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...
Ross,
ReplyDeleteI like where you are going with this conversation. I found it was interesting that you mentioned that we are all – as a class – pretty aware of “rhetorical exclusion” by now. I hadn’t thought much about rhetoric in that way, but you are right.
I think this is why we study rhetoric, to be honest. As students of English, we seek “inclusion.” We want the ability to join in complex conversations about politics, government, sovereignty, and power, etc., or at least, be able to form an opinion of our own. We want to be able to intellectually enforce our opinions, and so we study rhetoric; therefore, I liked that you brought up the “rhetorical exclusion” surrounding Leonard Peltier’s trials and sentencing, and also that you put an emphasis on minorities being the ones who are generally excluded from rhetorical conversations.
This conversation reminds me of a chat from another literature class that was about “white privilege.” I think that sometimes I take my identity for granted in this aspect, in the sense that I’ve never felt targeted because of my race or identity. I’ve never felt like I am a criminal just for being white, and so I felt sorry for Peltier also when reading through Knittel’s examination of Peltier’s prison writings. I’ve never really felt the struggles and hardship of “rhetorical exclusion,” at least not in the same sense as Leonard Peltier. I can definitely understand his point of view. If he truly is wrongfully imprisoned, I can see how he would wish that his words had a bit more weight to them.
Cheers