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?