Gender Questions

So this blog may be a little off tangent but just roll with me here. It was brought up in class about Zitkala-Sa taking the role of a male narrator in "The Soft-Hearted Sioux". Gina compared it to Boudinot possibly being the true author of "Poor Sarah". When the class had the discussion about Boudinot being the author, the entire class kept insisting that no he couldn't be the author since the story clearly was written by a female. But why can't he be the author? I guess what I'm trying to get at is why can a female personify a man but Boudinot not personify a woman? Is it because of generic gendered stereotypes or does it have to do with Native American stereotypes? In class Gina mentioned how the Sioux are known for their warfare and were pretty badass. So what does that say for Sioux women? Are they badass as well? Or are they dainty and prissy and however else society views women as? I'm not trying to sound like a feminist but I think it's an interesting idea to consider. I brought up that "The Soft-Hearted Sioux" couldn't be from a woman narrator because then it wouldn't be taken seriously because women are already stereotyped to having "soft hearts". But, if Sioux women are known as badasses then maybe the story could have been written from a female perspective. It is just interesting to consider how different cultures view their women and how it can sometimes be the only thing that different cultures agree upon.

Cultural Identity and Old Lady Stories

I must say I connected with Peterson's article "What Part Moon" because I have always had issues with identifying myself. I am very fair skinned. That's no major secret. What makes me resent the color of my skin is the fact that I am Mexican American but no one believes me. I know that there has to be some type of European in my bloodline, but that is so far down the line that every time I bring it up no one in my family can answer me as to where it came from. As far as I know, I am Mexican. That is who I am, and that is all I know. It just frustrates me when people ask me "What are you?" and when I respond they reply with "No you're not." I guess it's up to you who or what I am. I like how Petersen explained that cultural identity comes from who you really see yourself as and who you feel most comfortable with.

As for Mabel and her entire story, that was really confusing. But i don't think Mabel herself was confusing. What confused me the most was how Greg went on to explain the entire middle ground thing. I think he slightly overkilled it. I believe that the take home message is this: Oral stories are an entirely different form of stories within themselves. Due to oral traditions there are so many different ways to interpret the story lines depending on the time and place that the story is told. Greg should have simplified his argument because he lost me in the middle. If anyone has any different interpretation to this article PLEASE feel free to set me straight.

Is he? Or is he not?

After reading The Ghost Dance War by Charles Eastman, I have a few questions that need to be cleared up before I can fully dissect this article. I am not sure if I am the only one who saw this but I noticed that during the beginning of his article, Eastman's tone gave me the idea that he was not Native American but instead a white man. I may be reading too far into this but I think he sounds almost dissociated with the Indian people. Was Eastman a part of the Sioux tribe? If he wasn't then that would explain the dissociation. But if Eastman was in fact a part of the Sioux tribe, he sounds as if he does not consider himself to be Indian. What I mean to say is when he writes about the Indians that were involved in the events leading up to Wounded Knee, the diction used clearly puts up a barrier between the Indians and himself.

Was our narrator assimilated? I should assume so, seeing that in some sentences he refers to the Native Americans as "the Sioux". With that observation, I would even guess that he is not in fact Sioux but of another tribe and just happens to live in the vicinity of the Sioux people. As the chapter goes on, I noticed a shift in this tone. As Eastman comes closer and closer to describing the massacre, he changes his tone and seems more connected to the Sioux people. He even mentions "For me, at that critical time, there was inward struggle as well as the threat of outward conflict..." (Page 97). It seems to me that this man had huge identity issues and was having trouble deciphering who exactly he wanted to be.

Like I said earlier, maybe I'm reading way to far into this. For all I know, Charles Eastman took great pride in his culture. But as far as I'm concerned, I read his tone to be very distant. Maybe this could have been a coping mechanism, a way of blocking out a very tragic event that hurt him. Whatever the reason may be, Eastman's tone throughout the chapter made it interesting to read.