Friday, July 17, 2009
Week 5: Revising History
As we have discussed, a noted postmodern convention is the rewriting and retelling of history. How do Alexie and Silko rewrite history through their literature? To what end? Be sure to point to specific passages and/or techniques used by the authors that demonstrate your claims.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In "Captivity," Sherman Alexie retells the history of European expansion into North America and the removal of Native Americans from their traditional lands. The story seems to claim that Native American history as we know it revolves around Mary Rowlandson. At the beginning of the story, Alexie quotes Rowlandson's 1676 narrative, in which she was captured by Indians, one of whom "gave me a biscuit, which I put in my pocket, and not daring to eat it, buried it under a log, fearing he had put something in it to make me love him" (Geyh, 342). When Alexie writes that "It's too late, Mary Rowlandson, for us to sit together and dig up the past you buried under a log, salvage whatever else you had left behind (Geyh, 344)," I take it to mean that had Rowlandson (a symbol for all Europeans of the period) learned to love Indians rather than hate and fear them, that their relationship would not have turned to violence. Thus, Rowlandson is responsible for all sorts of modern-day ills that befall Native Americans, and it is Rowlandson who knows that "Tobacco and sugar are the best weapons" and that words such as "house insurance" and "safe-deposit box" are the "language of the enemy" (Geyh, 343).
ReplyDeleteThe lines about tobacco, sugar, and safe-deposit boxes also rewrite history in a way, as they are saying that guns and warfare are not the true causes of the downfall of Native American people. The true cause is the European way of life in general, which influenced Native Americans, even on their reservations, and not only destroyed their ways of life, but helped place and keep them in poverty as well.
Sherman ALexie rewrites in a way the telling of native americans through what i can see is the native americans view of us in more recent times. Rowlandson had written narritively from the "white women's " perspective and her captivity by the native americans. Then Alexie, writes from what it seems through the more recent times, native americans version of being held captive by the local authorities and culture that have overtake nthe land. Alexie's peice is written about times accuring 300 years after the fact. In Rowlandson's peice, the english women that is catured alive, is very faithful, capable women, that goes through many many days without food, or the shelter of saftey. The re write is telling of what might be a reincarnated indian that once tried to give peace (food) to Rowlandson, in turn she buried it, insulting what gift the native's were trying to do.
ReplyDeleteIn Silko's peice, of World War II times, in the Philipines, the story is about a soldier which is losing his mind, and unable to handle what was happening to him. It retells a story by having the story in the beginning and the hospitalized memory of that story in the end of Leslie's piece. Tayo, was negatively affected by the war that when he came to, it was years after the Pearl Harbor insident. "Years and months had become weak, and peopel could push against them and wander back and forth in time." i believe this is saying that in his mind he traveled back to war times and was unable to leave.
Response to Silko and Alexie:
ReplyDeleteTwo very interesting and powerful portrayals of personally experience that lead to the isolation from a world once known. In “Ceremony,” Silko reveals a dream-like telling of war, capture, and a return to reality through her mythological poetry lines and story-telling prose. In this piece there is a constant movement between war experiences and visions of home, even a blending of the two, giving the feeling of dream and illusion. The main character Tayo sees pieces of the people and events from home-life that follow him to war. When he sees the “Japs”, he can't help but see the people that he knows in his own life in their faces. In the story it mention that “Tayo had realized that the man's skin was not much different from his own (324). In addition, within Silko's lines of poetry we see the myths of “Thought-Woman” and “Corn Woman,” and there influence on moments in history, such as the creation of the universe or a span of dry weather (322, 328). Tayo's story seems to be set up or influenced by the lines of poetry. The poetry mentions the myth behind a drought, then the story of Tayo continues telling of how “he had prayed the rain away” (328).
I felt like “Captivity” had a lot more going on in it than Silko's. After reading Rowlandson, “Captivity” appears to be Alexie's version of captivity in his mind. Rowlandson continually bashes the Indians from her story, calling them “heathens” and “infidels.” Alexie is able to change the point of view from Indians being the captors to becoming the captives. He says, “All we had left was held captive here on the reservation” (344). There is a reoccurring conflict present in the story between Native Americans and the white people that come into their reservation. Rowlandson's story writes as if the white “Christians” had their homes invaded, while Alexie offers just the opposite. Native Americans have to “learn the white man's rules,” but at the same time are held captive in the only place they can assemble some sort of culture and acceptance (345).
As we look at the works of Alexie and Silko they do some very interesting things to "rewrite history." From the things that I have learned about postmodernism thus far, these pieces have a very postmodern feel to them. In Silko’s Ceremony she told the reader from the get go that she is going to tell a story. She then goes into using tangible images to depict the idea that stories (aka, history) are something that is in each of us. Then the piece immediately changes setting and leads the reader to a flashback of the Vietnam War. It is the memories of the war that haunt the story teller. It is also these reflections that depict another side of an event that we have heard about throughout our lives. This piece does just as the author intended…it pauses where the reader would like to hear the words, not read them.
ReplyDeleteIn Alexie’s piece, there is a very postmodern outline. Each numbered section leads the reader to another thought, using a tidbit of the previous thought. As the reader wades through the thoughts of the Indian and their encounter with the white man, it is easy to feel tension building. It appears that the author is placing blame on the white man for forcing the Indians to change their way of live and accepts “white” culture. This also sheds light on the idea of consistency and dependability. While many things change throughout our society and throughout history, “That Greyhound that leaves at 3 A.M. That’s all we can depend on” (Alexie, 345).
The interpretation of both "Captivity" and "Ceremony" will vary greatly depending on the reader's personal philosophy concerning history. There are certain "grand narratives" at work within the perception of history. It's generally been accepted in the past that the linear movement of history is a progress towards something--some will say it's a movement towards civility and away from barbarism, while others will say each generation advances in closeness to God. Essentially, the belief is that everything gets better with time, and this idea dates back to Ancient Rome, when it was believed the Greek Isles were the "omphalos," or world-navel, where all life originated from. They believed the further you lived from Greece, the less time your civilization has been around and able to advance. India and China were then logically then less civilized, and open for conquest, and without a guilty conscience--little did the Greeks know that if there was such a thing as the world-navel, it would be in Mesopotamia.
ReplyDeleteFor the Native American then, it is likely they are taught in such a way as to think reminiscing about their pre-colonial past is unprogressive, but that's based on the preconception that the present is near perfect. If the idea of history moving in a direction is deconstructed, it becomes as if the past traditions make just as much sense as the ones of the present. With this in mind, older native American narratives are as relevant as they once were--which is just how Alexie and Silko treat them.
I enjoyed both Alexie and Silko's pieces. There is a sense of personal bias it seems on each part, but there is self-skepticism as well. Silko starts with Tayo in a dream centralized around his wartime experiences. His memory of the war is selective and sporadic, especially when he suffers from "battle fatigue, and they said hallucinations were common with malarial fever." (Pg. 325) He kept himself busy to keep himself from remembering the horrific battle scenes that were so vivid in his mind. With selectively choosing to not remember, they author of the thoughts retells only what they are willing to remember or the atrocities for which they cannot forget. In Alexie's "Captivity" it is similar in the remembrances. The things they choose most vividly to remember are not the battles or warfare against the whites. It is their adoption of how the Europeans lived. That was what brought their downfall. They allowed themselves to give into the suppression from the outside, despite the fact that they were on their reservation. "All [they] had left was held captive here on the reservation." (Pg. 344) Since they had lost their way of life, what they remember is not all of their heritage, but how they live their lives now and what put them there. They have seemingly become Europianized while loathing the same people they are emulating.
ReplyDeleteShayne A. Hoyt
Of all the pieces that we have read i by far like these two the most. To me these two writes weave a story like that which i have not read. I love the way they use such expresive descriptions. At first i was not much in to the Captivity piece, but found myself being drawn in by the way each paragraph drew from the prior one by using the last sentence of it. And the way the writer continually pointed out not knowing or saying that the story could be from several different years.
ReplyDeleteJWW:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your assessment of the relationship between Rowlandson and Alexie. It seems in each instance of which Alexie writes, there is FEAR of Indian people coming from the Whites and RESENTMENT towards Whites coming from Indians. The whole piece seems mournful, suggesting that, as you say, history needn't have turned out this way if love and trust had been developed.
One thing I find interesting about both the Alexie and Silko pieces is that it seems they are writing history as it happens. When I read historical texts that follow the Western tradition, the things I am reading about seem dead and gone. Perhaps this is what Silko was speaking of when she said that for Native Americans the PAST is part of NOW or what Harjo was speaking of when she said Alexie is "writing new myth."
I am pleased that you pointed out Alexie's "language of the enemy." This is one of the most interesting aspects of the piece for me. I love his inclusion of modern English compound words and phrases, almost all of which suggest exclusion in their meaning (see final paragraph).
cdpung:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your response to CEREMONY and CAPTIVITY. I have long argued that our adoration of "progress" will be what will end the human race.
I know this may not be entirely related to your response, but I had this wild brainstorm in the shower this morning (where I do all my best thinking): How do Native American communities feel about Darwin? What would the elders say about natural selection? Does the literature/ do the narratives of any Native American group contain concepts that could be related to survival of the fittest? I would love to do some research on this, but am not sure where to begin.
I once listened to an Oglala woman explain that she was certain Noah's flood from the Bible was a true event because her elders told a story of tree trunks on a nearby mountain top from trees that never grew in their region. I found this a beautiful acceptance of another culture's grand narrative. She could just as easily have called the story of Noah "rubbish," but she was able to fit that myth into her own knowledge of the world. If the early-American Europeans could only have been so encompassing of different viewpoints!
I am some what more drawn to the Silko piece. Her use of the Native American heritage and culture and symbolisim is very intriguing. She uses these just as the Native people have through out time to continue the survival of the society. Indigenous people through anthropological studies have shown that they use stories of the past to teach and to keep their way of life alive. This i find very evident in Silko's writing.
ReplyDeleteJeff Schafer:
ReplyDeleteTo me it's not so much as Silko sets the story set up or influenced by the lines of poetry it is more the story comes from the myth in the poetry. To me it shows the circle, the connection of the past to the present and the present to the past, each having influence on the other, not a speration of each.
Something interesting I came across in the Columbian today is an acticle about a Native American man by the name of David Yelloweyes who had his families sacred eagle feather dance regalia stolen from his truck. He states " Those feathers hold our spirts and our prayers?. I find this to somewhat relate to Silkos writings in regards to the Native American culture.
ReplyDeleteI realize that this post really has not much to do with our reading other than the topic somewhat. But i thought it interesting.
Jeff:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your thoughts on these two pieces. You mentioned that in Silko’s piece there was a blending between the stories of war (which we are familiar with) and a mythical realm as depicted in the piece. I think that this blending is a perfect way to tie the current or the modern to the myths of the past. For me it brings life to the myths. And it is these myths that so many Native Americans passed down from generation to generation. As a way of rewriting history, this blend helps to take people in our day and introduce them to the myths and the history of the past. One of my favorite parts was the imagery of the conversation between Corn Woman and Reed Woman and the subsequent affects of that conversation. It helped to explain reality with a ancient myth.
Shayne:
ReplyDeleteIn Alexie and Silko’s pieces there is definitely a perspective of war and remembrance that we do not see very often. In Silko’s piece the man struggles to find one peaceful memory, but because of the events that have taken place even his seemingly peaceful memories become tangled and clouded by memories of the war. While this piece has a very mythical aspect to it (during the narratives with Thought Woman, Corn Woman and Reed Woman) there is also a mystical aspect intertwined into some of the was stories. You mentioned that “he kept himself busy to keep himself from remembering the horrific battle scenes that were so vivid in his mind.” However, at other times Tayo told stories (creating or making up memories) because he felt that they had a power to them. At one point his stories helped to keep them alive while they were working in the Japanese POW camp. Eventually though, he had a difficult time determining what was reality and what was his imagination, thus creating a blend between his stories and his memories.
Response to jwwadleigh:
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned that things like tobacco and sugar, and European life in general, not just the selling of weapons, led to the downfall of Native American people. I would agree that this is what Alexie is getting at in “Captivity.” To add to this, I feel as if Alexie is showing that alone is the end of it. The power of the “white man” and his rules continue to negatively influence the lives of Indian people as well. Native Americans are forced to abide by rules that don't make sense to them in the grander scheme of life as they and their people know it. Alexie writes of the various rules, one being “DON'T WALK,” but being arrested for running. Here we get a feel for the confusion that would have arisen when such kinds of rules were introduced to Indians.
Response to Brent:
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed Alexie's use of the ending lines from previous paragraphs when starting the next. It does add to the tension as you mentioned. This is a good technique, and it seems as though Alexie is taking no time to jump into the next thought, sort of like a continuous rant of his feelings. It's as if is he saying 'oh, and by the way or speaking of that' and builds upon his words. At first read, I almost didn't notice the flow of this technique having payed attention to the content, but hard to not notice after understanding what he was trying to say.
Response to Shayne:
ReplyDeleteYou made some really insightful points about these pieces. In the Alexie piece especially, it does not seem to focus on wars so much as it does cultural suppression. I also agree there is a focus on "how they live their lives now and what put them there." Historical events are updated and brought into the present to explain their current situation.