Comparing Lyons to Powell

Looking at Lyons' article on rhetorical sovereignty we get a very helpful and extensive definition of just what rhetorical sovereignty is as defined by Native Americans. Within this text we do not get very much application of this rhetoric, whereas Powell's text is mainly application (or at least examples of application) of this rhetoric. As I see it, Powell's text acts as somewhat of a bridge, or translation of just how rhetorical sovereignty can work in a post-colonial world. 

         Within Lyons’ text we seem to see a lot of anger and resentment towards colonialism and a European or American culture. Although at times it may be necessary to have separation of cultures, within the context of today’s world, it seems nearly impossible. Another problem I see with Lyons’ text alongside the mere impossibility of total sovereignty is that this rhetoric does not really benefit anyone. Although practicing this rhetoric may help to create healing and a recreation of a narrative of Native Americans, they would never be able to use this narrative to benefit anyone.

         The solution to gaining rhetorical sovereignty and using it to benefit other cultures seems to lie within the examples we see in Powell’s text. We observe the story of two Native Americans who become immersed in both their own cultures and in an American culture. This immersion benefits them, their native culture, and the culture they choose to immerse themselves in, offering social commentary, a new way of looking at things, and a fresh view on life.

         One question I struggle with is the absolute exclusion of non-natives in this text. I am curious as to how (or if) these authors see non-natives work under this rhetoric?