I have to say, this novel is very unique. Since it is rather different, I am still trying to decide whether or not I like it. The non-linear sequencing is very hard to get used to. I understand it is simply a different conceptional process, but my mind is so used to developing ideas in sequence, building upon each one. I cant say that i have gotten used to it yet... In addition to this, i have a hard time connecting with the characters. It is a world that i simply do not understand since i have not had either military or native american experience. However, I found it very interesting how the author depicted the poverty and social issues regarding the town of Gallup. That town reminded me of a town in australia that was oriented towards the aboriginal people. Interesting, yet sad, how this social issue is not just isolated in the united states, but many places that have had foreign invasion. It seems to be a universal human condition under the circumstances. I dont know how i feel about that, but the native americans are not the only ones to deal with such issues.
On a completely unrelated topic, was i the only one that was rather surprised to read that Tayo sleeps with two different random women? Seems a bit out of character... not to mention he does it and then the women are just dropped like it was no big deal. Seemed random.... but hey, got to have those random love scenes to keep interest right?
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Saturday, May 14, 2011
"Only Approved Indians"
I am not going to lie, I read this and laughed just at how ridiculous it is. It seems to be a running trend in ethnic issues in identifying the authenticity of ones ethnic background. Purity is prized, but how the heck can you identify who is who and how pure they really are? This issue doesn't just go for native americans, I hear the debate all the time. In this case, obtaining a BIA card signifies ones "Indianness". So what does that mean? Native Americans weren't around until they were identified to be native americans by the invading culture? So what does this card mean? Does this mean if I were 100% native american by blood i could get this card, but live a 100% westernized lifestyle? Meaning as long as I was native american on the outside, i would be native american. What about cultural aspects? Does one not have to know the language, culture, issues behind their people to identify with them? What does the card mean? I know many people who have 100% blood in a certain heritage, but are more white washed than myself. Heck, I have met many hispanics who dont know spanish, and i have met many Japanese americans who japanese is worse than mine. I am of european decent, do i know my supposedly native tongue? nope.... so what defines ethnicity? it sure isnt a card.... But hey, it sure is nice to get recognition for something that is meaningless right? I had a good friend who was of cherokee decent in high school, did he know where the cherokee were from? nope. But by blood he could get a BIA card. To be honest, i was more cherokee than him because i at least knew where they were from. Where is my card? Blood doesn't indicate culture. As far as I am concerned, if you are raised in a culture, and identify with that culture, you ARE that ethnicity, despite what your genetic background is. So for the people in the reading by Jack Forbes, why is a "mexican" not native? If i might be so bold to pull my knowledge of history out, "mexicans" were also here before the conquistadors.... They are as native as native can get. Man i love politics....
Thursday, April 28, 2011
A response to killing...
What I am about to write may be a little controversial, so if you find yourself easily offended, don't read further :)
After reading the poem in response to the police shooting the deer by Patricia Killelea, I really started to think. I even went online and watched the video; several times, actually, because of the bad quality. It may have been because of my upbringing, or the sheltered lives many people have grown up in, but the killing of this deer did not get me as fired up as some of the residents of Oakland. By no means was this a good thing, or even funny, but cause for great outburst and 12k races in honor of the deer? Well, that depends on what you believe in. First of all, maybe I was mistaken, but the deer in the video was by no means a "baby", it was a full grown doe. Not that it makes the situation any better, but many people are going to place a lot more pity on an animal if it was a baby. In my personal opinion, that deer was a dead deer bullets or not. Let me explain before you call me a @#%!@%. I grew up in a town in the middle of the forest, dead deer on the side of the road was so common, no one really thought twice about it. In fact, I have killed deer myself (not on purpose, poor thing ran out in front of my car). Its a sad clash between man and nature, but the scope of overpopulation of deer is tremendous. To the point that there are quotas on how many deer HAVE to be killed each year in order to maintain a ecological balance. If they are not, there are HUGE repercussions, including famine, disease, and human casualties including vehicle crashes. The simple fact is there are just not enough predators. So when I see a dead deer, i used to feel very sad, but i know the ecology of these animals and the importance of population control; if it is not kept down, deer populations will actually plummet, killing more than would have been killed via population control. Consult a standard population graph and you will see what i am talking about, there is always a carrying capacity (except for humans, we have yet to reach it, or already have and are awaiting the crash....). You may think, "well, what did they do before man? control their own populations?" The answer is yes. There were predators. But humans have replaced the niche of the predator, causing over populations of deer. A solution? everyone leaves... but that simply wont happen. You can tell a person that its wrong to kill wildlife, and most people, including myself will agree. But then say to that person"your presence occupies a niche otherwise filled by wildlife and thus you are directly harming the ecosystem." That person is not going to go out and remove themselves are they? That's Reality vs Ideology
That is really got me thinking though; the huge difference of opinion. Here I am, I have seen more animals die than most people (living on a farm often does that to you), and in contrast, there are people who may have only seen road kill every now and then. The severity of death is far more intense, more romantic even. Nothing makes a better story than Bambi (which i cried in and i am not ashamed to admit). But there is a big difference between reality, and ideology. Ideally, the deer should have been relocated. In reality, it would have been killed by a car. Call me insensitive, but a deer that wanders into urban areas is marked for death, its just a fact of life, whether you find it good or bad. Relocating it often leads to it getting killed in another more hideous way, or even causing a death of a person. Its an issue of overpopulation of a species clashing with civilization.
On the other hand, the situation may have not really been about the deer being killed, it was more about the ethical issues between the clash of society and nature. We all like to take a romantic approach to nature, but in reality we all do a pretty good job at killing it. The deer made a good example of the lack of respect that some people have towards nature, but how different is it from hunting? From a car hitting it? From a predator killing it? Oh, well predators eat it.... Not always. Many lions leave most of their kill behind, only eating the organs. So whats my point? I don't really have one. I'm just playing devils advocate and debating the other side of the story. A rather immoral side.... but a real one. How do we fix the issue? Well.... unfortunately death is apart of every living creature... something us humans like to detach from to not worry about how we too will all die one day.
After reading the poem in response to the police shooting the deer by Patricia Killelea, I really started to think. I even went online and watched the video; several times, actually, because of the bad quality. It may have been because of my upbringing, or the sheltered lives many people have grown up in, but the killing of this deer did not get me as fired up as some of the residents of Oakland. By no means was this a good thing, or even funny, but cause for great outburst and 12k races in honor of the deer? Well, that depends on what you believe in. First of all, maybe I was mistaken, but the deer in the video was by no means a "baby", it was a full grown doe. Not that it makes the situation any better, but many people are going to place a lot more pity on an animal if it was a baby. In my personal opinion, that deer was a dead deer bullets or not. Let me explain before you call me a @#%!@%. I grew up in a town in the middle of the forest, dead deer on the side of the road was so common, no one really thought twice about it. In fact, I have killed deer myself (not on purpose, poor thing ran out in front of my car). Its a sad clash between man and nature, but the scope of overpopulation of deer is tremendous. To the point that there are quotas on how many deer HAVE to be killed each year in order to maintain a ecological balance. If they are not, there are HUGE repercussions, including famine, disease, and human casualties including vehicle crashes. The simple fact is there are just not enough predators. So when I see a dead deer, i used to feel very sad, but i know the ecology of these animals and the importance of population control; if it is not kept down, deer populations will actually plummet, killing more than would have been killed via population control. Consult a standard population graph and you will see what i am talking about, there is always a carrying capacity (except for humans, we have yet to reach it, or already have and are awaiting the crash....). You may think, "well, what did they do before man? control their own populations?" The answer is yes. There were predators. But humans have replaced the niche of the predator, causing over populations of deer. A solution? everyone leaves... but that simply wont happen. You can tell a person that its wrong to kill wildlife, and most people, including myself will agree. But then say to that person"your presence occupies a niche otherwise filled by wildlife and thus you are directly harming the ecosystem." That person is not going to go out and remove themselves are they? That's Reality vs Ideology
That is really got me thinking though; the huge difference of opinion. Here I am, I have seen more animals die than most people (living on a farm often does that to you), and in contrast, there are people who may have only seen road kill every now and then. The severity of death is far more intense, more romantic even. Nothing makes a better story than Bambi (which i cried in and i am not ashamed to admit). But there is a big difference between reality, and ideology. Ideally, the deer should have been relocated. In reality, it would have been killed by a car. Call me insensitive, but a deer that wanders into urban areas is marked for death, its just a fact of life, whether you find it good or bad. Relocating it often leads to it getting killed in another more hideous way, or even causing a death of a person. Its an issue of overpopulation of a species clashing with civilization.
On the other hand, the situation may have not really been about the deer being killed, it was more about the ethical issues between the clash of society and nature. We all like to take a romantic approach to nature, but in reality we all do a pretty good job at killing it. The deer made a good example of the lack of respect that some people have towards nature, but how different is it from hunting? From a car hitting it? From a predator killing it? Oh, well predators eat it.... Not always. Many lions leave most of their kill behind, only eating the organs. So whats my point? I don't really have one. I'm just playing devils advocate and debating the other side of the story. A rather immoral side.... but a real one. How do we fix the issue? Well.... unfortunately death is apart of every living creature... something us humans like to detach from to not worry about how we too will all die one day.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
The Bible and the Popol Vuh
So first of all, am i the only one who thinks that there are HUGE correlations between the bible and the popol vuh? I am not religious, nor have i intensely studied the bible, but I know the main themes and events and I see direct correlations. The virgin birth? The forbidden fruit? The trickery? The creation of the earth? All very similar ideas in both texts. What I want to know is what was borrowed from the Spanish and what was universally thought without idea diffusion. Wouldn't it be interesting to think that two VERY different cultures both had the idea of virgin holy births without ever coming into contact? Or maybe it wasn't a virgin birth. Part of me feels that whole skull spitting into her palm was a metaphor for something a lot less appropriate to tell the kids, and so it became altered over time. In addition, there are A LOT of things I don't quite understand, and think it is due to the cultural context. There are countless instances were things just happen. It may be obvious to people in the cultural setting, but I'm just plain lost. How about giving the twins a cigar and torch? Well... that would be the last thing I would think of. Quite random, but interesting to see the cultural elements preserved in the writings, including the significance of their almost spiritual ball game.
On a different note, I feel that simply reading the text does not do this story justice. I read it about twice, and both times thought to myself "this is wordy, makes NO sense, and who the heck finds this interesting?" (yeah, OK, this may be a bit offense, but keep reading. I have a point). Just reading it seemed like one random event after another. So I went online and found this guy on YouTube who was telling the story verbally. WOW! Big difference. Some stories were not meant to be written, and this is one of them. So much was lost in the writing, including the tone, inflection, and some other element I cant quite put my finger on. And that's when I figured it out; the events and whatnot are written down, but the MEANING and FEELING of the story are only in the speaker who tells it. So I strongly recommend looking for a audio or even animated version to supplement the reading, because without it, the story looses a very important element. And I have to give credit to Professor Willie on this one. I wouldn't have even thought about the oral element if she had not mentioned it. And to be honest, I didn't quite believe her at first. Now I do.
On a different note, I feel that simply reading the text does not do this story justice. I read it about twice, and both times thought to myself "this is wordy, makes NO sense, and who the heck finds this interesting?" (yeah, OK, this may be a bit offense, but keep reading. I have a point). Just reading it seemed like one random event after another. So I went online and found this guy on YouTube who was telling the story verbally. WOW! Big difference. Some stories were not meant to be written, and this is one of them. So much was lost in the writing, including the tone, inflection, and some other element I cant quite put my finger on. And that's when I figured it out; the events and whatnot are written down, but the MEANING and FEELING of the story are only in the speaker who tells it. So I strongly recommend looking for a audio or even animated version to supplement the reading, because without it, the story looses a very important element. And I have to give credit to Professor Willie on this one. I wouldn't have even thought about the oral element if she had not mentioned it. And to be honest, I didn't quite believe her at first. Now I do.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Slightly Controversial
As you may be able to see, the title of this page is "Realistic Interpretations of NAS 5". Now that seems obvious, why would I write about unrealistic ideas of NAS 5? Well it goes a little further than that. I would describe myself as a realist, not an idealist. I can see what "should" be, but I also what is realistically plausible. This also means I may not always be perfectly politically correct, but accurate to my knowledge. And that is what can be difficult for our society at times. Reality, at times, directly conflicts with morality. This does not mean I am trying to be disrespectful, nor negativly judgemental of what I am reading. I strive to find truth without the shadow of what I should or should not be saying based on cultural demands. This also means I welcome criticism. If I am wrong, tell me so and tell me why. If my thinking can be disproved, then it wouldn't real now would it? I make mistakes all the time, so in order to keep up to my title, I welcome contradictions to my statements in order to find truth.
To start off, I found both texts by Miranda and Smith very interesting. They have been a real eye opener. I had no idea the issues of Native Americans in academia today. In fact, I find it hard to believe there are STILL discriminatory issues with Native Americans with the amount of diversity in the US. To be honest, when I do see a Native American, I don't even notice, so personally I CANT discriminate (nor would I if I could). I wasn't around before much of the 80's, so I don't know how it was back then, but these days I don't see how such discriminatory issues could be prevalent in academia with the amount of forced political correctness. If were to mutter one slightly racial comment, my peers would chastise me for it and thus, racism is not tolerated. But this is ONLY my thinking. If I saw Miranda debating passionately, in the class she wrote about, about Native American issues, I wouldn't think "oh, a savage. Obviously she is just speaking passionately and not intellectually". She made it feel like if she made any attempt to be passionate, it would be written off like that. If she had good arguments, I would simply believe she knew what she was talking about. If what you say is logical, adding passion to it only makes it more convincing because people tend to listen more to the confident one. I felt she was almost taking a victimizing approach. I'm not saying she isn't a victim, heck, I have only read a few pages of her life, I have no idea. However, she appears to talk a lot about being wronged. She does make a very interesting point about the white male talking about scholarships. She states that he has had more opportunity than she has just because of his appearance, so how could he even complain? That he has not lived her life and would not know the disadvantages. Well, we all haven't lived a second life like that, so how can she make assumptions on him? Cultural struggles are unanimous to ALL cultures, its just which ones we wish to talk about. Do I have a point to all this? No. Because if I did, I would offend someone. If I come to ANY conclusion, I guarantee someone out there will be offended. So make your own conclusion :) Is she victimizing herself? Or are her issues very real? I'm just thinking out loud. I am very critical of writings that talk about issues of people getting wronged, because there is usually much more too it that one view. I don't think what Miranda is saying is wrong, nor incorrect, it is just astonishing to me that such issues exist to this day. I do not deny the hardships of the native americans in the very recent past, but to this very day? I guess I have been ignorant for awhile...
To start off, I found both texts by Miranda and Smith very interesting. They have been a real eye opener. I had no idea the issues of Native Americans in academia today. In fact, I find it hard to believe there are STILL discriminatory issues with Native Americans with the amount of diversity in the US. To be honest, when I do see a Native American, I don't even notice, so personally I CANT discriminate (nor would I if I could). I wasn't around before much of the 80's, so I don't know how it was back then, but these days I don't see how such discriminatory issues could be prevalent in academia with the amount of forced political correctness. If were to mutter one slightly racial comment, my peers would chastise me for it and thus, racism is not tolerated. But this is ONLY my thinking. If I saw Miranda debating passionately, in the class she wrote about, about Native American issues, I wouldn't think "oh, a savage. Obviously she is just speaking passionately and not intellectually". She made it feel like if she made any attempt to be passionate, it would be written off like that. If she had good arguments, I would simply believe she knew what she was talking about. If what you say is logical, adding passion to it only makes it more convincing because people tend to listen more to the confident one. I felt she was almost taking a victimizing approach. I'm not saying she isn't a victim, heck, I have only read a few pages of her life, I have no idea. However, she appears to talk a lot about being wronged. She does make a very interesting point about the white male talking about scholarships. She states that he has had more opportunity than she has just because of his appearance, so how could he even complain? That he has not lived her life and would not know the disadvantages. Well, we all haven't lived a second life like that, so how can she make assumptions on him? Cultural struggles are unanimous to ALL cultures, its just which ones we wish to talk about. Do I have a point to all this? No. Because if I did, I would offend someone. If I come to ANY conclusion, I guarantee someone out there will be offended. So make your own conclusion :) Is she victimizing herself? Or are her issues very real? I'm just thinking out loud. I am very critical of writings that talk about issues of people getting wronged, because there is usually much more too it that one view. I don't think what Miranda is saying is wrong, nor incorrect, it is just astonishing to me that such issues exist to this day. I do not deny the hardships of the native americans in the very recent past, but to this very day? I guess I have been ignorant for awhile...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)