Whats in a name?

All the talk about names in Margaret's last chapter, The Healing, really got me thinking. Margaret's narration and her discussion with Fleur in this chapter, along with some previous parts in the book pose the idea that a name defines who we are. In the society in which we all currently live, the opposite if most often true. Most names are often chosen before the birth of a child with no consideration of the baby or child's personality or familial history. The story, however, suggests that the nature of a person and their name should be closely related. The name of the book itself, Four Souls, is the name of the main character, though nobody ever calls her by this name. Towards the beginning of the story, Nanapush goes on quite a little rant about names, sparked by the consideration of the impact of Fleur's name, "Four Souls" on her life. Fleur's son lacks a name and Margaret suggests that this is the reason he "lacks a soul" (or whatever his ailment/disability/?? may be). In the end, Margaret says that Fleur has not lived up to the name, Four Souls and must find a new name in the dress. This confused me again because it goes against the 'name picks you' idea that was previously weaved throughout the story. I think I have concluded that the name did pick Fleur and everything played out as it was meant. The name Four Souls had a different effect on Fleur than it did on her mother so Margaret and the others believe Fleur did not live up to the name.

On page 47 Nanapush says, "When Fleur took the name Four Souls she thought she was taking a name that would build her up, protect her, and it was true, the original Four Souls was a powerful woman. What Fleur didn't know was the name would take over and have more of an effect upon her than she could have conceived. For the name was something else--it was forceful, it was old, and it had its own intentions. In the end, it was even stronger than Fleur."

I think this suggests and foreshadows that the name took Fleur in the direction that she went--to Mauser and that life. It had its own intentions and combined with Fleur's personality, carried out what it was set to do. What it was set to do I am still debating--retrieve the land? Touch the lives of Mauser and Polly Elizabeth? Fleur's intent from the beginning of the story was restoring the land and seeking revenge on Mauser. Her spirit, the spirit in the name, is what drove her to actually go and act on her intentions. It ends up being ironic because in her pursuit, she draws further and further from her native roots, her native culture--Margaret mentions in her last chapter that people also referred to Fleur as "White Woman". Perhaps the name was drawn to her because it knew of her destiny, to be drawn away from her culture. It pushed her, it drew her so far away, so far down that the only thing to do was to go back.

I seem to have a lot to say about names--maybe I should have considered this for my essay??!

Requiem for a Leg

I have found these fictional readings to be a lot easier to read and enjoy than the non fictional texts. I think this fits in well with our discussion in class about what fiction may do that non fiction does not. reality is never as entertaining as fantasy so I think most people probably approach reading with that in mind-automatically thinking that something that is fiction will be entertaining and non-fiction, probably not as much. With fictional works, the writer can add in details that make a story more interesting or funny or make the entire topic a sort of folly, like in Requiem for a Leg. The entire premise of the story revolves around a dismembered leg. Further, the people on the museum side of the trial don't even have any idea of the significance of the leg. They want it simple because they think it is a cool"artifact" though they don't know for sure the time frame that the leg was still...intact? or who the leg originally was attached to, his tribe, or why the leg was even detached from the body. It points to how ridiculous and selfish the Americans are in just taking things (from the Native Americans) because they can, even if they really don't need or want it-they just want to have it. Though the story does turn situations like these into a joke, I do not think it makes people take all situations like this lightly.

Ines Hernandez-Avila's An Open Letter to Chicanas and Ines Petersen's What Part Moon raised interesting issues about who is considered an Indian. We've discussed this in class a bit relating to other readings and our midterm but it is still a controversial and somewhat unanswered question for me. Avila seems to emphasize acceptance of one's cultural background and taking pride in all of one's various cultures. Petersen definitely expresses that she believes technical amounts or percentages are far less important than how one personally identifies with a culture and how they feel inside of themselves. While I wholeheartedly agree with both of these women's positions, it is not always so easy. Relating back to the reading from the first day there are many instances, especially in North America where clear lines need to be drawn as to whether or not one can be considered Indian, and this often related to one's blood line or technical percentage/racial breakdown. Do these sorts of restrictions, imposed by the American Government perpetuate more strict and judgmental attitudes among Indians? I know nobody can really answer these questions with full confidence but input and opinions are welcome!

We Aim NOT To Please

I liked how Mary Brave Bird detailed her first encounter with the AIM and her initial thoughts and experiences. As the reader, and as people who were most likely not present for these events, her description of when she is not yet a part of the movement is something the reader could relate to. The build-up and quotes from the events leading up to the Trail of Broken Treaties were also very affective at giving a sense of what the Indians were experiencing, and how fed up and sort of desperate they were. Desperate in a sense that they had no other choice than to act with force or violence since their verbal efforts went in vain for so long. I found the tone to be rather neutral in terms of emotion. The subject matter is very emotional and would cause any reader to draw strong opinions on the event but I didn't feel Brave Bird's collection of words specifically conveyed an especially emotional tone. In fact, I kept forgetting that the author was a woman and found myself surprised every time the text blatantly drew attention to the fact that the author is a woman. Anybody else feel the same way? Or the exact opposite and think I'm blind for not reading into an emotion that is there?

To The American Indian Chapt 1-5

Chapter 1 was a very monotonous read for me...as I'm sure it was for everyone. Lucy gave an incredible amount of detail about many different important aspects of Yurok life. Relating to our discussion today, I think this is an attempt at survivance. She has created a written account about her tribe that will outlast the existence of the Yurok, should their tribe cease to exist. She includes the Yurok names for different people as well as their words for objects, seasons, numbers, etc. This is significant as well (though just adds more confusion for a foreign reader) since, as we've also discussed in class, language is often a very important factor in the preservation of a population/society/culture. This all said, the book seems like less of a story of her life, less like an autobiography and more of a written account of Yurok traditions and daily life with a few personal stories added in to exemplify specific aspects.

Popol Vuh

I actually really enjoyed reading the Popol Vuh-though it was confusing at times. The values and traits important in the Mayan culture are pretty clearly communicated, as well as those traits deemed punishable. Arrogance was particularly emphasized as an undesirable trait. Vacub-Caquix and his sons were even killed because of their outstanding arrogance. It seems as though everyone's punishment for unacceptable behavior is death. I noticed though, that while Hunahpu and Xbalanque's half brothers were punished, they were not killed. They were fooled by the youths, turned into monkeys, and laughed at by their own mother who was never punished for her cruel treatment of the youths. This seems like revenge, an eye for an eye. I wouldn't think a religious text, intended to guide a culture would promote this notion.

Sadie

I chose my title to be Sadie May because it is my dog's name. I love dogs and love Sadie! She is a 13 year old golden retriever mix. We got her when I was in 3rd grade. My sister and I were in our front yard when we saw that our neighbors were playing with a bunch of puppies in their front yard. We, of course, ran over and fell in love with them. Our neighbor's brother was at some secluded beach one day when he saw a man about to drown Sadie and her brothers and sisters! He had a pure bread golden and intended to breed her but the she was impregnated by their neighbor's mutt. After a surprisingly small amount of begging, my parents said we could take home one of the puppies. We decided on the piggy of the pack-first to the food bowl and the last to leave. She didn't walk, she waddled.