Never Ending Journey

From all the reading we've done and all the discussions we've had about Pocahontas one thing is clear: we don't really know what is fact and what is fiction. We don't really know what she looked like, how old she was, what she did or how many times she was married. I feel as though every source we look at we find some new piece of sketchy information. For example, in today's reading we heard for the first time that she might have saved John Smith TWICE. It kind of makes me wonder why so many people are so fascinated by someone we neither know now about nor will ever know very about. It's not like she was some hugely important figure. It's not like she was the first president of the United States or wrote the Declaration of Independence. No. She was a teenage girl caught up with an English sailor, was captured and converted to Christianity so she could move to England and die.

Lost

I find it amazing that anyone can figure out what the true story of Pocahontas was. There are so many different stories and variations it's almost over whelming. How can we believe the "real" story of Pocahontas when the story was around before she even was. Maybe her story is made to fit the other stories. Maybe what we believe she did and what happened to her really didn't but it was made to look like it did. There are so many different opinions of her it's hard to sift through it all and put together a story. It's like a giant game of telephone only we'll never know the truth.

Will the real John Smith please stand up?

Of course, as I started reading the John Smith 1608 assignment, I expected it to be just like the Disney movie I watched dozens and dozens of times as a little girl. Of course, as I largely expected, it wasn't very much like the animated semi-musical movie. Or should I say, the animated semi-musical movie isn't very much like the actual story. To be quite honest, everything I knew (prior to this reading) about Pocahontas and John Smith came from Disney. I never knew that John Smith and his men traveled far and wide to trade, meet with Native Americans and (largely out of necesity) trade goods and supplies.

A side note, I did, in fact, know that John Smith's men almost starved to death. Disney does include that in the movie.

I was surprised the most by the little violence between the settlers and the Native Americans. Of course there was some fighting, but John Smith didn't seem to encounter too much of it and was able to keep a fair amount of peace with the Native Americans.

Carnivals

Although I was very confused at first (I'm not sure why, I just was) about the extensive descriptions and discussion on carnivals in "Playing Indians", I found myself thinking back to my AP English class junior year. My teacher, Mr. Bardin (a very frightening person whom you hate to love but do in the end), went on a rant one day (which happened quite often) about how only in America and England do people make fun of everything and everything, especially themselves. It was interesting to read about these carnivals and how they developed and be able to relate them back to that day in Bardin's class. It was interesting to see how the carnivals of the time of early New England and of modern days compare and contrast. In general, they have the same activities and ideas but the purpose and the attitudes towards them have changed dramatically. It makes me wonder how carnivals (if they even still exist) will be like in another 200 years.

Dull

I was so excited to read "Learning for the Pueblos" after I read the other article because I was so interested by the first one. "Learning from the Pueblos" was really dry in comparison. I felt like the message could have been presented in a lot less words and pictures. It would have saved a lot of StOPrint money. It also presents another sad story of western civilization destroying so much beauty and culture because it's not they way the think it should be. Most of the time they were wrong and destroyed a really good thing and forced their inefficient and destructive ways upon people who didn't need these new ways.

Part Time Indians and Privacy

I've never really known much about Native Americans or southwest United States. As I was reading  this article I was very surprised by a lot of things and made a lot of connections to other things I've read and learned about.

I've always known that the settlers of the United States and later the United States government hasn't always been willing to work and co-exist with the Native Americans. Right from the start they've been seen as "savages" who need to be civilized and converted to Christianity. When ever I think about the oppression and intolerance to the Native Americans, I always think of early settlement days and the 1800s when we started moving west. I never realized the oppression went on well in the the 20th century. As Swentzell explained in the article, the United States government tired to change the ways of the Native Americans up to the 1920s. To me this is modern times. The article specifically lists 1928 (82 years ago) as the end of trying to assimilate Native Americans and I think abut my grandparents. Today my grandparents are 86 and 82 and it shocks me to think this oppression is something that happened in their lifetime. It makes it feel so much closer to me to think my grandparents witnessed this.

As I got a little further into the article I realized that about 2 years ago I read a book called The Absolutley True Diary of a Part Time Indian by Sherman Alexie (published in 2007) and talked a lot about the school systems on the reservations. It talked about the differences in the Native American way of life at home and the life at school and outside the reservation. If I remember correctly, the stories in Alexie's novel took place in the 70s, and if that's true, it still amazes me how life is being forced to change for some people.

The best connection I made with this article was the topic of privacy. In Pueblo villages privacy is not what we think of it in our lifestyle. There was no true privacy in Pueblo villages. All space was shared and served several different purposes. This made me think of my transition into college and dorm life. You never really have a moment to yourself and suddenly all of your space is shared. At home I was used to my own room (kind of in it's own corner of the house), my own bathroom and spend most of my time by myself. I would be the only one up in the mornings as I got ready for school, spend most of my evenings shut up in my silent room doing homework, and stayed  up later than everyone else in my house. Even at work I was alone as I shelved books in a silent library. I came to St. Olaf and suddenly had to share a room (much smaller than my bedroom at home), a bathroom with 19 other girls and understand that there is no where I can go where it would be quiet and free of other people. I've gotten used to it now and embrace the community I'm part of and love that I'm always around people who are just like me. Coincidentally, my roommate went home this past weekend and it's so weird not having her here and I'm so excited for her to come back today. I miss having someone to talk to all the time and I miss having her around (especially since I went on the ghost tour on Friday night I'm terrified to stay in my room by myself).

I was very surprise that I was able to make so many connections to this text when I really don't know much about the people discussed or the areas described.

Finally!

As I was reading the Puritan Readins of the New England Landscape, I came across this quote at the top of page 134

"God [to the Puritans] is not to be understood but to be adorned"

For some reason it was this quote that finally made everything about Anne Hutchinson click. I understood that the people of her society disproved of her "connection with God" but I could never understand why. I didn't realize that the Puritans look at God as a mystical being that is not to be understood but simply admired. I know it's not unusual for different religions to look at God as an all powerful being, more mighty than human understand can come to grasp, but I didn't realize the Puritans didn't even think people should not try to understand God. They just felt he should be accepted as is.

It's such a simple quotation bit it was definitely an "ah ha!" moment for me.