this state only then is she happy with her life and achieves contentment with life as she knows it. Thus, there is a clear message that her soul is finally at peace and therefore, it is one of the souls that comprises the "soul" of Four Souls. Since there are four characters that reach inner-peace and happiness, Margaret, Nanapush, Polly Elizabeth and Fleur, their stories about how their lives changed from unhappiness to becoming content are the Four Souls that comprise the title. Yes, at this point it is one too many souls, to digest as the reader, however it seems that the overall message from the "soul" of Four Souls is that an individual will only be happy when they are content with what they've achieved in life and the situation that they are in currently.

Can humor be used as a survivance strategy in native literature?

In reading the story "Hard Riding" the reader is given the impression that some form of survivance strategy is being exhibited even though the story is full of humorous statements from the main character. However, can humor be a survivance strategy? Would it be possible that an author can use humor as a tool to convey a survivance message more effectively than a more serious tone would? In some cases humor may actually be more effective because the situations that are discussed are upsetting and humor lightens the content of the story. This captures the attention of the reader and thus makes him/her look into the actual message that's being portrayed. Thus, humor can be used as a survivance strategy in native texts in such a manner. In "Hard Riding" a satirical look at Indian affairs in reservations was given and thus, provided survival to an issue that gets very little time in the limelight. This would also be a form of resistance as well because, bringing light to the issue would affirm it's position as an important issue that needs to be dealt with. Of course, I may be off track on humor being a survivance strategy but it all depends on the issue being discussed and the genre of the text. However, when humor is used properly in a text as a survivance strategy it may be one of the most effective strategies of all because of the "human factor" involved. People reading a text that they find humorous would be more inclined to accept the controversial issue being discussed as relevant than when reading a story that takes on a more serious strategy. While it may sound absurd that humor can be used as a survivance strategy it may come as a surprise that some of the most effective strategies in conveying controversial issues would be to take a less serious approach whether it's a text or a verbal debate.

What's in an ethnic identity: A closer look at Inez Petersons text

In Inez Peterson's text, "What Part Moon", a detailed look was taken at ethnic identity, in particular native identity and how an individual may not physically look like he/she belongs in a certain ethnicity but in his/her heart he/she feels that they associate the most with a certain ethnicity. I thought the take home message from her text was that while an individual may not look like he/she belongs in a certain ethnicity because of their physical look, deep within themselves they are of mixed blood and wish to identify themselves with the many ethnicities they belong to or may wish to identify themselves for which group they feel they associate with the most regardless of blood lines. In the case of Peterson she physically looks white and non-native but she is by blood partially native and wishes to identify herself as a native American. But why must a person presume that they have to belong to a certain ethnic identity? Is it not possible that you can belong to any ethnic identity even if you don't necessarily have a blood line to do so. But is that the meaning of an ethnic identity? Ethnicity is different than race and which race we are in, even though each identity defines who we associate with the most as being our "heritage". I think that ethnic identity is a choice (as sociology states)and that an individual can actually choose which ethnic identity he/she feels they belong to the most whereas race is not a choice. Native American ethnic identity though has been a totally different case when compared to other ethnicities. People seem to be associating themselves as native even though that may be a far stretch from the composition of their blood lines( for example, only 1/25 or 1/16 native). But again blood lines are only half the story, as an individual may chose to not follow the same ethnic identity that their blood lines foretell them they must be. Ultimately what I'm driving at here is must we define as being a native based on the blood lines or should it be based on character? If we define it based on blood lines how much native blood should you have in you to be characterized as native, 1/8, 1/4, 1/2? Where do we draw the line? I think ethnic identity regardless of native or not shouldn't be left to blood lines but rather to what you as an individual feel is the ethnicity you can associate with the most. I think that is what Peterson's message was in her text.

Two different approaches: Charles Eastman Vs. Elias Boudinot

In the reading by Charles Eastman, in which one of the chapters was titled: The Soul of the White Man, Eastman tries to appeal to the "White man" so that he may view Native Americans in a different light than that of savagery and barbarism. However, Elias Boudinot also conducted such a task in his Address to the White man, but there is a striking difference in the way the approach is conducted in each case from these two authors. While Boudinot takes a more "humbling" approach by pleading to the "white man" that Native Americans are not savages and informs his audience of the accomplishments that the natives have done and the possible changes that he/she can achieve with educating the natives of the "white mans" ways. Eastman on the other hand acts as a defendant in a court case, defending the rights of the natives and educating those who have misunderstood the culture of the natives. Eastman even comments on his purpose for writing his text and explains the difference of spirituality between native Americans and the "white man". While the ideas are similar between the two texts, the tone is strikingly different, and that is the most crucial point in deciding which argument exhibits survivance the most.

It is of my opinion that Eastman exhibits survivance in his text ( In both of the chapters, Ghost dance war and the soul of the white man) by telling the events that occurred in Wounded knee so that the painful stories would be documented for the world to read about and not forget the genocide that occurred, while also explaining and defending the cultural and religious rituals of the native Americans. This to me seems to be survivance and in fact when compared to Boudinot's text it exemplifies survivance and defends its right to be Indian rather than lash out at the culture that he belongs to as in Boudinot's case. In fact my favorite paragraph from Eastmans text was the one in which I think it exemplifies the difference between his viewpoint and Boudinots: "I am Indian; and while I have learned much from civilization, for which I am grateful, I have never lost my Indian sense of right and Justice. I am for development and progress along social and spiritual lines, rather than those of commerce and nationalism, or material efficiency. Nevertheless, so long as I live, I am an American."(Page 109 of the class reader). In this paragraph it is clear that Eastman is proud of his heritage despite his newly adopted views and way of life. In Boudinots case that just wasn't there, pride in his Cherokee heritage was non-existent in his text, and that's why I believe it doesn't exhibit survivance. So now I turn to you dear reader, which text do you find exhibits survivance the most?

Apess and the Pilgrims, Christianity, in the "Eulogy on King Philip"

Throughout the "Eulogy on King Philip" Apess, refers to Whites who have oppressed the natives as being hypocritical Christians because of their conduct and outward attitudes towards the natives. And in fact he's correct in my view because Christianity is opposed to oppression and hatred of any individual who has not wronged you in any way. But why were the pilgrims( as he refers to them in the eulogy) so negative towards the natives? Why were they keen on achieving misery and discontent for the lives of the natives even though the natives showed them how to survive in the "new world?" Well, I believe that the pilgrims had every intention to use the natives to their benefit while still causing harm to them in order to facilitate a future goal. It's evident to me that the pilgrims were conspiring a plan to overtake the natives and move them out of their land. So what does Christianity have to do with their actions. Absolutely nothing, for they themselves while professing to be Christians, were as far removed from Christianity as can humanely be possible. However, Apess refers to them by their faith because the pilgrims themselves refer to their eradication of the natives as "God's work" according to Apess. But surely God would not order another human being to kill another just for nothing. That's not justice and God and justice go hand in hand in all of the Judeo-Christian faiths. Therefore yes, the pilgrims were hypocritical people but Christians they were not for they did not follow at least one of the commandments(thou shall not kill) as Apess professes in the Eulogy. In fact if anything the natives were more Christian in their actions than the pilgrims were, and that shows the irony that the pilgrims and the whites(at that time) in general portrayed towards the natives. Professing religious teachings while not following them, that's hypocrisy at its best. I guess the pilgrims forget the quote from the Holy Bible: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."[ Matthew 7:12 ]

Choice of title, and a comment about the Popul Vuh

The title of this blog, "The light of Knowledge" is my choice because I believe that knowledge that we acquire by going to institutions such as our great University is the reason for success in our life. It may not be financial success, but rather a success that we in ourselves know that we committed to something grand and completed it. If we glance back at history and look at previous generations, how many of the people living in our grandparents time had gone to college and achieved degrees in higher education as is possible today. Not very many, did so because of various reasons but one thing is evident, we as a generation are lucky to have the choice of going to great educational institutions and attaining knowledge that can empower us for the rest of our lives. That is the reason why I chose the aforementioned title. What better way can I describe the purpose of this blog assignment other than to acquire knowledge.
With regards to the Popul Vuh, one thing in particular stood out for me is that the mention of the gods, creators and makers in the story is not the same as when it's mentioned in other religous texts, such as the Old and New testaments, Torah, etc.. The mention of the god(s) here is one of authorities that make mistakes, bicker with one another and aren't as high and mighty as the god(s) of the aforementioned religious texts. I can't quite comprehend why this is the case and what purpose this is done for, but a particular reason I can conjecture would be that the gods mentioned in the Popul Vuh are to appear as "human like" in their qualities and characteristics as possible. This way people who hear the story can relate more to the trickery,deceit and arrogance that occurs among the lords in the story as well as the mistakes done by the various gods. An interesting theory but I'm not sure of its relevance.