Surrender Speech

I wonder what General Howard told Chief Joseph before that he now "has in his heart"? That you will be forever sad if you fight? That you have no chance of winning? That your people will diminish?
I always remembered Chief Joseph's speech ending "I will fight no more forever". Why does this speech end without the "forever"?
I did a quick research and found that the Nez Perce were 'given' quite a sizeable chunk of land but then gold was discovered in the area and their land allotment was reduce to one tenth the original size. Joseph unhappily began leading about 700 people to the small reservation but before they reached it 20 or so young warriors went on a rampage killing a lot of whites. The leader of the rebels was a younger brother to Joseph; and he chose to go with the rebels. Of the 700 only close to 200 were fighters but they held off, while moving, thousands of US soldiers.

My quick research showed that General Howard was a popular Union General. So my thought is he didn't want the blacks free, so he most likely felt the same towards Indians.

It is only early October when Joseph surrenders. It must have been an early winter to be freezing so bad. I realize they are in mountains. It is also probable they have only their summer outfits to wear, on the run as they were. I imagine all these Indians on foot, trying to stay away from a cavalry. Trying to eat as they go. All ages. How they got so far for so long seems impossible!

It is obvious in Joseph's speech just how tired he is. Not just physically from all the moving, but tired of the killing and dying. Tired of not knowing where his people are. So tired he is sick at heart. At 30 years old every past, everything he has lived and known, is changed and/or gone.

Joseph was never taken to the reservation or back to his people. What was left of the 700 were taken to Kansas where many more died from epidemics. After 3-4 years those remaining were taken somewhere in Washington state.

Still, I think this speech should have ended with "I will fight no more (against the white man) forever. The 'no more forever' is such an impact. I was young when I first read that and really had to think about its positive/negative opposite/synonym. There is a word for this, I just can't remember what it is besides a Yogi Berra-ism.

Response to Juliet Schor

I don't really understand 'consumerism'. In this response I thought we were discussing about our (United States) poor recylcing. If we are such big consumers and wasters (those were staggering numbers and assumptions Taylor gave us) recycling should be better. I don't think we will get far in reducing consuming. We keep growing and wanting to get better. Why should we want to get smaller and worse, the opposite? I do want to touch on recycling. There is no reason to throw away tin cans, pop cans, milk jugs when it is easy to separate them for Colville's recycling center. Most people don't want to take the time to remove labels or rinse. It doesn't take that long! What I am disappointed with in the Colville center is not also taking more plastics. Even if they don't have the resources to recycling water, juice or pop bottles surely there is a site in Spokane. They haul the crushed aluminum somewhere, take ALL the plastics. I don't have the numbers with me at the time, but anyone who does not recyle should look at resources as to why it is so important.

Taylor touched on some of Schor's reasonings, but mostly stayed close to the recycling issue. She usually agrees with Schor or restates Schor's ideas. Taylor does add some of her own facts and assumptions. I agree with needing a diferent name other than "politics of consumption". We do not need more politics!

I don't understand Taylor's comment about "no support structure". People need to learn to budget. Just because your neighbor owns a boat does not mean you must have one too. Yes, we would all like nice, fun objects; but first decide if you having a boat is more important than money. It comes down to wants and necessities, it's easy to make the correct decision.

The Tyranny of the Majority

This essay started off personal and interesting but it became way too long and off the original subject. Guinier's brownie story was cute. Her four year old Nikolas made an intelligent remark for his age, which we were reminded about extensively. The good example of the prom at Brother Rice was current. But some how from there, Guinier went way back to colonists, her apparent hero James Madison and British monarchy. I could have worked with this example, too; until the author got off on democratic fair play and her own personal issues. I felt she was whining about losing some nomination ("many others condemend me as antidemocratic") which got Guinier off onto Blacks and voting forever and ever. Later she is self congratulating herself "I state this explicitly...", "I propose these approaches..". I, for one, especially got tired of Guinier seeming to self defend and exploit what she has written.

I don't think I ever could have enjoyed this overwritten self political article, but I think if it started with the anxt and maybe softened up somewhere with the early personal stories, I would be more apt to look at Guinier's view and possibly not be so critical of her "I, I, I..."

Crimes Against Humanity

Churchill certainly has much to say in this essay. I can feel his anger when reading. However, I think he went off the subject with the Nuremberg Precedents. However, flowing into the Genocide Convention is where the essay title came from. His last few paragraphs get back on track and he ends with a summing up conclusion that relates to his thesis statement.
I also think Churchill switches from opinionated, formal, preachy to trying to be personal and friendly. He uses a descriptive angered tone, "virulently racist practice", "systematically degraded:", "frankly dubious". Then he switches to very friendly, "Okay, let's communicate", "yukking it up", "Let's get a little bit real here".

I agree with much of what Churchill is trying to tell us. Indians were definitely treated poorly by greedy white people. They have been depicted in movies and books more as savages than as a friendly group. Most of Churchill's examples are from the early 1900's. The US government policies were often unjust. Some government issues today seem to be trying to undo some of that wrong. I am just speaking off the top of my head here from what I've heard living in this Indian surrounded area. Indians have medical benefits exceeding those of white Americans. They have different hunting seasons and gambling rules. They get government 'throw-back' money; enough so many don't feel the need for employment.

Churchill's original issue is use of Indian names as sport mascots. If we are 'honoring' Indians with these usages, why don't we 'honor' other nationalities also, he questions. Maybe it has to do with who were the original residers of this country and who were imported. That is one way I see it. It is a remembering. Churchill tells us about the declining Indian population. If we take away all Indian remembrances, in another 100 years they will be totally forgotten.

I like the comment actor Samuel Jackson replied with when asked about minorities and racism. "As soon as we stop seeing people in color it will end." We are all human people. It's the 21st century. We should have learned by now to get along. Including not taking some things too seriously.

Cruelty, Civility, and Other Weighty Matters

Paulin wrote this essay, at times, with tongue in cheek expressions. "...theory that fat people are jolly." "...good nature might wear a bit thin..." These comments and others made reading a joy.

I suppose she is correct in her overall depiction of fat Americans. 'Fat' itself, sounds and implies far worse than the more gentle sounding 'obese'. Yet 'obese' actually means very much over weight. There definitely is a "prejudice against fat people in this country". I even harbor a prejudice, though I try to hide it. I am not thin, either! When I see an overweight person, my first thought is they don't exercise. They overeat. They are not concerned about their image. They are lazy. After my initial thoughts pass, I am more sensitive toward the person. We don't all have the same metabolism. We don't always make the best choices for ourselves.

Actually, I have these same thoughts when I see a very thin person. I first think they must have an image problem. I, too, wonder what "crazy things people inflict upon their bodies to lose weight". Paulin just asks "remember Fen-phen?" and doesn't go any further with it. Perhaps she could have, not everyone does remember Fen-phen. I only remember it because an already thin person I know used it and had major anxiety about it later.

Paulin continues with "appearance is not the ultimate way to judge a person's character or value to society". I ask, who are we to judge in the first place? I suppose judging comes natural. We see something and make an instant opinion. We call it a first impression. It's automatic. I am forever at myself to revise my first impressions; to not judge. Judging is not my profession, nor do I want it to be. I try to see a person for themself.

I think of Oprah Winfrey when she first started her talk show. Jokes about fat people and Oprah were abundant. Oprah proved to be intelligent, and the jokes faded. She yo-yoed for years with her weight, but the jokes stopped once she proved herself. Rosie O'Donnell is another female overweight celebrity that comes to mind. Her image, however, doesn't come across the same as Winfrey's. Is it because O'Donnell makes her own jokes about herself? That she doesn't look like she has tried to change her weight image? That she is a loud mouth? (I think I just made a judgement here.)

I found the information about landlords not renting to fat people interesting and completely believable. Same with the wage earnings. These facts led a lot of 'weight' to the essay. I have a female good friend who will not quit smoking because she is afraid of gaining weight - another subject Paulin touched on. She also mentioned the diet industry without going into depth on it. There are so many diet pills on the market. One can't turn on the television or listen to the radio for long without some advertisement for losing weight.

Paulin's final sentence sums up the weight issue. There definitely are many more important things than being slim.

Jan.9 class discussion

In class we combined a Jr. Miss pageant and Beauty pageant even though they are different--or at least stress the differences. In small towns it used to be 'whoever's parents were the most influential' daughter won. Judges were brought in from out of the area to help get away from that concept. With Jr. Miss pageants stressing scholarships, it sometimes seems as if the girl with the highest IQ wins; even though talent, poise, fitness and personality are also supposed to be factors. Years ago, I participated in Jr. Miss. I am from a small town, with unknown parents, who, when asked why was I trying out replied, "because there are no sports for girls, I only have brothers who play sports and this is a way for me to get recognition". One of the 'moms' on the Jr. Miss committee who was supposed to be helping the contestants prepare for the pageant loudly commented to everyone in our final practice that I "walk like a farmer plowing the field". She was my boyfriend's mother! I never won one individual award; but I was crowned Jr. Miss. And I still think I walk like a farmer plowing the field.

As for what I want as a mother for my daughters is, as someone else already said, is Happiness.
I think I have a good open relationship with them. I know I have embarrassed them at times like mentioned in "The Thrill of Victory...The Agony of Parents". I don't think I ever embarrassed them at a sporting event because I was usually the coach or referee. But I remember requests to drop them off a block from school, and maybe I'd get a cheek peck for a kiss then. I often run out of the house as I am---hair a mess, clothes dirty, etc. I am getting off the subject.

I want my daughters to be happy with themselves, happy in their lifes, happy with the choices they have made and are going to make. I have expressed to them that they only get to live once, do your best at everything you do. It is OK to be different. It is OK to take a chance. It is OK to be wrong, just learn from it. Enjoy your life.

The Greatest Gift

Well, I had a bit a of a time feeling 'empathy' for Samantha Tengelitsch. If it weren't for the knowledge I acquired from my good friend who had post-partum blues so bad she chose to never have another baby; I may never have understood this mother.

First she had too many visitors which she didn't appreciate. Then she writes that she often didn't dress, yet she was craving for visitors. It would have been easy to go next door and visit with her neighbor who also had a new baby girl. But, this is one way the blues gets you down.

When she wrote about having "stretch marks in places I hadn't realized stretch marks would appear", my first thought was she cares more about her body than her baby. Yet, throughout she insists she deeply loved her child. So this is another way the blues can hit you.

Thank goodness Tengelitsch had a very supportive husband! Why the puppy brought her to a realization, I am not sure and neither may she be. Somehow that puppy made her grow up. She writes "...not as a girl....but as a woman..." she made her first decision.

"Show me motherhood as it really exists" Tengelitsch writes towards the end. Some one else commented this was a young mother. Maybe, we don't know. She apparently wasn't a very well informed mother or hadn't really witnessed other mothers.

I feel it took a lot of courage to write this story. It supports her own theory of gaining wisdom by accepting herself.