blog 15

I agree with everything that Ms. Silko stated in her article. I lived in Yuma for approximately four years, and Yuma is very close to the Mexicali fence she talks about. My family is from Las Cruces, so I recognize many of the checkpoints that she describes. In my journeys and throughout the time that I spent in Arizona and the traveling between Texas, New Mexico and California I have also noticed that many border patrol agents are extremely biased in who they pick for searches. I know that the stories that she tells of people that refuse a search without a warrant are made to wait and subjected to very rude treatment. The demeanor that the border patrol agents have is not one that the police abide by which is to protect and serve, but rather the accomplishment of one mission and that is to find as many drugs or illegal aliens as possible no matter how they come across. The entire border patrol culture is corrupt in my opinion. They feel as though they can treat you however they want with no regard as to how it may dehumanize you. At one time I had a old seventy two Chevy that I had to bring across one of the checkpoints on my way to Arizona from New Mexico, my truck broke down not even several hundred feet from the checkpoint and not one agent came to help me or see what was wrong, the only thing they wanted to know was why I looked suspicious because my truck broke down close to their checkpoint. That brings me back to my original point that their mission is not to protect or serve, they are solely looking for illegal activity in who ever they think may be doing it. I even had a border patrol agent who after Inspecting my military I.D. and confirming the fact that I was a Marine still proceeded to treat me aggressively as if I was trying to sneak something past him.

blog 14

If I were a soldier in Lt. Cross's unit I would carry only the things that I considered essential to my survival. All writing gear I would leave at base camp. I would not carry anything outside of what I was told to carry or anything that would hinder my movement or add unnecessary weight to my gear. I would try to disassociate myself with outside concerns knowing that the lives of the men around me were of utmost concern. In the story we see that Lt. Cross fails his men because of his daydreaming, this is because he didn't want to fight in this war. He was drafted against his will, he had no desire to be a warrior, this caused him to neglect the life and well being of the men he was in charge of. I think this story shows the schools of thought among the services; it may have been that in the Army we see lackadaisical Lieutenants who had no desire to be there in the first place. From my experience as a Marine I know that the men under your care come first at all cost, troop welfare is one of the most important virtues a Marine leader can possess and express through action. With this responsibility and rank as an officer comes instant willingness and obedience to all orders given to the troops under your command. I just think his entire mindset as a leader was wrong and the institution that put him in that leadership position without the proper training may have failed him. I honestly never carried anything outside of what I was told to carry or what may become a hindrance later on during my combat training. The only thing I would consider would be a small amount of letter writing gear, maybe. Your mission as a lower level soldier is not writing letters, your mission is to kill the enemy and protect the soldiers or Marines around you.

journal 13

Zitkala's accomplishments in her story are a by-product of the environment that she was forced to participate in. One could say that through hard work, determination, perhaps at times to undermine and learn the white-mans ways are what motivated her to study hard and in turn win the oratorical contest. To me that is a positive direction that the "American Dream" gave even the most looked down upon members in society a slim chance at success during this early time period in American history. This small achievement is testament that the American Dream would be a positive force in the years to come towards the same people that early American society oppressed at times. It is apparent that she is intelligent especially when she talks about not conforming to the white-mans bible and her bitterness to what she deemed as cruel care of her indian sisters in the school which maybe in her mind went against the very biblical teachings she was forced to learn. This bitterness is deeply portrayed when she says, "I blamed the hard working, well-meaning, ignorant woman who was inculcating in our hearts her superstitious ideas" (434). I guess what I am trying to express is that, even though she did succeed in a white-mans system, that is exactly what it was, a system that was not her own. While her success is a testament to how early Americans set up a society that in theory gave everyone the ability to be successful, it was not the society of her people, thus in my mind because she was forced to live this way I think it negates the whole idea of being free, which to me is the core concept of the American Dream. She expresses her disdain for this system when she says, "The melancholy of those black days has left so long a shadow that it darkens the path of years that have since gone by... Perhaps my Indian nature is the moaning wind which stirs them now for there present record" (435). It seems apparent to me that although she enjoyed the success of winning in the white-mans world she deplored the way in which it came about. She didn't have a great relationship with her mother because of it, and it seemed that she was far removed from her family. If one considers family an important aspect of the American Dream, from what I gather from the reading, her family because of this societal intrusion were at odds with what was deemed appropriate for her, therefore causing a rift between her mothers culture and the culture she was forced to learn.

blog #6

Blog #5

There is a prevailing theme amongst the text of both William Apess and Lydia Sigourney, I feel that the theme centers around civil rights, and more specifically the civil rights of the American Indian and those rights in relation to the contradictory nature of Christianities biblical teachings during that time in American history.
I actually respected the various points that William Apess was able to present in the text when he describes biblical teachings in relation to the way the American Indian was treated during that time period. He says, "If black or red skins or any other skin of color is disgraceful in to God, it appears that he has disgraced himself a great deal - for he has made fifteen colored people to to one white and placed them here upon this earth." [Apess 642]. This quotation captures this time period almost perfectly. Why the conquest? Why were these so called Christians slaughtering and massacring and treating the American Indian (amongst other colored races) sub-human? Apess says everything that could be the makings of a great civil rights speech given by Robert or John Kennedy or Martin Luther King. My only thought is to why I have never heard of this man until this point in my entire education. What a smart man, unfortunately he was preaching to the choir, what we know now is that white Americans didn't want to hear this, his people were persecuted until the almost bitter end of their existence, to the furthest recesses of American culture, a persecution climaxing at the imprisonment of Leonard Peltier of more recent American history.
Lydia Sigourney captures the American Indian in her poem Indian Names in a positive radiance. She tells of a Indian culture that has been and forever will be embedded in the land. She says "Your mountains build their monument, through ye destroy their dust" [38-40], I think that last line is absolutly critical in connecting the theme of both the readings. She is saying to God that his mountains are a monument for the lost culture of the American Indian but through your teachings you have destroyed the culture by conquest and in some aspects dominionism.

blog #4

Blog #3

Washington Irving's story "The Wife"says a lot about various social and economic values in the United States during that time period. The story has a great message about love and commitment, but on the other side of the spectrum its comes off as overwhelming materialistic. I don't think this story speaks for the majority of economic values in the United States during this time period. Most people didn't live in a nice house with beautiful furniture and expensive musical instruments, and a wife that didn't have to work to help and provide for the household. The husbands holds to many worldly values on a pedestal. He comes off as very feminine in the amount of whining that he does. It's almost a gender role reversal, the wife takes the news in stride and makes the best out of what she has and stays by her husband through the good and the bad, I believe both of these traits were an intergral part of the family structure during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries because life was more about survival. This story shows me that American values regarding women economics and marriage have changed greatly from previous centuries to what we see today.