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?