Difference between revisions of "328 2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→US, 178-193, Devon Mihesuah, “’Too Dark to Be Angels’: The Class System among the Cherokees at the Female Seminary”) |
(→US, 178-193, Devon Mihesuah, “’Too Dark to Be Angels’: The Class System among the Cherokees at the Female Seminary”) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
I agree with Alice on her analysis in regards to pride about having Native American ancestry. There are also a number of other things that surprised me while reading this. I was surprised that the "mixed-blood" families were more accepted in society and received better. Though I understand their skin was lighter, in many cases even today, biracial or people with a variety of ethnic backgrounds are ostracized from both groups. I was also slightly surprised by the division among the Cherokee. Whether mixed-blood or not, I was expecting some sense of unity that did not occur. Looking back into history, many people remember their roots or where they came from, this is not the case in this situation. This alone could have proved detrimental to the efforts of Native Americans at this time.--MDvorak | I agree with Alice on her analysis in regards to pride about having Native American ancestry. There are also a number of other things that surprised me while reading this. I was surprised that the "mixed-blood" families were more accepted in society and received better. Though I understand their skin was lighter, in many cases even today, biracial or people with a variety of ethnic backgrounds are ostracized from both groups. I was also slightly surprised by the division among the Cherokee. Whether mixed-blood or not, I was expecting some sense of unity that did not occur. Looking back into history, many people remember their roots or where they came from, this is not the case in this situation. This alone could have proved detrimental to the efforts of Native Americans at this time.--MDvorak | ||
| − | On page 190 of “Too Dark to be Angles,” I found these two sentences to be contradictory to the rest of the article. First, “The girls’ seminary experiences helped to strengthen their identities as Cherokees…” Second, “Both the progressive and the traditional tribal members considered themselves to be more Cherokee than the other group.” I think the reason that these sentences threw me off is because throughout the reading I the author gave numerous examples of how full-blooded Cherokees were discriminated against within the seminary. Those Cherokees that were mixed blooded were considered more intelligent because they were whiter. So, it just seems a little contradictory to argue that the seminary schools (that didn’t teach anything of the Cherokee language or culture) brought about a strong Cherokee identity to its students. -- Erin Sanderson | + | '''On page 190 of “Too Dark to be Angles,” I found these two sentences to be contradictory to the rest of the article. First, “The girls’ seminary experiences helped to strengthen their identities as Cherokees…” Second, “Both the progressive and the traditional tribal members considered themselves to be more Cherokee than the other group.”''' I think the reason that these sentences threw me off is because throughout the reading I the author gave numerous examples of how full-blooded Cherokees were discriminated against within the seminary. Those Cherokees that were mixed blooded were considered more intelligent because they were whiter. So, it just seems a little contradictory to argue that the seminary schools (that didn’t teach anything of the Cherokee language or culture) brought about a strong Cherokee identity to its students. -- Erin Sanderson |
I think that the school did work to develop a Cherokee identity in its students, just not a traditional identity and not one that we would imagine as Cherokee today. Yes, some of the girls only had trace amounts of Cherokee ancestry, but they still identified strongly as Cherokee. It's just that they identified with an assimilated form of Cherokee identity, one that emulated white society. They ridiculed the darker, less assimilated girls not for being Cherokee per se, but for not embracing their version of what it meant to be Cherokee. As for the girls being bullied for their skin tone and traditions, they may have come to identify more strongly with their traditional Cherokee roots in the face of opposition. So both groups did maintain a connection to a Cherokee identity, it's just that, as the article states, "there were differences in opinion as to what a Cherokee really was." -Mary Ann | I think that the school did work to develop a Cherokee identity in its students, just not a traditional identity and not one that we would imagine as Cherokee today. Yes, some of the girls only had trace amounts of Cherokee ancestry, but they still identified strongly as Cherokee. It's just that they identified with an assimilated form of Cherokee identity, one that emulated white society. They ridiculed the darker, less assimilated girls not for being Cherokee per se, but for not embracing their version of what it meant to be Cherokee. As for the girls being bullied for their skin tone and traditions, they may have come to identify more strongly with their traditional Cherokee roots in the face of opposition. So both groups did maintain a connection to a Cherokee identity, it's just that, as the article states, "there were differences in opinion as to what a Cherokee really was." -Mary Ann | ||
| − | While reading the article “Too Dark to Be Angels” I found that it parallels to the story of “Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884”. Both speak about the Indian women’s seminaries, it isn’t our-right spoken in Zitkala-Sa’s article, but it’s implied in her wanting to go East “crossed the Missouri in the evening…we stopped before a massive brick building,” (pg.241). I also found a parallel that men have taken advantage of women as objects here as well. “The Cherokee National Council was controlled by progressive, educated, mixed-blood tribesmen,” (pg. 178). Once again dictating what women learn about or shall act while in such seminary; to mold and bend them into what they see fit. ---Morgan M. | + | '''While reading the article “Too Dark to Be Angels” I found that it parallels to the story of “Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884”.''' Both speak about the Indian women’s seminaries, it isn’t our-right spoken in Zitkala-Sa’s article, but it’s implied in her wanting to go East “crossed the Missouri in the evening…we stopped before a massive brick building,” (pg.241). I also found a parallel that men have taken advantage of women as objects here as well. “The Cherokee National Council was controlled by progressive, educated, mixed-blood tribesmen,” (pg. 178). Once again dictating what women learn about or shall act while in such seminary; to mold and bend them into what they see fit. ---Morgan M. |
Another point I did not understand at first was why the darker girls, who had more Cherokee blood were being made fun of because of it. “Mixed-blood students frequently scorned those girls who had less white blood and darker skin,” (pg.180). Is this not a school for assimilation for the Cherokee girls? Reading further in I found that the women and girls of this school strive to be “equal” to white women, as “anything ‘white’ was ideal” stated Kate O’Donald Ringland, (pg.181). For this fact, to be as white as possible, the seminary’s repressed all Cherokee values and “offered no courses focusing on Cherokee culture,” (pg.178). ---Morgan M. | Another point I did not understand at first was why the darker girls, who had more Cherokee blood were being made fun of because of it. “Mixed-blood students frequently scorned those girls who had less white blood and darker skin,” (pg.180). Is this not a school for assimilation for the Cherokee girls? Reading further in I found that the women and girls of this school strive to be “equal” to white women, as “anything ‘white’ was ideal” stated Kate O’Donald Ringland, (pg.181). For this fact, to be as white as possible, the seminary’s repressed all Cherokee values and “offered no courses focusing on Cherokee culture,” (pg.178). ---Morgan M. | ||
| − | I think Erin brings up a great point that I did not catch myself. Although the schools did seem to instill a sense of Cherokee within in the women, I think the schools main accomplishment was the desire to be more "white", as Morgan points out. I think this was really emphasized through the perceptions of intelligence among the girls at the seminary and the teaching that was going on. As quoted on page 181, Albert Sydney Wyly "expressed his impatience with the full-blood girls by referring to the mixed-bloods as "whiter" and therefore "more intellectual". I think these schools were set up to Americanize the Native American population, rather than instill Cherokee ideals. -abratchi | + | I think Erin brings up a great point that I did not catch myself. '''Although the schools did seem to instill a sense of Cherokee within in the women, I think the schools main accomplishment was the desire to be more "white",''' as Morgan points out. I think this was really emphasized through the perceptions of intelligence among the girls at the seminary and the teaching that was going on. As quoted on page 181, Albert Sydney Wyly "expressed his impatience with the full-blood girls by referring to the mixed-bloods as "whiter" and therefore "more intellectual". I think these schools were set up to Americanize the Native American population, rather than instill Cherokee ideals. -abratchi |
I found it truly disturbing that female teachers exemplified multiple cases of insensitivity throughout this reading. The teachers, though white, should have recognized the similarities between themselves and the Cherokee girls they were responsible for. At this point in time, women had few rights, neither did the Cherokee. It would have been more productive to encourage the young girls, in turn making it easier for them to assimilate, if that was in fact their main goal.--MDvorak | I found it truly disturbing that female teachers exemplified multiple cases of insensitivity throughout this reading. The teachers, though white, should have recognized the similarities between themselves and the Cherokee girls they were responsible for. At this point in time, women had few rights, neither did the Cherokee. It would have been more productive to encourage the young girls, in turn making it easier for them to assimilate, if that was in fact their main goal.--MDvorak | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
I found it surprising that the Cherokee National Council was made up Cherokee that were mostly mixed blood and prescribed to upper-class Southern antebellum values. Many of the girls who attended the seminary were from slave holding families. Considering that many of them ascribed to white values and had the appearance of whites, why did they even acknowledge themselves as Cherokee when they felt that Cherokee were inferior to whites? Why didn’t these girls just go to a regular school, leaving the more traditional, “uneducated” girls who wanted to learn about white society to go to the Cherokee seminaries? -- Taylor Brann | I found it surprising that the Cherokee National Council was made up Cherokee that were mostly mixed blood and prescribed to upper-class Southern antebellum values. Many of the girls who attended the seminary were from slave holding families. Considering that many of them ascribed to white values and had the appearance of whites, why did they even acknowledge themselves as Cherokee when they felt that Cherokee were inferior to whites? Why didn’t these girls just go to a regular school, leaving the more traditional, “uneducated” girls who wanted to learn about white society to go to the Cherokee seminaries? -- Taylor Brann | ||
| − | I found it interesting in “Too Dark to be Angels,” that despite how many girls could have been traumatized by the racism against them, the seminary actually helped many girls get ahead in life. At the very end of the article, Mihesuah says “despite its shortcomings, the Cherokee seminary was unquestionably the catalyst for the prosperity of many Cherokee women and their families.” (p. 191) Yes, the seminary made it almost impossible to keep one’s culture, but at the same time, it made it possible for many girls to succeed who would not previously have been able to. The school taught subjects like latin and math that other white schools would have been teaching, thereby allowing Cherokee girls to take part in mainstream society. -- Angie | + | I found it interesting in “Too Dark to be Angels,” that '''despite how many girls could have been traumatized by the racism against them, the seminary actually helped many girls get ahead in life.''' At the very end of the article, Mihesuah says “despite its shortcomings, the Cherokee seminary was unquestionably the catalyst for the prosperity of many Cherokee women and their families.” (p. 191) Yes, the seminary made it almost impossible to keep one’s culture, but at the same time, it made it possible for many girls to succeed who would not previously have been able to. The school taught subjects like latin and math that other white schools would have been teaching, thereby allowing Cherokee girls to take part in mainstream society. -- Angie |
I liked reading the essay "Too Dark to Be Angels." I thought there were multiple interesting points in the article. In particular I thought how the full-blood Cherokee girls were treated resembled what can be found at high schools even today. Some students today are still picked on because of their race or because they are of lower class. The reading talked about how the girls were sometimes left out because they were falling behind academically and were not able to go on outings with the older high school girls and also were unable to afford party clothes and/or after-dinner snacks. These types of things made the full-blood Cherokee girls feel inferior and they can also make girls in schools today feel left out or inferior to the upper class or other white females. -Amy Van Ness | I liked reading the essay "Too Dark to Be Angels." I thought there were multiple interesting points in the article. In particular I thought how the full-blood Cherokee girls were treated resembled what can be found at high schools even today. Some students today are still picked on because of their race or because they are of lower class. The reading talked about how the girls were sometimes left out because they were falling behind academically and were not able to go on outings with the older high school girls and also were unable to afford party clothes and/or after-dinner snacks. These types of things made the full-blood Cherokee girls feel inferior and they can also make girls in schools today feel left out or inferior to the upper class or other white females. -Amy Van Ness | ||
| − | I really liked Amy's point above. Even back in 19th century Cherokee seminaries, there were still mean girl cliques. A tale as old as time... Also, I have the same questions as Taylor. Why did the girls consider themselves Cherokee still if they resembled and lived like the white southerners and felt inferior to them for being Cherokees.. I was astounded as to how European the girls in the photos looked, and then I read the captions where one stated the girls pictured were 1/32 Cherokee. I was quite shocked to learn how even those very distantly-related Cherokee girls considered themselves Cherokee even when they had never even heard the language or witnessed any tribal functions/ceremonies. - christine l | + | I really liked Amy's point above. '''Even back in 19th century Cherokee seminaries, there were still mean girl cliques. A tale as old as time...''' Also, I have the same questions as Taylor. Why did the girls consider themselves Cherokee still if they resembled and lived like the white southerners and felt inferior to them for being Cherokees.. I was astounded as to how European the girls in the photos looked, and then I read the captions where one stated the girls pictured were 1/32 Cherokee. I was quite shocked to learn how even those very distantly-related Cherokee girls considered themselves Cherokee even when they had never even heard the language or witnessed any tribal functions/ceremonies. - christine l |
It is interesting that both the mixed-blood and full-blood Cherokee girls in seminary identified with their Cherokee origins, and that each felt that they were the more “in touch” with their lineage than the other group. It seems that one’s perception of their identity had more of an impact on who they became than solely genetic factors. Those who had lighter skin knew that they had more options socially than those who were darker, because they fit in better with the notion that the white society was the more desirable. Yet at the same time, they did not identify completely with the white culture they sought to mix into, instead they wanted to be identified as Cherokee. I find it interesting as well that the society that had previously held the “one drop” policy that restricted African Americans did not seem to have the same effect on schooling for Native Americans (perhaps I missed that section in the readings but that struck me as slightly different)--jmarshal | It is interesting that both the mixed-blood and full-blood Cherokee girls in seminary identified with their Cherokee origins, and that each felt that they were the more “in touch” with their lineage than the other group. It seems that one’s perception of their identity had more of an impact on who they became than solely genetic factors. Those who had lighter skin knew that they had more options socially than those who were darker, because they fit in better with the notion that the white society was the more desirable. Yet at the same time, they did not identify completely with the white culture they sought to mix into, instead they wanted to be identified as Cherokee. I find it interesting as well that the society that had previously held the “one drop” policy that restricted African Americans did not seem to have the same effect on schooling for Native Americans (perhaps I missed that section in the readings but that struck me as slightly different)--jmarshal | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
I agree with Christine L. the cliques inside the seminary were similar to the cliques we see today in movies such as Mean Girls, it shows that we have not changed much throughout history and that the class system exists with the influence of monetary status. The girls who were full-blood were not open to the full possibilites education had to offer because they were not able to attend primary school, but I found it interesting that they were still able to maintain good grades. While, some of the girls could not stay long in the seminary due to family or financial reasons they still maintained grades close to the mixed girls. I wondered how many students the seminary accepted? If there was a limit and even with the comments from the superintendent why were so many full-blooded girls accepted when they faced criticism for being themselves? -Megan W. | I agree with Christine L. the cliques inside the seminary were similar to the cliques we see today in movies such as Mean Girls, it shows that we have not changed much throughout history and that the class system exists with the influence of monetary status. The girls who were full-blood were not open to the full possibilites education had to offer because they were not able to attend primary school, but I found it interesting that they were still able to maintain good grades. While, some of the girls could not stay long in the seminary due to family or financial reasons they still maintained grades close to the mixed girls. I wondered how many students the seminary accepted? If there was a limit and even with the comments from the superintendent why were so many full-blooded girls accepted when they faced criticism for being themselves? -Megan W. | ||
| − | Some of the passages I found most striking in this article involved the feelings of inferiority that were internalized by the students, particularly those who had more Cherokee blood. Na-li expresses happily that "My complexion does not prevent me from acquiring knowledge and being useful hereafter." [p. 182] That they were so able to associate their own heritage and skin color with their inferior social standing demonstrates the ways that the seminary failed them culturally. On page 185, a male Cherokee seminary graduate celebrates his "whiteness" and says "it is the white blood that made us what we are." It just seems like a pretty high price to pay to find success outside of the Cherokee community. - Erin B. | + | '''Some of the passages I found most striking in this article involved the feelings of inferiority that were internalized by the students, particularly those who had more Cherokee blood.''' Na-li expresses happily that "My complexion does not prevent me from acquiring knowledge and being useful hereafter." [p. 182] That they were so able to associate their own heritage and skin color with their inferior social standing demonstrates the ways that the seminary failed them culturally. On page 185, a male Cherokee seminary graduate celebrates his "whiteness" and says "it is the white blood that made us what we are." It just seems like a pretty high price to pay to find success outside of the Cherokee community. - Erin B. |
== US, 194-220, Paige Raibmon, “The Practice of Everyday Colonialism: Indigenous Women at Work in the Hop Fields and Tourist Industry of Puget Sound” == | == US, 194-220, Paige Raibmon, “The Practice of Everyday Colonialism: Indigenous Women at Work in the Hop Fields and Tourist Industry of Puget Sound” == | ||
