Reading "The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-time Indian" by Sherman Alexie, is an interesting book to read. It seems to tell a story of a young Indian boy, growing up on a reservation with all the ups and downs of childhood. What it really is, is a story about life and how its a struggle to live it, wherever you're from, Ghetto (reservations), Flat lands (reservations), Suburban (reservations), or Wealthy Gated Community (reservations). They are all places where you have a knowledge of a style of life and only that style of life, and how only knowing one style of life always is limiting to your growth and well-being as a complete individual.
Therefore what I would tell a young readers is, "I have a book you would like and it's about you". It's funny and interesting. I wouldn't use words like "thought provoking", "insightful", or even "helpful". I would tell him/her that I saw them all the way through it. And to see if they could find the part that is talking about them. Being young, it always has to be about them. Lets see if I peaked they're curiosity.
So as I said earlier, it doesn't matter which "reservation" you're from. For example, If you're from the Ghetto reservation, all you know is your friends and family, strife, struggle, difficult times and a constant mindset of hustle just to survive. But you still know, even though everyday looks bad there can more than that available to you "out there in the world".
Now for the opposite end of the spectrum: Example #2.
You could be from the "Wealthy Gated Community reservation". All you know is the "lifestyle of the rich and famous", fast luxury cars, lavish home, abundant money, and privilege. But as you grow and learn there is a whole other life outside those lavish walls you "hopefully" feel you need to know more about that side of life also (not want to be poor), so as to develop into a well rounded person with empathy, understanding, compassion and kinship with others. To be, all you can be.
Myron
Saturday, February 22, 2014
Critiquing the Reading Assignment
Reading the (3) three papers on "The Absolute truth of a Part-time Indian", I decided to write about the first paper.
In reading the paper, a couple of times. I don't think enough information, especially information directly relating to Alexi was given in the paper since there was the continued reference to, and comparison of struggles he had in his own life. Unless I missed that in the book. There was also references in the paper to other books and characters that we, the reader, had very little knowledge of such as, who is Victor and what is "Smoke Signals"? Later it became slightly clearer as the paper went on, but I feel it would have been better for the reader to have that information when it was brought up. Like when he first mentioned Victor and Thomas and let us know they were characters in his other book. As I said, it did become clear later but in its current place I was wondering who? And what? But that being said, I think Paper #l had good information was written in a way that for the most part had a flow that was easy to follow and most statements, metaphoric and actual were followed by substantiating evidence or examples and a lot of clear references to pages in the book itself.
Now, personally I didn't get the "Stupid Horse" parity to Arnold's life, but in reading how the writer made that comparison it could be an exceptable one. I think the author mentioned lots of areas that described the story with many examples and did a good job of comparing Arnold's life to anyone's who is dealing with the struggles of growing up in a difficult situation and knowing there could be more to life than what is immediately in front of them. All they have to do is want it bad enough. Having dreams visualized in his drawing wasn't enough. He had to leave. Which was also clearly stated in the paper.
Myron
In reading the paper, a couple of times. I don't think enough information, especially information directly relating to Alexi was given in the paper since there was the continued reference to, and comparison of struggles he had in his own life. Unless I missed that in the book. There was also references in the paper to other books and characters that we, the reader, had very little knowledge of such as, who is Victor and what is "Smoke Signals"? Later it became slightly clearer as the paper went on, but I feel it would have been better for the reader to have that information when it was brought up. Like when he first mentioned Victor and Thomas and let us know they were characters in his other book. As I said, it did become clear later but in its current place I was wondering who? And what? But that being said, I think Paper #l had good information was written in a way that for the most part had a flow that was easy to follow and most statements, metaphoric and actual were followed by substantiating evidence or examples and a lot of clear references to pages in the book itself.
Now, personally I didn't get the "Stupid Horse" parity to Arnold's life, but in reading how the writer made that comparison it could be an exceptable one. I think the author mentioned lots of areas that described the story with many examples and did a good job of comparing Arnold's life to anyone's who is dealing with the struggles of growing up in a difficult situation and knowing there could be more to life than what is immediately in front of them. All they have to do is want it bad enough. Having dreams visualized in his drawing wasn't enough. He had to leave. Which was also clearly stated in the paper.
Myron
Monday, February 10, 2014
Friday, February 7, 2014
Myron Waters
Getting at Obama's State of the Union:
Well. I think he did what I expected him to do. He has very good speech writers and he is quite an elegant and effective orator.
That being said, I personally was hoping for more. More passion, more directness, a more defiant and respectfully "in your face" message. I see the President as someone who had his heart in the right place both times he ran for office but someone who had an uphill battle since day one, for several different reasons. And Race was definitely one. I think he hit on all the areas everybody thought he would, but there wasn't enough details in each area to make the case. If we look at any one of the issues he mentioned, they all have a valid need to be addressed. But, take gun control for example, with all the tragedy that has happened and is happening every day, I think he could have not only mentioned where they happened but why and how they happened, and what "good, bipartisan, common sense", ways to deal with this problem.
Watching the partisan reactions to the speech lets me know that nothing is likely to change until he is gone. Or at the very least until there is a House, Senate and President all under the same party. Which is unfortunately terrible for our country. He is a President, not a King or Dictator. Contrary to what some GOP hate mongers want to characterize him as. Which means the party of "NO" is going to do nothing but obstruct as they have for the last 5 years. He doesn't seem to be a big practitioner of the Executive Order or he would use it more. Even though they can be cancelled or over written by the next president, who's going to have the balls to do it if it's in place and working for millions of people, i.e. the Affordable Care Act, also negatively referred to as "Obama Care" by the GOP.
Finally, as far as the Republican rebuttal goes. I didn't see them all, of which there were four(4), which shows, in my opinion, that they don't speak with one(1) voice even within they're own party, there's fragmentation and disagreement, and we're supposed to follow or believe in them??? The "official" response was also a dish of the same old thing, just toned down. "We have a better plan, a better way", but if they do why haven't they brought those ideas to the table and worked on making things better for the people they claim now they want to help. US, the middle class and even less fortunate. I hope my dissatisfaction with the whole process is coming through LOUD AND CLEAR
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/obama-income-inequality-100662.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/full-text-of-obamas-2014-state-of-the-union-address/2014/01/28/e0c93358-887f-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html
Thursday, February 6, 2014
The Native American Indian in Todays Society
When you think about the American Indian today you should think of the first peoples of this
country. I have never and will never understand how you can come to a place, where people live and
have been living for many hundreds of years and say "I discovered America". But I digress. So after the land was "rediscovered" and some bloody battles were over, the former but "non-existent" owners were banished and driven out to live in the most desolate areas. The current state of existence for a vast number of Native American Indians has been relegated to small reservations in several states. Some larger groups were pushed into a few Western States, into a life of pauperism. Though some have managed to carve out a relatively decent lifestyle through coming off the plantations, most have held on to their original culture and practices. With help from the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs), some tribes have been able to negotiate treaties with the U.S. government.
(2000 American Indians' Cultural Network)
In the contemporary relationship between the federal government and federally chartered tribes, as it has reached the present through a number of historical stages, the United States Congress with its powers to ratify treaties and regulate commerce is the trustee of the special Indian status. The trusteeship involves protection of Indian property; protection of Indian right to self-government; and the provision of services necessary for survival and advancement. In the commission of its trusteeship, Congress has placed the major responsibility for Indian matters in the Department of Interior and its subdivision the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In addition to the central office in Washington D.C., the BIA maintains regional offices in 12 states, mostly in the West, with agencies on particular reservations as well. Many Native Americans have positions in the BIA, but relatively few are at the highest positions.
Nowadays, there exist about 300 federal reservations in the United States, with a total of 52,017,551 acres held in trust by the federal government, the large majority west of the Mississippi. There are also 21 state reservations, most of these in the East. Some reservations are restricted to one tribe, others are jointly held. Some reservation land is owned, rented and occupied by non-Indians. The largest reservation is held by the Navajo tribe. Although the reservations are sovereign nations, the People are also considered U.S. citizens.
country. I have never and will never understand how you can come to a place, where people live and
have been living for many hundreds of years and say "I discovered America". But I digress. So after the land was "rediscovered" and some bloody battles were over, the former but "non-existent" owners were banished and driven out to live in the most desolate areas. The current state of existence for a vast number of Native American Indians has been relegated to small reservations in several states. Some larger groups were pushed into a few Western States, into a life of pauperism. Though some have managed to carve out a relatively decent lifestyle through coming off the plantations, most have held on to their original culture and practices. With help from the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs), some tribes have been able to negotiate treaties with the U.S. government.
(2000 American Indians' Cultural Network)
In the contemporary relationship between the federal government and federally chartered tribes, as it has reached the present through a number of historical stages, the United States Congress with its powers to ratify treaties and regulate commerce is the trustee of the special Indian status. The trusteeship involves protection of Indian property; protection of Indian right to self-government; and the provision of services necessary for survival and advancement. In the commission of its trusteeship, Congress has placed the major responsibility for Indian matters in the Department of Interior and its subdivision the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In addition to the central office in Washington D.C., the BIA maintains regional offices in 12 states, mostly in the West, with agencies on particular reservations as well. Many Native Americans have positions in the BIA, but relatively few are at the highest positions.
Nowadays, there exist about 300 federal reservations in the United States, with a total of 52,017,551 acres held in trust by the federal government, the large majority west of the Mississippi. There are also 21 state reservations, most of these in the East. Some reservations are restricted to one tribe, others are jointly held. Some reservation land is owned, rented and occupied by non-Indians. The largest reservation is held by the Navajo tribe. Although the reservations are sovereign nations, the People are also considered U.S. citizens.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
But, can't we reasonable people explore other options like:
1) Requesting toy gun manufactures not make their products so almost identical to the real thing. Do the children really have to have it identical. Can they really tell the difference. They're children!!
2) How about the color? The show 20/20 did a piece on children playing with guns the happened across in the home and found in public areas. Why does a real firearm, an admittedly dangerous/deadly weapon need to be painted pink like a toy?
3) Is it to much to ask, are we being totally unreasonable to ask that if you purchase a fire arm legally that you MUST learn how to use it. You don't have to become a marksman. But you must complete X amount of hours of training before you receive it, with a locking device.
One lady called a radio show making the argument as to why she needed a 20 round clip for her "assault rifle. She said "I'm not the best shot and some shots are going to miss" so I guess she should have a one hundred shot clip so 99 things outside of her house could die so one will hit the intended victim. It's to unreasonable to require her to learn to be a better shot. I don't get it. Where's her responsibility????
Everyone is required by law in every state in this country to pass a drivers test, both written and on-the-road, before they are issued a drivers license, another potentially dangerous/deadly weapon. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.
COME ON PEOPLE, CAN WE TRY TO DO SOMETHING JUST BECAUSE IT THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
Myron M.
myronsnlndr95.blogspot.com
myronsnlndr@hotmail.com