Introductions to Reflections

         We were asked to reflect upon are time and experiences with the class blog. I will admit that at first I was weary with the blog for several reasons. One, I had no idea what rhetoric was so how was I going to blog about it, and two, how the hell was I going to respond to my peers in an academic manner. My first blog on Enheduanna was very text base, use examples and what not. Although, I will admit I am most proud of my first blog about the legitimacy of Enheduanna as an author. Go Female Empowerment! My blogs stay somewhat strong in the beginning using those strong citations to make a clear concise argument. However with my Kaona blog, the effort I spent deteriorated due to the hectic-ness that can be the semester. The comments I gave to others usually consisted of either I agree with the points that you make or yes that is interesting but what about this. They also usually appeared on the first couple blog that I read and could identify with in some aspects.

            I enjoy reading the work of my peers because they took different stances or interests in the reading that I may have glanced over or didn’t understand upon the first reading because I am a rhetoric novice. How did I get let into this class? Any who, my peers wrote brilliantly and I enjoy reading their perspectives on most of the authors. Although I will admit my responses to peers on the Chinese Rhetoric blogs were not up to par. I had hard time following the line of thinking especially when Chinese words came into play. However, silence is a form of rhetorical response. I was paying attention in class.  

Overall, I have enjoyed this class blog more so than any other blog I was forced or willingly to do. It has been more pleasant because it was collaborative. I wrote a blog and got feedback on my ideas that I had written on from the previous reading. Then I was able to take those comment and apply them to the next readings on the same culture. It was better to have the ideas of the whole than just the thoughts of one. Personally, it allowed me to see concepts that I missed or from a different angle, or apply to different topics that are beyond my scope of study.

From the introduction to the final sessions of this class, I have learned to comprehend rhetoric in a manner that is beyond the Greek and the art of persuasion. I have come to learn of new rhetorics that I find to fit better with my own personal style as well as interest of studies. All in all the class and the blog have allowed me to become a better rhetorician, additionally it has made me aware of the moves made in texts that can be persuasion or reflection of a culture. Watch out Presidential debate! I know all your tricks now. 

Random responses to Redfield

The first thing I found interesting in Redfield’s piece was when she discusses Zitkala-Sa’s experience with the word “no” in boarding school. When the older classmate taught the children to answer “no” to everything, the fact that the teacher could not see through the fact that the child didn’t know English and didn’t understand the rhetorical implications of the word, was hard to believe. It seems like common sense to consider language barriers. The overall fact that the curriculum in boarding schools did not accommodate for language and culture barriers absolutely fascinates me.

The way Redfield explained the shift from external to internal rhetoric was useful for me. External rhetoric was necessary to deal with colonization, but now that Native Americans have regained agency and now hold a place in society, it makes sense for them to shift back to internal rhetoric. They still have to exercise external rhetoric because of the interaction with the rest of the world that still remain, but really, why should they worry about appealing to white audiences in their own, everyday communications. Redfield says of her own experience, “My storytelling template was, I realized, based on an ethnographic model of preservation, rather than a rhetorical model of dynamic communication” (150).

The rhetoric surround Native American’s decisions highlights the idea we’ve come across before, where dire situations have a major effect on the rhetoric being employed: “Some Indian speakers and writers felt that the key to survival on many levels was to show Euro-Americans how capable of adaptation Indian people were” (151).

This left me wondering how conscious these choices were. Did Native Americans authoring texts actually consider the rhetorical affect itself, or did they just realize that the best way to cope with the situation was to prove to colonizers that they were intelligent? When we were discussing Winnemucca, this came up. One text suggested that she chose to use the rhetorical strategies she did not because she necessarily wanted to, but because it was the only way she could work toward accomplishing her larger communication goals.

Redfield’s own rhetorical strategy for describing internal rhetoric is also worth noting. She says, “The rhetorical form that is the most “internal,” it could be argued, is parody. At first I didn’t understand how parody could describe internal rhetoric, but I now am getting the “joke.” This use of “inside jokes” definitely shifts the rhetoric to the internal realm and excludes other audiences. This seems like an effective strategy within a culture, but I also wonder how this will effect Native American communications and relations with other people.  

That's Quite Enough, Thanks: A Mild Rant

Clearly, there is a lot of disagreement as to whether or not Leonard Peltier is guilty of the crimes that have placed him in prison for the last 30 years. There are those who believe him to a murderer, and others who think he’s a political prisoner, a victim of the concept of “Aboriginal Sin”. Those supporting Peltier certainly have a case, since “the original prosecutor admitted in 1985 that the government does not know who killed the agents (Clark xx) Leonard Peltier remained in prison” (111). This makes sense, since Native Americans, like many other minorities, are disproportionately blamed for crimes they didn’t commit. Peltier wrote, “when you grow up Indian, you don’t have to become a criminal, you already are a criminal. You never know innocence” (113). It’s possible that Peltier is guilty, but even if he is, that doesn’t explain why he was prosecuted and no one was charged for the death of Joe Stuntz. It doesn’t explain why his request for a new trial based on new evidence was denied for being insufficient. There are so many arguments and so much controversy surrounding Peltier that at this point it would be difficult to decipher the possibility of his actual innocence.

But to be honest, I don’t care. I don’t care if he’s innocent, I don’t care if he’s guilty. In this context, it really doesn’t matter. This is not to say that the lives of those who died don’t matter, it’s not to say that there aren’t multiple tragedies at work here. The point is that regardless of what the truth of this particular case is, the argument remains the same. Maybe Peltier is guilty and should be in prison. I have no way of knowing. But I do know that even if this particular man isn’t a victim of the concept of “Aboriginal Sin”, others have been. Others are still falling victim to it today. This is just one example of an unfair legal system among many- too many. And I think there’s been enough. 

A Defiant Display of Survivance

Sun Dance Behind Bars: The Rhetoric of Leonard Peltier’s Prison Writings by Janna Knittle was an interesting text, as it explores the rhetoric of and American Indian who is doomed to stay in prison for the rest of his life, which undoubtedly affects the power of his rhetoric’s delivery.

The description of the Sundance was indeed a somewhat horrifying one, at least to me. It seemed like a torturous ritual, staring at the sun for hours upon end, only to dance until your nipples are ripped off. Jokes aside, the fact that Peltier uses and sees his Sundance as a way of sacrificing himself for the greater good of his people is fascinating. The act of using his prison sentence as a sort of Sundance is in itself a feat of rhetorical power, along with his fearlessness of pain, being able to relieve himself from it by thinking of it as a sacrificial Sundance.

His ability to ignore pain because he has partaken in an actual Sundance, and can always relate his pain to a higher purpose when in prison shows an impressive manifestation of rhetoric in his own being. It is indeed a manifestation of survivance and defiance against his unrighteous prison sentence, and displays a great deal of power as an Indian who refuses to be torn down by anything. “Sun Dance is our religion, our strength. We take great pride in that strength, which enables us to persist pain, torture, any trial rather than betray the People” (120). His defiant resolve, and by extension his rhetoric, is strengthened not only by his ability to endure, but also by the fact that not being able to is viewed as a betrayal towards his own people.

I think that you could draw lines between many other aspects of his rhetoric portrayed in the article to Aristotelian rhetoric, but the Sundance aspect is in my opinion very much unique and of a different kind. 

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

I like the reversed nature of this quote because it's obvious what the rhetorical intent is, and it easily relates to a judicial system that can find people guilty based on the necessity of silencing them, while allowing others to walk scot-free who might be just as guilty, if not more so.

Furthermore, it also relates to many other ideals surrounding Native Americans, and particularly the reversal of their Indianness. Kill the Indian, save the man is just one example of what I am talking about. The Indian is lost, and the man arises from the crumpled headdress, but they can never fully be recreated, just like a guilty person can never be innocent if they were always meant to rot in the chains of guilt.

There is no better way to say this than the quote on page 112 that Knittel references. "One such tactic is 'rhetorical exclusion,' a rhetorical strategy that defines those who seek inclusion into the larger polity on their own terms as inherently destructive of that polity, questioning the motives of those who challenge governmental power, and a presumption that those involved in such challenges are inherently guilty of crimes against the polity" (28).

Ok, so that's super wordy but I think that -- as a class -- we are pretty aware of "rhetorical exclusion" by this point. Guilty until proven innocent is just another example of this rhetorical exclusion, one that is calculated and undermines the very democratic ideals that the United States apparently abide by.

Prior to reading this, I was entirely in the dark about this event, and to think that it took place in 1975 is rather shocking because it just proves that these rhetorical motives are still evident today, and will continue to be. It just seems like a hopeless battle.

However Peltier gives it a little hope because he's still rotting in prison, and probably won't be released until 2040, when he'll most likely be dead barring any miracles; yet, he still fights for his innocence and a way to reach the dominant power and make a change.

Nonetheless, it's still sad to read a lot of what Peltier says: "when you grow up Indian, you don't have to become a criminal, you already are a criminal. You never know innocence" (67 of Peltier's book). It's strange how much this ideal applies to all minorities, but hardly -- if at all -- to the white dominant group.

But, is it really that strange? I've certainly grown used to it, and with the violence between white police (often), and African American individuals, which seems incessant in the US, can you blame me? Don't twist my words here, I am by no means saying that the minority deserves the hand they've been dealt, I'm only remarking on the fact that the hand they've been dealt seems rather inherent to this point, and Peltier backs my conclusion with his sentiments.

On a final note, how perfect is it that Dick Wilson, a tribal chairman, named his unit with an acronym that spells Goons? Perfect idiocy, or calculated intimidation, I don't know...

Peltier' Rhetoric

Janna Knittle’ s “Sun Dance Behind Bars: The Rhetoric of Leonard Peltier’s Prison Writings” was an interesting read. I found Peltier’s style of rhetoric intriguing, it was quite the contrast from some of the other American Indian Rhetorics we have studied up till now, including Winnemucca’s rhetorical style. 

Winnemucca’s choice of rhetoric was to almost identify with the whites, align to what their expectations were of an “Indian Princess” and play to the pathos of the white women. Peltier instead choose to call the white man on his hypocritical BS. Throughout her writing Knittle calls attention to this. Peltier explains that “when you grow up Indian, you don’t have to become a criminal. you already are a criminal.” (113) Peltier also claims that  the white colonizers believe that “Indians who resist assimilation must be guilty of something.” (113)  Peltier also explained that “When the oppressors succeed with their illegal thefts and depredations, its called colonialism. When their efforts to colonize indigenous people are met with resistance or anything but abject surrender its called war. When the colonized peoples attempt to resist their oppression and defend themselves, we’er called criminals.” (118)   

Peltier’s style of rhetoric is a lot more direct and almost more violent than Winnemucca’s rhetoric. He uses a lot of repetition and direct address of his audience to assert his beliefs. Although Peltier is using rhetoric to fight against the white man he is adapting a more “traditional” or Athenian rhetoric then some of the other American Indian rhetoricians we have looked at until now. So even though Peltier is defying the white man and unlike Winnemucca’s more tame rhetoric, he is ultimately settling to their level as he is adapting their rhetoric. (I have not read all of Peltier’s Prison Writings and therefore this is the opinion I have formed based on Peltier’s quotes included in Kittle’s writing and her brief explanations of his style of rhetoric.) 

House of Cards

Clearly by the title, I spend too much time watching shows like Mad Men and House of Cards. However, the show House of Cards feels relevant to the topic at hand. On page 112, the definition of rhetorical exclusion is given as " a rhetorical strategy that defines those who seek inclusion into the larger polity on thier own terms as inherently destructive of that polity, questioning the motives of those who challenge governmental power, and a presumption that those involved in such challenges are inherently guilty of crimes against the policy."
The game that non-natives use to provide reason for convicting others of wrong doings because not all can understand this form of rhetoric. This creates problems for those that are not a part of this political community. Not only is this a problem with the natives, it is still a problem for today's society. As a voter making an "educated decision" is like doing a research paper on the tests ran by the Nazi party during the beginning of the second World war (most of which today is under lock and key now). This rhetorical strategy has created many of the voters and non-voters an outsider to the game of politics. Even though the natives had the similar problem, this rhetorical strategy is now creating a smaller field of those that can understand what is being said in a debate, article, and speech.
However, with the political rhetorical exclusion, the natives can become the enemy with the people in power as described further down on page 112. The natives have found a way to alter and understand the rhetorical exclusion. This gives them power over the politicians. If majority chooses to understand what the natives are trying to say the game of politics, the tower of power which the politics built for themselves would end up falling because then many would be a part of an old very inclusive discourse community that used to be of a select few. They would end up being weakened and allowed to reverse some options made by previous rulers that controlled the laws of the land, such as the natives and being proven guilty soon after a shoot out as described in today's article.

Problematic Rhetoric

I am a bit wired up after the weekend’s events, and all the rhetoric used in the aftermath of it. Therefore, when I started reading the article for today I might have had a really negative mindset, which again leads to this sort-of negative post. I have two problems with Knittel´s Sundance Behind Bars: the author´s rhetoric and that I do not really see how this differs from the Greek rhetoric.

When talking about a criminal case, a prisoner, history, politics and rhetoric, the author´s rhetoric often becomes more apparent to the reader, unless the author is completely neutral. Knittel is not neutral when talking about the events that lead to Peltier´s imprisonment and publishing of the book.  The way she ends the essay can be interpreted in different ways. “It is difficult, however, to imagine a happy ending to Peltier´s story and therefore difficult to create a happy ending for this essay” (Knittel, 126). The ending can show that both his life  and the way the U.S. has treated him and other Indians is a sad story, but it can also reflect that she feels that him being innocent in prison is sad and unfair. Nevertheless it is not neutral and reflects that Knittel believes in Peltier´s rhetoric. That the story itself does not end with a happy ending is not really necessary in an analysis of Peltier´s rhetoric. The focus should be his work, not what Knittel thinks, and she uses her own rhetorical power to try to persuade the reader. At the same time I kind of understand that there is a lot of unfairness and discussion about the trials, and as a human it is hard to not be affected by it when writing about his work.

I do not understand what makes Peltier´s text an example of American Indian rhetorics, and why it is in the book. It might be because Knittel spends a lot of time discussing the events and history that relates to Indians, and that Peltier himself is Indian, (or I might just be misunderstanding everything). But is it enough that he is an Indian and uses symbols from his culture as rhetoric? The only thing that might differ from the Greek rhetoric is the use of Sundance and oral traditions, but even that is not convincingly different. What Knittel describes as oral tradition reminds me more of elocution/style, where the example of repetition emphasizes what’s being said. “But… no… there I go, being vindictive and vengeful myself, wishing harm on others as they have wished it on me.” (123). The oral way of correcting himself appeals to both logos and ethos: showing evidence that he corrects the negativity quickly and easily, and therefore would not be able to kill someone, when he cannot even write vindictive and vengeful things. It also supports his character, showing that he has been treated unfairly but he is a better person with a good moral that can be trusted. It might fit into the style of oral tradition when it comes to American Indian rhetorics, but in my opinion it fits just as much into the way Greek rhetoric is being used today. The oral style is not uncommon in writing and can even be found in academic articles.What is Knittel actually trying to convince us of? That it is Indian rhetoric or that he as a person and Indians as people have and are treated unfairly?

Past Rhetoric's Impact: Peltier's Eco-Rhetoric in 2015

I’ve wondered numerous times throughout our readings on Native American rhetoricians whether or not their activism and rhetoric has had much effect on this country. So naturally, I took this thought process into our reading of Peltier’s rhetoric. The essay does a specific job of not informing the reader of the outcome of the mining company’s efforts to mine for uranium.

 

But, does it really have to be explicitly stated? Not really, because lo and behold the government and the corporation won out, and now have over 1,000 uranium wells on Pine Ridge Reservation. However, the story does not end here.

 

I was really interested in Peltier’s environmental rhetoric. He wrote, “to protect the land, water, and air from their thefts and depredations. In this sad and tragic era we live in, to come to the defense of Mother Earth is to be branded a criminal” (114 emphasis added). My first impression when reading this was that Peltier was using the constructed “Indian” to rhetorically appeal to his white audience (i.e. that as an Indian he is more connected to nature stereotype). But when I pulled up an article after searching “uranium mine on Lakota land,” I found a possible connection between Peltier’s rhetoric of the time playing out in present day America.

 

The article, entitled “Lakota Women and Ranchers Lead Charge to Break Silence Against Uranium Mine,” focused primarily on Lakota activist Debra White Plum. She opposes the uranium mine, which is seeking a renewal to continue the mining process as well as an expansion to three more sites this year. Her main argument is that the Crow Butte Resources (CBR) are poisoning the water supply on the reservation. The article claims, “this intersection of frontier America and Native resistance is a battleground in the war between environmental advocates and energy corporations, only this time allies from all sides are joining forces in the effort to protect their water.”

 

So, even though it is not explicitly stated, I believe Peltier’s environmental rhetoric has actually informed a “Native resistance” against the uranium mine. Peltier’s major contribution (I believe) was securing environmental allies through his environmental rhetoric. The article mentions that non-Native advocates have joined the side of the Lakota activists using a specific angle that Peltier stated in his rhetorical memoir—water.

 

According to the article, the CBR has tapped into the Ogallala aquifer, which is “considered the largest, underground freshwater source in the world.” The uranium mines use the water as a form of fracking to extract the uranium. In the article there is a picture of a group of activist (including White Plum) holding a sign that says “Ecocide Genocide.” The specific use of “Genocide” coincides with the rhetoric that Peltier uses, which included “termination… Nazi… ‘final solution’… eradicate us” (116).

 

I have finally found what appears to be a direct connection to rhetoric used in the past inform the rhetorical actions of today. It would be interesting, to say the least, to contact Debra White Plum and ask if she has read Peltier’s work. Chances are she has and potential knew/knows him.

Audience

The importance of audience is obvious within the context of rhetorical strategies but the importance of audience within Native American rhetoric seems to jump out at us, demanding our attention. This importance is due to the concept of 'survivance'; when a nation must survive and resist, the rhetoric must make moves to survive and resist. This survivance depends on the understanding each author has of its audience and the ways in which its audience plays a role in survivance. Without this recognition of audience the ways in which rhetoric serves Native American's would be altered drastically. Janna Knittel's essay on Leonard Peltier's prison writings draws upon the importance of audience within the context of Peltier's writing by bringing attention to the ways in which Peltier uses 'you' as a device to hone in on his audience. "Peltier's inclusion of the audience shifts according to his purpose" (123). His desire to target specific audiences within his writing stems from the attempt to make better the understanding of Native customs and culture. The use of 'you' could have been manipulated to regard only Natives to which Peltier is speaking to, which would then create a relationship between Peltier and Natives only. 'You' could have been used to address the colonial, white members of society in a way that puts the blame on them and only them. Instead Peltier changes his use of 'you' throughout his writing which allows for a larger audience base. The management of audience within Native American rhetoric has proven (to me) more important than just about any other aspect. Without the knowledge and understanding of whom they are trying to reach, Native rhetoricians can be dramatically misunderstood. In previous rhetorical work we have studied throughout the semester, audience has served a significant purpose yet I believe it is within the Native American rhetoric that audience is most significant. When telling a story, when describing a battle, when alluding to politics, Native rhetoricians are working to target and persuade an audience. I would go as far to saying that audience is the single most important aspect of a Native's rhetorical strategies.

Adapting as Survivance

I found Janna Knittel's "Leonard Peltier's Prison Writings" to be an effective and interesting rhetorical analysis. The rhetoric of innocence is a particularly compelling topic, as it calls upon our very humanity as readers. However, I'm curious about the slight mention Knittel makes about adaptability, and wonder if this value can be extended to some of Peltier's rhetorical moves beyond his use of historical analogies.

Knittel discusses adaptability in reference to the historical analogies Peltier draws between Wounded Knee, the Vietnam War, and World War II. She quotes Elizabeth Rich, noting, "an important Lakota value that was evident in the Ghost Dance Movement, which was adaptability. The Lakota adapted spiritual beliefs to suit a political aim" (117). I'm not very familiar with adaptability as a Lakota value, however I can see, based upon our discussions on American Indian survivance, how adaptability would be an important value to natives in the modern world, as it is with adaptation that they are able to survive. For an example, we've seen this with trickster discourse as an adaption from resistance toward playing the part of Indian as a form of survivance.

I think two of Peltier's strategies also exemplify this adaptability as a form of survivance. First, consider Peltier's use of the Sun Dance as a tool to talk about his own prison sentence. While Knittel notes the places Peltier uses the Sun Dance either literally or metaphorically, I think we can really call it literal every time. As a metaphor, Peltier draws the similarities between the Sun Dance and his own time in prison, which can be interpreted as a way of adapting the traditional Sun Dance to fit a more contemporary situation. In this way, the Sun Dance is a literal description of his time in prison. This gives Peltier a form of native survivance, as he is adapting native religion to fit his situation in a place where certain freedoms like participating in the Sun Dance would never be allowed.

We see adaptability emerge again in Knittel's discussion of rhetorical inclusion, as applied to direct audience addresses. The "you" Peltier addresses in his writings changes from context to context, thus Peltier adapts his technique to meet his aims. This becomes of form of survivance when we consider the context of Peltier's addresses. He acknowledges his audience, drawing together differing groups of individuals to include natives and nonnatives, adapting his acknowledgement in order to better connect with a specific or larger audience depending on the particular instance.

It seems to me, the use of the Sun Dance and differing audience addresses are good examples of adaptation as a means to achieve survivance, and while I think Knittel approaches this, it is interesting to me that she does not clearly state this in discussing either rhetorical move.

Don't h8 me cuz I generalize

I found the point about Brumble looking for "Indian-ness" and the aspect of "heroic" Native American woman very interesting. Last semester, I read a lot of original texts concerning the story of Pocahontas, and compared it to the movie. In reality, Pocahontas was a bald twelve year old who wore only a loin cloth. Also, the story of her saving John Smith might be untrue. He told the exact same story of a young Turk girl after he was captured by them prior to his interactions with the Native Americans. Why are white people so obsessed with heroic Native American woman?

I would theorize that it's because it's easier to sympathize with women, seeing as they aren't warriors and don't scalp white men. They are, I believe, stereotyped as more sympathetic to the "white" cause and more apt to listen and be slower to violence. Whether this is true or not is interesting. I don't think Winnemucca can be called sympathetic to the "white" cause; I think she's just rhetorically savvy and manipulative to be honest. I think she understands the way white people want to hear the truth.

I have read a bunch of Native American speeches from Powhatan, Red Jacket, and Tecumseh for another class. Being warriors, and entrenched in the war between settlers and Native Americans, they mostly appeal to their brothers. Powhatan tries to point out to the white men that they attacked Native Americans after being provided with food, and Tecumseh appeals to their sense of brotherhood. Other than that, though, they mostly try to rally their people. Boudinot was very logical and well thought out in his arguments. I don't think he was listened to or respected as much, perhaps because of his lack of sensitivity. Winnemucca approached accusations logically, but with tact and softness.

Am I generalizing too much? Probably. In my defense though, I'm trying to make sense of why we view Native American men and women so differently in a halfhearted and mostly uneducated way.

Powell: Preconceptions

In our reading of Malea D. Powell’s chapter titled: Sarah Winnemucca Hopkins, Powell examines Winnemucca's autobiography, Life Among the Paiutes, in comparison to other scholarly works published about Winnemucca's life and practices. Powell attempts to analyze Winnemucca’s text with less bias towards Winnemucca’s authenticity or “Indianness.” Powell wants to analyze Winnemucca’s publication, Life, for its rhetorical exigency, rather than it’s authenticity.

Powell questions the motivation behind other scholarly works focused on Winnemucca’s Life. Powell wrote: “While I want to emphasize that studying American Indian autobiography is an important and critical project, I think it is a mistake to try to shove rhetorical performances like Winnemucca’s into definitive categories that do not take into account the possibility that Winnemucca was trying to resist the material effects of colonization,”(pg. 74-75). I think in this statement, Powell wants us to avoid approaching any work with preconceptions. She wants rhetoricians to analyze a text, such as Winnemucca’s autobiography, for its rhetorical exigency and it's rhetorical ability rather than the text’s capacity to support some biased or preconceived notion.

Powell looks at Winnemucca’s urgency to speak and write. Winnemucca’s exigency had to do with her dissonance with certain government officials and the mistreatment and common misunderstandings of her people. Her exigency manifests because of Manifest Destiny, colonization, and the White’s dominating cultural beliefs that were forcefully imposed on American Indians, such as education, law, and entitlement to land. Winnemucca’s distrust in government officials is what prompted her voice as a spokesperson for Native American rights. As Powell notes, “Winnemucca had especially close contact with government officials, particularly Indian agents, who, in her mind, often mistreated the Paiutes for their own selfish gain,” (pg 72). Powell wants to show the reader how Winnemucca really was, rather than enforcing certain Indian stereotypes like illiteracy. 

Powell clearly wants the reader to know that her conclusions to studying Winnemucca’s works are considerably different than what others have discovered and claimed. She is skeptical of the analyses already performed on Winnemucca’s work, and wrote: “It is this desire for ‘something ancient’ that I find suspicious here. Brumble is clearly searching for authenticity, for the “real” Indianness present in published texts by Indians,” (pg76). Powell is critical of Brumble’s work here, because the author attempts to build upon his own preconceived notion, rather than analyzing the text for what it is, and what it can be. Powell wants the reader to recognize Winnemucca’s “rhetorical ability,” rather than criticizing her “Indianness,” or authenticity. 

Overall, I think that Powell’s point is warn the reader of approaching a text with any preconceived notions, because this sort of “single-minded focus” can elude from the true meaning and the real potential of such work. Powell wants the reader to recognize Winnemucca for the rhetorical strategist that she was, rather than sifting through her work, searching for “something ancient,” or choosing some specific standpoint to follow, prior to analyzing the text.   

“Because it isn’t ‘Indian’ enough”

     Powell analyses of Winnemucca’s autobiography and other texts shows throughout that Winnemucca knew how to use rhetoric to sway white American in particular women. However, in the analyses, Powell also gives the analyses of other authors who analyzed Native American texts. From these other authors I would like to give a rant that these analyses are cringe-worthy and as audience members misinterpret texts from Native Americans.

     On page 73 it states “Winnemucca’s biography is usually situated alongside those of the ‘mythical’ Indian women lie Pocahontas and Sacajawea and interpreted as one in a series of heroic figurations that Rayna Green has identified as the ‘Indian Princess.’ In short, according to Green, the authenticating device for the Princess, the ‘good’ Indian woman, is her kindness (even her love) toward white men and her ability to see other Indians as ‘savages’”.

     Since when did these particular woman become mythical and not historical?  I can see Pocahontas being regarded as mythical or even an “Indian Princess” but I blame Disney for that distinct label. However, Sacajawea is a historical figure that aided/saved the Lewis and Clark Expedition from certain death. Woot Woot to Sacajawea! And from what I have read about Winnemucca that she was a woman that wanted to save her people but using White tools of rhetoric. I am fairly certain that there are no Indian Princesses around because that is a white invention used to glorify distinguishable women who have more balls than men!

     However, I digress; Powell shows the rhetorical moves that Winnemucca takes in her various texts that help her to be a heroine for her people. And even though she was shunned by her own people it seems that occurs with heroines; for example, Joan of Arc was turned over to the English by her own countrymen and burned at the stake. Winnemucca appeals to her audience in particular women reformist groups and key politicians. In the end, she has the financial support of Mary Peabody Mann and the ear of Senator Dawes which gained Winnemucca’s people a reservation on their traditional lands.

     The other analyses shown within Powell’s text create manifest manners to subvert the historical importance of Winnemucca by stating that her biography isn’t Indian enough or she is an Indian Princess that has sold out her people. The Life of Winnemucca speaks for itself that she is a powerful Indian woman that can affect change and the analyses of her life try to contain her importance to a box. 

Power and Opression

What really strikes me in Powell's text "Sarah Winnemucca Hopkins: Her Wrongs and Claims" was her incredible success in trickster discourse and the possible sacrifices that she made in order to wield the power she did. After all, her position as a mediator between her tribe and the white people made her valuable to the white people. Her knowledge of white people's rhetoric made the white people valuable to her and her cause. Her position, while potentially helpful to her tribe, actually cost her most. Her dealings with the dishonesty of the white men lost her more trust with her tribe despite her fighting for her tribe.
This dichotomy interests me. On one hand, Winnemucca has mastered the dominant rhetoric and uses it successfully to fight against it. On the other hand, her mastery of this rhetoric alienates her from her tribe, while her otherness both isolates her from whites, even as it is her only way into their world. Yet, despite the separateness that must now follow her, she gains the power and support she asks for by being exactly what she is: a Native American and a women.
This particular demographic at the time was probably the most oppressed, and yet she was able to manipulate the position she had in society extremely effectively. Of course, where the oppressed gain power, someone inevitably tries to discount them. The same is true for Winnemucca, where some of the powerful, dominant, white men attempted to slander Winnemucca for not being "woman" enough. Thankfully, the slander did not work, as Winnemucca handled the accusations beautifully, and instead, it had the opposite effect, making her more popular.
Winnemucca was able to succeed in her goals, having so much influence, she partially shaped the way Senator Dawes wrote the Dawes Act. She is proof that even the most oppressed can hold power and even the most dominant and powerful people are only so if people are willing to listen to them.

A rant about binaries

When I look at Powell’s text I again see the emphasis of binaries. The binary of colonization and the tribal mentality, white and colored, educated and savage. However, all of these apparent binaries were created by the white man, really without the help of Natives, apart from their mere presence. Without, “The Other” side of the binary, would there even be the privileged side of the binary. In other words, would the colonists really be “free”, if not for the oppression of the Native Americans? Without the savage, would the colonists be educated? So, without knowledge of a less privileged side, would there be a more privileged side? So therefore, what is the point of trying to colonize them? If they were to be “tamed” or “educated” or “civilized” so to say, what would step in for the other side of the binary? Slaves?

            It is strange to me also, that in all of the cases we have seen, the unflavored part of the binary almost always understands both sides of the binary better than the privileged side. Does the privileged side have the “privilege” to not even try to understand the other side? And even if they did try to understand the other side, could they ever? As they are already conditioned to their privilege. What is interesting to me about this is that usually the power of understanding that the less privileged side holds is usually not used to try and gain power for the lesser side but instead to either give justice or self-empowerment. We see justice in the form of knowledge, that the person with this knowledge of both sides merely wants the other side to realize what they are doing, and to gain some understanding but not full understanding of this “Other” culture.

            As I become more aware of the binaries in our culture, I become very interested in how the power struggle works, so sorry for the little bit of the rant…

Early Post About Sarah Winnemucca

After reading Powell’s piece on Sarah Winnemucca, and also just in response to the previous texts we’ve read, I keep going back to thinking about how I have been taught about Native Americans. I grew up here, surrounded by various reservations, and am now wondering how useful the education I got really was. I remember making tipis from cardboard in eighth grade. What in the world did that really do? We learned about them as the “other,” with native women painted as the princesses that Powell discusses. Why weren’t we learning about people like Winnemucca. Granted out little eighth grade brains weren’t really thinking about Native American issues, but I do think that stories like that of Winnemucca could be presented in a way that would be a whole lot more useful than building tipis and further placing Natives into the box of the “other.”

Within Powell’s article, the first thing I found worth noting was when she discusses the idea that natives were viewed as incapable of producing rhetoric with purpose. Any rhetorical moves made within were deemed as an accident: “This belief about rhetorical naiveté of indigenous peoples is too often reflected in critical work that refuses to see early native textual engagements as calculated and negotiated with a specific audience, and a specific goal, in mind” (69). It seems so obvious that Winnemucca had an audience and purpose in mind.

The second thing I found to be important was when Powell discusses Winnemucca’s relationship with white women and white men. She sees white men as being frightening, and white women as “angels.” I have never been one to hop on the extreme feminist bandwagon, but I do wonder how all of this would have gone down had the world been run by women. Would have the power turned them into greedy, heartless takers like men behaved, or would have their nurturing, womanly instincts kicked in and told them it was wrong to take away a people’s culture, starve them, and watch the die of disease. Obviously, the help that Winnemucca received from women was because women are caretakers.

I also found it interesting when Powell brings up the idea that Native Americans were torn between two worlds. This seems odd considering that they didn’t choose to even be associated with the “white civilized” world.

When Powell discusses the questioning of Winnemucca’s morality and the possibility of her lying, I can understand how she could be stuck in situations where she had no choice but to lie. She is attempting to navigate an incredibly difficult relationship. Winnemucca also takes responsibility for the BIA: “Winnemucca clearly configures herself as the responsible parent, able to represent the Paiutes to the people in Washington but unable to stop the BIA from its dishonesty” (82). Imagining the complex situation she was stuck in, how could have she stayed completely honest? Rhetorically speaking, being completely honest and truthful would have left her either sided with the Paiutes or whites, not tactfully standing in between.

(A Little In Advance) Sarah Winnemucca

After reading Malea Powell’s essay, “Sarah Winnemucca Hopkins”, I have had some ideas in my mind verbalized and now I have the language to speak about what interests me in regard to American Indian Rhetoric. Powell’s statement about Winnemucca’s writing and speeches are “an acknowledgment and a negotiation of that intersection, one in which she consistently positions and repositions herself as both apart from and a part of Euro-American and Paiute cultural discourse” (72) is what gave me the terminology of negotiating and repositioning. Personally, I thought that Powell articulated the story and the rhetorical devices that Winnemucca was aware of very well.

 My first impression of Winnemucca was that she dressed up as an Indian Princess because she thought that was expected of her, but after reading Powell’s essay I think that the argument that Winnemucca was dressing up as an Indian Princess in order to complicate the meaning of “the Indian” for her audiences (who were predominately white) was a rhetorical device is more accurate. Powell gives the readers insights into Winnemucca’s motivation and her careful consideration of who her audience was.

A “civilized Indian woman” is whom Winnemucca represents – to the Paiutes and to the American public. This representation demonstrates Winnemucca’s ability to take on multiple roles and to read her audiences well enough to speak to their values in order to effectively persuade them. Powell describes Winnemucca’s primary audience as being Christian women, who value civilized manners and Christian ideals. In order to persuade these women to assist the Paiute tribe, Winnemucca talks about the important role of women/mothers and appeals to the emotions by taking on the role of the mother toward her tribe.

Overall, I think that Powell offers a new approach to examining Sarah Winnemucca’s texts and shows audiences how thoughtful and deliberate the use of rhetoric and rhetorical devices can be.