Difference between revisions of "328 2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→US, 194-220, Paige Raibmon, “The Practice of Everyday Colonialism: Indigenous Women at Work in the Hop Fields and Tourist Industry of Puget Sound”) |
|||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
"Squaw drudges who failed to embody the proper gendered division of labor were implicitly to blame for both their own oppression and men's dissolution" (p. 199). These working class Indigenous women were trying to support their families in any way possible, but of course they were still expected to remain in the home, in the private sphere. When they were seen working harder than men, they were immediately blamed for all of the men's laziness instead of being praised for their hard labor and determintion to support their families. They were especially looked down on when they accepted money from tourists who treated them as "tourist attractions" (p. 201). However, as the article mentions, this income was often more reliable than what they received for fieldwork. I think this gives us a good glimpse at the society of the late nineteenth century, where people expected the impossible and never considered the reality. Today these women are known for all the hard labor they went through to support their families and to survive, hardly what they were known for during their time. I think we also try to remember the discrimination and obstacles they faced as an indigenous peoples. They were not seen as normal, everyday people, but as "field hands,"vanishing Indians" (p.201), tourist attractions, "subjects" for photographs (p. 202), and manual laborers. -- CBrau | "Squaw drudges who failed to embody the proper gendered division of labor were implicitly to blame for both their own oppression and men's dissolution" (p. 199). These working class Indigenous women were trying to support their families in any way possible, but of course they were still expected to remain in the home, in the private sphere. When they were seen working harder than men, they were immediately blamed for all of the men's laziness instead of being praised for their hard labor and determintion to support their families. They were especially looked down on when they accepted money from tourists who treated them as "tourist attractions" (p. 201). However, as the article mentions, this income was often more reliable than what they received for fieldwork. I think this gives us a good glimpse at the society of the late nineteenth century, where people expected the impossible and never considered the reality. Today these women are known for all the hard labor they went through to support their families and to survive, hardly what they were known for during their time. I think we also try to remember the discrimination and obstacles they faced as an indigenous peoples. They were not seen as normal, everyday people, but as "field hands,"vanishing Indians" (p.201), tourist attractions, "subjects" for photographs (p. 202), and manual laborers. -- CBrau | ||
| + | |||
| + | I was really struck by the way the author said that indigenous women at this time were “dehumanized.” I had never really thought about it in that context, but it is true with the way white women thought about Indians. Because they were closely affiliated with nature and because of the belief that they didn’t feel pain during childbirth, they were no longer women or even really human. This is why it was so easy for white women to treat them as a sort of spectacle as opposed to real people. They acted the complete opposite from how women were supposed to act. - Angie | ||
== MP, 252-258-- Deena Gonzalez, “Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in 19th C. Sante Fe” (2005) == | == MP, 252-258-- Deena Gonzalez, “Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in 19th C. Sante Fe” (2005) == | ||
