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, 194-220, Paige Raibmon, “The Practice of Everyday Colonialism: Indigenous Women at Work in the Hop Fields and Tourist Industry of Puget Sound”) |
||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
Indigenous women workers were often engaged in “traditional culture” and “modern labor” at the same time. But what defines “traditional?” The author writes, “workers frequently used income from ‘modern’ wage labor to meet ‘traditional’ obligations to kin and community and to invest in Indigenous economies” (196). Wage labor didn’t assimilate these Indians, as they just used the money to maintain their culture. But in the case of meeting obligations to kin, Indian wage laborers weren’t really different than any other wage laborer. Also, couldn’t an Indian woman who gets paid to pick hops but also weaves a basket to sell be comparable to a white woman who gets paid to work in a factory but also sews a quilt to sell? Both weaving and sewing could be considered "traditional" activities, so wouldn't that mean that whites could also simultaneously engage in "traditional culture" and "modern labor?" -- Taylor Brann | Indigenous women workers were often engaged in “traditional culture” and “modern labor” at the same time. But what defines “traditional?” The author writes, “workers frequently used income from ‘modern’ wage labor to meet ‘traditional’ obligations to kin and community and to invest in Indigenous economies” (196). Wage labor didn’t assimilate these Indians, as they just used the money to maintain their culture. But in the case of meeting obligations to kin, Indian wage laborers weren’t really different than any other wage laborer. Also, couldn’t an Indian woman who gets paid to pick hops but also weaves a basket to sell be comparable to a white woman who gets paid to work in a factory but also sews a quilt to sell? Both weaving and sewing could be considered "traditional" activities, so wouldn't that mean that whites could also simultaneously engage in "traditional culture" and "modern labor?" -- Taylor Brann | ||
| + | |||
| + | "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 | ||
== 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) == | ||
