I personally liked how Mankiller connected her story to the entire history and whole struggles of her people. She claimed very strongly her part to the continuing survival of the Cherokees. Like most autobiographies she includes picture pages, which are interesting to see, but unlike most, she commands the reader to seriously consider political issues and very distant past wars and issues that are directly related to her identity. For me it would be hard to write an autobiography that is similar to the pattern that Mankiller applies. My history and peoplehood is too broad and lost. For her it is still very close and present and this intimacy is what makes her autobiography very different from the ones IҀve read.
Mankiller does a superb job at connecting all the general dots of her peoples' past. She emphasizes that it is one past, not multiple pasts, with an 's'. She simplifies the very complex and emotional links to her own identity. She traverses the entire country from the east coast to California. Her ability to panoramically consider every branch of her history takes skill. The perspective she takes throughout her story is one that is very educational, direct, and sensitive. I liked most when she writes, ӀThere is such a woeful absence of accurate information about native people, either historically or contemporary, that it is little wonder this void has been filled with negative stereotypes from old western movies and romanticized paintingsԀ (22). She also mentions this in her speech on our podcast. Through his idea I discovered it is my mission to approach my time at the Cherokee Nation to change this woeful absence into a deliberate presence. With my learning and immersion I will negate the stereotypes because I will witness first hand the truth and not be giving in to stereotypes.
While reading Mankiller I couldnҀt help questioning my identity and how I would or will fit into the Cherokee Nation. I especially reflected upon the past struggles of the Cherokees and tried to find where I could fit into the greater picture. On page 167 just before the second set of photo pages, Mankiller writes, ӀFor the Cherokee Nation and the others of the Five Tribes, statehood meant only the heartbreaking conclusion to decades spent fighting attempts to transform Indian Territory into a white commonwealth.Ԁ This sentence got me thinking a lot about my identity. I question if I am going to be judged or identified as part of the Ӏwhite commonwealthԀ that Chief Mankiller describes.
Considering that IҀm an outsider and from a lineage of those who tried to claim Indian Territory, am I seen as part of the Ӏwhite commonwealthԀ? Considering that IҀm an outsider and from a lineage of those who tried to claim Indian Territory, am I going to be able to see beyond this image of myself after the three week study abroad is complete? I know IҀm not trying to claim the territory but there are connotations associated with a person like myself to where perhaps bad tastes toward an outsider may create memories of when Oklahoma statehood was established. Now, I donҀt know if this is a fair question, but identity as associated with security or insecurity are what IҀll be thinking a lot about as I try to find where and how I fit in.
In response to the podcast ӀIndigenous Politics,Ԁ her preface was similar to her autobiographyҀs style in that she doesnҀt speak for all indigenous people or all the Cherokee people but from her own experience. Her stand on environment and people connectivity made sense and especially when she mentioned how environmentalists focus on the land of rainforests and oftentimes ignore the people of the land of those rainforests. The native people of the world show that we all can share common values when celebrating and respecting the land. This shows how we are inseparable from the natural world. This focus of her speech interested me because the natural world is a part of my research for my thesis.
In her speech she mentions how the contemporary issues, lives, and future of indigenous people can not be understood or contemplated without a knowledge and awareness of former tribal history and tribal culture (23.00). This is why she focuses so much in her autobiography on the historical past because to understand the future is to look at the past. Another question I would like to answer is will our time at the Cherokee Nation provide a connection between the past and the future?
No comments:
Post a Comment