Thursday, February 4, 2010
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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I do believe there is a tone in Mary Brave Bird's voice. She has a very strong stance that Native Americans need to organize and create an image of a strong united front if they are to get the respect they deserve. The fact that she is willing to use violence as means to an end should make the reader realize how passionate she really is.
ReplyDeleteI agree that she is not emotional when she talk about the issue. But I think she have a strong standing of what she want to do. Her voice didn't carry much emotion but do carry the excitement of the movement and how other AIM members have a strong standing of it.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with you, i don’t think her tone of voice was neutral. I feel that she showed somewhat of a passion when she talked about AIM. I think that that she wanted to get across to the reader and show them what it was like to be part of the American Indian Movement. I agree with the two previous comment that she has a strong stand.
ReplyDeleteIs that your dog? She's cute!! (She?)
ReplyDeleteHmmm...I think I know where you're getting neutral from. She's writing about an extremely controversial topic, but remains very chill and laid-back for many usually exciting things. For instance, she really displays very little emotion for the conception of a child, and instead purports it as yet another defiant act against "the Man." Also, I think a major component to her seeming neutrality is the general feeling that she has a lack of original thought. In other words, she seems to just be repeating the opinions and stances of other people, rather than forming any sort of conclusion on her own. This has the effect of making the text seem very disconnected overall.
I think she appeals to ethos and has a very strong stance with the survival of Natives. To me, this is the most detailed piece we've read. However, I do think her purpose in writing draws from different events throughout the Natives trail to essential gain land back from Whites. There seems to be multiple purposes and this piece appears less coherent to me.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious in your response when you make the connection between her being a woman and the perceived lack of emotion in her voice. Does a woman's writing always have to be emotional? Is that a generalization? When we say women are naturally emotional writers are we putting something on the text that may not be there but is instead based on stereotypes about women?
ReplyDelete