My account replicates the very order of violence that it writes against by placing yetanother demand upon the girl, by requiring that her life be made useful or instructive, byfinding in it a lesson for our future or a hope for history.
Is it truly equitable? Does intentionality not matter? Is this a demand for information or is this an attempt of understanding?
Unfortunately I have not discovered a way of deranging the archive so that it might recallthe content of a girl’s life or reveal a truer picture, nor have I succeeded in prying open thedead book, which sealed her status as commodity.
Arguably a stated response to an earlier question where the author admits defeat.
The necessity of recounting Venus’s death is overshadowed by the inevitable failure of anyattempt to represent her.
Is this whole piece a failure, then? What is representation, truly? Can anything actually be represented?
By playing with and rearranging the basic elements of the story, by re-presenting thesequence of events in divergent stories and from contested points of view, I have attemptedto jeopardize the status of the event, to displace the received or authorized account, and toimagine what might have happened or might have been said or might have been done.
Half an answer to one of my previous questions, but still not as full as I would have preferred.
Hadn’t I too consigned them to oblivion? I
Really strong statement.
I chose not to tell a story about Venus because to do so would have trespassed the boundariesof the archive. History pledges to be faithful to the limits of fact, evidence, and archive, evenas those dead certainties are produced by terror
Understandable, but was the story not somewhat told in this piece? All of the work around "not" speaking to it, does it not create a sense of story? Is this about "Venus?"
In a free state, it would have been possible for the girls to attend to the death of a friendand shed tears for the loss, but a slave ship made no allowance for grief and when detectedthe instruments of torture were employed to eradicate it.
Important information, able to create a sense of true human empathy for the unknown.
The dream is to liberate themfrom the obscene descriptions that first introduced them to us.
Another well-spoken definition of the work going into a historiography.
I decided not to write about Venus for reasons different from those I attributed to him.Instead I feared what I might invent, and it would have been a romance.
Important context for the upcoming segment, considerable amount of anticipation building. I do not know how she will address "Venus."
How does one revisit the scene of subjectionwithout replicating the grammar of violence?
A great question and one I feel myself. Rhetorical.
What hasbeen said and what can be said about Venus take for granted the traffic between fact, fantasy,desire, and violence.
Clean summary heading into the next segment.
Loss gives rise to longing, and in thesecircumstances, it would not be far-fetched to consider stories as a form of compensation oreven as reparations, perhaps the only kind we will ever receive
Really really powerful.
There is not one extant autobiographical narrative of a femalecaptive who survived the Middle Passage.
That's terrible.
How can narrative embody life in words and at the same time respect what we cannotknow?
Can it even?
I want to tell a story about two girls capable of retrieving what remainsdormant—the purchase or claim of their lives on the present—without committing furtherviolence in my own act of narration
Answer to the ethical question, important and discussing the tone and scope of the piece.
s. And the stories that exist are not about them, butrather about the violence, excess, mendacity, and reason that seized hold of their lives, trans-formed them into commodities and corpses, and identified them with names tossed-off asinsults and crass jokes.
What do you think the cost of doing work like that might be? Trying to get a story out of these kinds of stories is heartbreaking. Genuinely unsure if this is really ethical.
We only know whatcan be extrapolated from an analysis of the ledger or borrowed from the world of her captorsand masters and applied to her
Important considering the work being done by this piece. Tasteful language describing historiography.
Variously named Harriot, Phibba, Sara, Joanna,Rachel, Linda, and Sally, she is found everywhere in the Atlantic world. The barracoon, thehollow of the slave ship, the pest-house, the brothel, the cage, the surgeon’s laboratory, theprison, the cane-field, the kitchen, the master’s bedroom—turn out to be exactly the sameplace and in all of them she is called Venus
Really powerful phrasing, evocative, emotional, real.
By “pol! icy,” we must under! stand not only the 300-plus years of law and gov! ern! men!tal action thatestab! lished cat! e! gories of human beings fit for enslave! ment and other forms of oppres! sion, but also theshared con! cep! tual and lin! guis! tic her! itage that has formed the mean! ing of race in our world and thathas worked its way into every! thing from every! day lan!guage to gov! ern! ment forms.
Is this truly achievable? This is such a strong call to action that arguably counters over two thousand years of history. I am for trying, but this seems daunting.
Andwe can account for this by con! nect! ing the dots: both African slaves and Cir! cass! ian slaves were sub! jectto sex! ual exploita! tion, even if the lat! ter were sup! pos! edly res! cued from that fate, and this is the point ofcon!tact that played so pow! er! fully on white Amer! i!cans’ imag!i!na!tion:
Interesting summary, good considerable points in here.
their out! fits wereinven!tions, hav!ing noth! ing to do with the actual cloth! ing of women from the Cau! ca!sus region.
Is this actually surprising considering everything else being placed on these women? I thought that it would be a given
For an Amer!i!canaudi! ence both tit! il! lated and pan! icked by the prospect of race-mixing, trans! gres! sion of the taboo couldgo only so far before being sealed with disaster
Fantastic way of stating a well-argued point.
The idea of a woman being at the sex! ual mercy of her owner was not for! eign to the imag! i!na!tion of thewhite pub! lic at the time in the United States, but Pow! ers’ statue of a naked white woman alluded onlyindi! rectly (and per! haps for that rea! son in the only way then pub! licly pos! si! ble) to the fate of manyenslaved Black women
Having been educated in slavery as an institution, this is true and is still arguably true today. Really uncomfortable to consider fully, powerful statement.
As such, Greece becamea sym! bol of repub! li! can lib! erty against cor! rupt tyranny.
Good as a standalone comment.
And so Bar! num invented the “Cir! cass! ian Lady,” or some!times the “Cir! cass! ian Beauty,” as a sideshowper! former of a par! tic! u! lar kind. The type included a num! ber of key fea! tures: the woman must be pretty,or even beau! ti! ful, by Vic! to! rian stan!dards; she would wear exotic cloth! ing, gen! er! ally more reveal! ingthan that worn by Euro! pean and Amer!i!can woman of that era; she might dis! play strik! ing jew! elry andother orna!ments, such as strings of pearls or richly embroi! dered clothes. And the most telling fea! tureof all: the big hair.
Definitions are important, recognizing the inventor is important. Fulfills the promise of the first paragraph
$5000 in gold each (a vast sum in that day) for two Cir! cass! ianbeau! ties if Green! wood could suc! cess! fully infil! trate the slave mar! kets of Istan!bul to buy them with! outbeing detected as a Westerner.
I mean, buying a person for export to the United States is wild. I know that it can still occur today, but you would think that perhaps this is a little too illegal to actually do? I guess not? That's crazy.
The leg! end of the white “Cir! cass! ian Beauty” being sold into sex! ual slav!ery had taken on such a life ofits own that in the early 1860s P. T. Bar! num, the great Amer! i!can show! man and pro! moter of hokum,con!ceived the idea of buy! ing a Cir! cass! ian woman out of cap! tiv!ity in Turkey to exhibit in his wildly suc! -cess! ful Amer!i!can Museum in New York City.
Of course it would be him. Very classic American move (not a good one)
But his off-handed val! oriza!tionof the Cir! cass! ian woman as the ideal of white! ness and the Guinean man as the anti-ideal of black! nesscould not be more evi! dent; while he holds that they form part of the same species, he clearly con! sid! ersthe Guinean man a devo! lu! tion from the Cir! cass! ian type, itself sup! pos! edly the most per! fect form of theCaucasian.
Apart from name alone, how does this translate to the circus culture fully? I am eagerly awaiting a conclusion on this.
Already in his 1775 text, Blu! men!bach specif! i!cally iden! ti! fied the Cir! cass! ian women amongthe peo! ples of the Cau! ca! sus as the sin! gle most beau! ti! ful rep! re! sen! ta! tives of this pure and pri! mor!dial“Cau!casian” type: “Take, of all who bear the name of man, a man and a woman most widely dif! fer! entfrom each other; let the one be a most beau! ti! ful Cir! cass! ian woman and the other an African born inGuinea, as black and ugly as pos! si! ble”
Ugh. Gross. Important, but gross.
In 1775, the Ger! man nat!u! ral!ist Johann Friedrich Blu! men!bach (1752–1840)pub! lished On the Nat!ural Vari! ety of Mankind, a work that became one of the most influ! en! tial texts inthe emerg! ing Euro! pean sci! ence of race.
The unreal background of this starting, important to take note of.
It is a cru! elly ironic twist of his! tory that the “Cir! cass! ian Lady” became an invented trope of cir! -cus spec! ta! cle in the United States at pre! cisely the time that the actual Cir! cas!sians were suf! fer! ing eth! niccleans! ing in their homeland.
A good summary of the previous pages, relevant for future reference.
Cir! cas!sians, a peo! ple from the Cau! ca!sus region in whatis now mod! ern Russia
Juxtaposing her representation by the circus vs the actual ethnic group referred to
What I know now is that the woman depicted here fits the model of a kind ofper! formed per! son! al! ity dubbed the “Cir! cass! ian Lady” or the “Cir! cass! ian Beauty” in mid-19th cen! turyAmer!ica. What I learned about what is essen! tially a cir! cus iden! tity I find fas! ci! nat! ing because of what ittells us about how 19th cen! tury Amer! i!cans treated race, even the white race, as a spec! ta! cle, as a per!-formed iden! tity that might not be what it seemed.
Critically important in understanding the author's intentions here. Helps set up the stakes of the whole paper.
In fact, everythingwe know about environmental historysug-gests that people have been manipulating the naturalworld on various scales for aslong as we have a record of their passing.
Where is the argument that Native Americans also shaped their landscape? That is actually true and is lacking in this paper. It is funny to read someone's unassumed bias and see their western overtones when discussing the western overtones of the idea of the wilderness. Very meta.
Why,forinstance,is the "wildernessexperience"so oftenconceivedas a formofrecreationbest enjoyedby those whoseclassprivilegesgive them the time and re-sourcesto leavetheirjobsbehindand"getawayfromit all"?Whydoesthe protectionof wildernessso oftenseemto pit urbanrecreationistsagainstruralpeoplewhoactu-allyearntheirlivingfromthe land(exceptingthosewhosell goodsandservicesto-thetouriststhemselves
Relevant, but I think that this has moved some since this day. It is half-true, but real privilege in today's day and age is travel, health, and consumerism.
To theextentthatwildernesshasservedas an importantvehicleforarticulatingdeepmoralvaluesregardingourobligationsandresponsibilitiesto the nonhumanworld,I wouldnot wantto jettisonthe contributionsit has madeto our culture'swaysof thinkingaboutnatur
Summarizing the arguments made in the opening pages.
Wildernessgetsus intotroubleonly if we imaginethatthisexperienceof wonderand othernessis limitedto the remotecornersof the planet,or thatit somehowde-pendson pristinelandscapeswe ourselvesdo not inhabi
This goes really hard and is well-stated.
This, then, is the central paradox:wildernessembodies a dualistic vision in whichthe human is entirely outside the natural.If we allow ourselvesto believe that nature,to be true, must also be wild, then our verypresence in nature representsits fall.
Great point, well-made argument.
Wilderness fulfills the oldromantic project of secularizing Judeo-Christianvalues so as to make a new cathe-dral not in some petty human building but in God's own creation, Nature itself.
What is Norse Paganism if not this? I don't agree at all with this take, and I don't think that this demonstrates an understanding fully of the belief systems behind it.
This nostalgiafora passingfrontierwayof life inevitablyimpliedambivalence,ifnot downrighthostility,towardmodernityand all thatit represente
Really important little bit of reading here.
. Thus, in the myth of the vanishing frontier lay the seeds of wildernesspreservationin the United States, for if wild land had been so crucial in the makingof the nation, then surely one must save its last remnantsas monuments to the Ameri-can past-and as an insurance policy to protect its future.
Probably accurate. It is telling, however, that there was refusal before legislation to settle in National Park land. I think that this also downplays exactly how much land the United States has.
. No lessimportantwas the powerful romantic attractionof primitivism,dating back at least toRousseau-the belief that the best antidote to the ills of an overly refined and civi-lized modern world was a return to simpler, more primitive living.
Is that actually what Rousseau argued? I think not completely, and I believe that this is more of a human condition than a unique perspective of "man v. nature v. civilization"
The sublime wildernesshad ceased to bea place of satanic temptation and become instead a sacredtemple, much as it contin-ues to be for those who love it today.
Summary of the central argument of this essay.
Yet all three men areparticipatingin the same cultural traditionand contributing to the same myth: themountain as cathedral
What the author has been arguing and stated in a very clear way.
This was no casualstrollin the mountains,no simplesojournin the gentle lap ofnonhumannature.WhatWordsworthdescribedwas nothingless than a religiousexperience,akinto thatof the Old Testamentprophetsas theyconversedwiththeirwrathfulGod
Can it not be true that daunting natural phenomenon has always been incredible for the human body to experience? Is that not why people travel to see the landscapes of the world? Does it have to be rooted in a strict religious sense?
This waswhy the earlyChristiansaintsand mysticshad often emulatedChrist'sdesert retreatas they sought to experience for themselves the visions and spiritualtesting He had endured. One might meet devils and run the riskof losing one's soulin such a place, but one might also meet God. For some that possibilitywas worthalmost any price
Is this actually the case? My understanding of early Christian history contradicts this exact account, and this seems to be taking a stand that might not be backed by reality truly in order to guide the reader to a conclusion.
. Although wil-derness may todayseem to be just one environmental concern among many, it in factservesas the foundation for a long list of other such concerns that on their face seemquite remote from it. That is why its influence is so pervasiveand, potentially, soinsidious
Perhaps true, but also perhaps not. I feel as though this needs clearer explanation in order to actually make this argument effective. The wishy-washy language here loses the potency of the argument as well, disappointing considering the setup.
The sources of this ratherastonishingtransformationwere many, but for the pur-poses of this essay they can be gathered under two broad headings:the sublime andthe frontier
Important when thinking of the whole body of work, critical to understanding the author's intentions.
Wilderness had once been the an-tithesis of all that was orderlyand good -it had been the darkness,one might say,onthe far side of the garden wall-and yet now it was frequentlylikened to Eden itself.
The biblical roots here rock out hard.
ay.To be a wildernessthen wasto be "de-serted,""savage,""desolate,""barren"-in short, a "waste,"the word's nearest syn-onym. Its connotations were anything but positive, and the emotion one was mostlikely to feel in its presence was "bewilderment"or terror.
Extremely important to consider when reading this; the shifting perspective of wilderness is important considering the time and place of the discussion.
I hold that everyAmerican citizen has a fight to form an opinion of the constitution, and to propagate that opinion, andto use all honorable means to make his opinion the prevailing one. Without this fight, the liberty of anAmerican citizen would be as insecure as that of a Frenchman.
I really like this and he remains completely correct. The political devolution we feel now can directly be attested to the basic failure of civics and the regular discourse of civil duties or functions. We are, notably, citizens of the country.
In that instrument I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but,interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT.
He's right beyond his years and the fight to include people within the Constitution starts with the very document itself.
Americans! your republican politics, notless than your republican religion, are flagrantly inconsistent. You boast of your love of liberty, yoursuperior civilization, and your pure Christianity, while the whole political power of the nation (asembodied in the two great political parties), is solemnly pledged to support and perpetuate theenslavement of three millions of your countrymen.
Still extremely relevant. Speaks to the divide that is still felt today between people. 175 years ago is not as long as people may make it seem, it is only the difference of three people.
They have taughtthat man may, properly, be a slave; that the relation of master and slave is ordained of God; that tosend back an escaped bondman to his master is clearly the duty of all the followers of the Lord JesusChrist; and this horrible blasphemy is palmed off upon the world for Christianity.For my part, I would say, welcome infidelity! welcome atheism! welcome anything!
Well-argued, especially coming from someone who did believe in a Divine God. The hypocrisy is glaring and clear to any being with eyes.
By an act of the American Congress, not yet two years old, slavery has been nationalized in its mosthorrible and revolting form. By that act, Mason & Dixon’s line has been obliterated; New York hasbecome as Virginia; and the power to hold, hunt, and sell men, women, and children as slaves remainsno longer a mere state institution, but is now an institution of the whole United States. The power isco-extensive with the Star-Spangled Banner and American Christianity. Where these go, may also gothe merciless slave-hunter.
Extremely aware of his audience and how to sell the very real idea of how horrible slavery is and how pervasive it is to the American image. Two things to this audience are holy, and attaching the stain of slavery to it after detailing horrific acts so vividly creates a vile feeling in the whole.
Tell me citizens,WHERE, under the sun, you can witness a spectacle more fiendish and shocking. Yet this is but a glanceat the American slave-trade, as it exists, at this moment, in the ruling part of the United States.
Rhetorical, strong, sturdy.
There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than arethe people of these United States, at this very hour.
Man. He spares no blows that are deserved.
For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentleshower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nationmust be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must bestartled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must beproclaimed and denounced.
Still relevant to today. Wow.
I will, in the nameof humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the constitutionand the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, withall the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery-the great sin and shameof America! "I will not equivocate; I will not excuse;" I will use the severest language I can command;and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, orwho is not at heart a slaveholder, shall not confess to be right and jus
There it is, he understands both the true righteousness of his words and his ability to craft them. Awe-inspiring, powerful, and knowing.
Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, byasking me to speak to-day?
I do not and will not know where he found the ability to express himself so beautifully on stands he himself found to be so foreign and cruel. I know it was for the cause of emancipation, and yet being able to speak to the duality of beauty within American ideals and yet find the realities brought with it reprehensible is a complex task.
But, such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am notincluded within the pale of this glorious anniversary!
Resolving what the very first words of his speech were; excluding himself from the Fourth of July- and for good reason.
Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here to-day? What have I,or those I represent, to do with your national independence?
Rhetorical and powerful statement guiding the conversation along.
our fathers have lived, died, and have done their work, and have donemuch of it well. You live and must die, and you must do your work. You have no right to enjoy achild’s share in the labor of your fathers, unless your children are to be blest by your labors. You haveno right to wear out and waste the hard-earned fame of your fathers to cover your indolence.
I can only imagine the weight of the present on his mind. I too am frustrated with my present day and I relate to this, but to the caliber of his words? I don't think I ever can, which makes me all the more left in awe. How muster the strength?
The point from which I am compelled to view them is not, certainly, the most favorable; and yetI cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration.
Genuinely well-said, surmising his position as a person born in bondage while being able to recognize the revolutionary actions of great minds before him. Clearly setting the argument that the revolution was only half-complete, which is true.
I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt to the chain of yournation’s destiny; so, indeed, I regard it.
Summarizing his thoughts on the Colonies and their shaping of national identity by directly acknowledging the weight of the Declaration of Independence.
Oppression makes a wise man mad
Brilliant.
This home government, you know, although a considerable distance from your home,did, in the exercise of its parental prerogatives, impose upon its colonial children, such restraints,burdens and limitations, as, in its mature judgment, it deemed wise, right and proper.
Setting up the stakes; upcoming argument that the feeling is much the same but higher for the slave.
The eye of the reformer ismet with angry flashes, portending disastrous times; but his heart may well beat lighter at the thoughtthat America is young, and that she is still in the impressible stage of her existence. May he not hopethat high lessons of wisdom, of justice and of truth, will yet give direction to her destiny?
Damn.
This, for the purpose of this celebration, is the 4th of July. It is the birthday of your NationalIndependence, and of your political freedom
Representing his feeling well- poetic, simple, effective.
The fact is, ladies and gentlemen, the distance between this platform and the slave plantation, fromwhich I escaped, is considerable—and the difficulties to be overcome in getting from the latter to theformer, are by no means slight
The emotional stakes of speaking on the 4th of July
The productionofahistoricalnarrativecannotbestudied,therefore,throughamerechronologyofitssilences.
Nice. Able to quote that for real.
irst,factsarenevermeaningless:indeed,theybecomefactsonlybecausetheymatterinsomesense,howeverminimal.Second,factsarenotcreatedequal:theproductionoftracesisal-waysalsothecreationofsilences.
I do like the phrasing of this.
At some stage, for reasons thatare themselves historical, most often spurred by controversy, col-lectivities experience the need toimpose a test of credibilityoncertain events and narratives because it matters to them whetherthese events are true or false, whether these stories are fact orfiction,
Functions as a critical part of the argument and something that can be quoted.
Intheheated contextofthisdebate,advocatesonbothsidesarequestioningfactualstatements,theaccuracyofwhichmatteredtofewhalfacenturyago.“Facts,”bothtrivialorprominentinrelativeisolation,arequestionedorheraldedbyeachcamp.
I think a simple answer is that "it's complicated." History is inclusive, not exclusive. This means that many people can have a legitimate claim to the same events and it is important to try and reference that. A true historical account should make you feel as though things are complicated, it is not conclusive.
Aslongastheconver-sationinvolvesEuropeanstalkingaboutdeadIndians,thedebateismerelyacademic.
This is dismissive and not true, I do not agree with the argument being presented in this paper; Speak with any historian in this actual field and they will be quick to address the attitudes and dismissiveness of early European scholars and current-day society. It is a point of tragedy and shame that both the Indians experienced this and that there is not an accurate enough account of them. The work of history is generally a good-faith argument for the people that experienced a time, and on all sides. While there is going to always be narrative, it is not as cold as this makes and I do not think the discipline is well-understood.
Thatsuchrulesarenotthesameinalltimesandallplaceshasledmanyscholarstosuggestthatsomesocieties(non-Western,ofcourse)donot differentiatebetweenfictionandhistory.
Important to note as it does in part address the concerns of studying history. Most historians, while "accepting" a conventional narrative, acknowledge that it is likely contested and it is important to try and find anything that helps support the theories on the history suggested.
Withinthatviewpoint,historybecomesoneamongmanytypesofnarrativeswithnoparticularorceeexceptforitspretenseoftruth.?
Another point in support of the central theme, but I still cannot find agreement in this. History is a humanist discipline, it is not a science, and while it can be supported in science with archeological evidence, it will forever be our best guess at what happened and examined through our own biases.
Withinthat viewpoint, power is unproblematic, irrelevant to the con-struction of the narrative as such. At best, history is a story aboutpower, a story about those who won.
I disagree, I believe that the positivist position was not that power is irrelevant as if it were dismissed, I don't even think it was perceived. It is from that biased position that you could even begin to form a positivist view of historical records and at that point it is little more than historical narration of historical events, rather than an accurate depiction of history. There is still value in that but it is not definitive.
ThehistoryofFrancestartswithMichelet.”Themeaningoftheword“history”hasunam-biguouslyshiftedfromthesociohistorical processtoourknowl-edgeofthatprocess.Thesentenceaffirmsthatthefirstsignificantnarrativeabout FrancewastheonewrittenbyJulesMichelet.
This is not uncommon in English to have multiple meanings to the same word, I think it is an odd choice and peculiar to equate them.
Humanbeings participateinhistorybothasactorsooanarra-tors.Theinherentambivalenceofthewordhistoryinmanymodernlanguages,includingEnglish, suggeststhisdual—pation.
Both sentences here are quotable, and well-stated.
WhatIhopetodoistoshowhowmuchroomthereistolookattheproductionofhistoryoutsideofthedichotomiesthatthesepositions suggest andreproduce.
Main goal of writing truly established, it is important to have definitions in order to make an argument.
Notonlycanhistorymeaneitherthesociohistorical processorourknowledgeofthatprocess,buttheboundarybetweenthetwomeaningsisoften quitefluid
I wonder exactly why this distinction is made as if all history is history; is it not important to consider primary sources as history but be able to try and understand the timeframe to understand what could be or not be a true narrative? History in itself is a series of educated guesses at best, but I feel as though this may be too broad.
WiththebattlecryofSan Jacinto,Houston’smenreversedformorethanacenturythevictory SantaAnnathoughthehadgainedinSanAntonio.
Important when considering the main narrative. This is the thesis; words do have meaning and they can reduce the effectiveness of the people they are pitted against.
Now,three yearsafterSantaAnnafirstgainedpowerinindependentMexico,afewEnglish-speakingsquatters occu-piedtheplace,refusingtosurrendertohissuperiorforce.LuckilyforSantaAnna,theSquatters wereoutnumbered—atmost189potentialfighters—andthestructureitselfwasweak.Thecon-questwouldbe easy,orsothoughtSantaAnna.
Essential part of setting the stage for the thesis.
But surely the wounded Taliban soldier Regarding the Pain of Others 73 begging for his life whose fate was pictured prominently in The New York Times also had a wife, children, parents, sisters and brothers, some of whom may one day come across the three color photographs of their husband, fa- ther, son, brother being slaughtered—if they have not al- ready seen them.
Powerful ending statement. Able to quote, able to summarize her views well.
These sights carry a double message. They show a suffering that is outra- geous, unjust, and should be repaired. They confirm that this is the sort of thing which happens in that place. The ubiquity of those photographs, and those horrors, cannot help but nourish belief in the inevitability of tragedy in the benighted or backward—that is, poor—parts of the world.
Important in terms of understanding where the author is coming from. I think that it is interesting, though, that this is something that I think has adjusted. Perhaps having a phone makes people feel as though their homes are a mess when it just shows what has always been happening in their local communities.
It is easier to think of the enemy as just a savage who kills, then holds up the head of his prey for all to see.
Another great quote. Also feels a little like the author fell into the same trap as the Times reporter she criticized earlier.
What can be shown, what should not be shown—few issues arouse more pub- lic clamor.
Still relevant today. Great observation.
And television news, with its much larger audience and there- fore greater responsiveness to pressures from advertisers, operates under even stricter, for the most part self-policed constraints on what is “proper” to air.
Still relevant to the above comment I made, social media companies are tied to ad-revenue and being an advertising-safe space. Arguably, though, they are not as strict as policing their platforms for advertisers as they had been a decade earlier.
In the era of tele-controlled warfare against innumer- able enemies of American power, policies about what is to be seen and not seen by the public are still being worked out.
Extremely important in order to show where things have gone since then. Interestingly enough, I feel as though tech-companies are the new holders of what gets displayed to the public.
The terms for allowing the use of cameras at the front for nonmilitary purposes have become much stricter as war has become an activity prosecuted with increasingly exact optical devices for tracking the enemy.
In support of the above two paragraphs describing US military action in the Middle East.
War- making and picture-taking are congruent activities: “It is Regarding the Pain of Others 67 the same intelligence, whose weapons of annihilation can locate the enemy to the exact second and meter,” wrote Jiinger, “that labors to preserve the great historical event in fine detail.”*
Really powerfully-stated.
This was bound to have consequences: mainstream media are not in the business of making people feel queasy about the struggles for which they are being mo- bilized, much less of disseminating propaganda against waging wat.
I don't necessarily believe this to be true anymore, and I question the accuracy of the statement for the given time. I feel as though the above statements on the Civil War showcase a public unwillingness to want to experience death and the vast majority of those who partook in the conflict were drafted. Does that not demonstrate a public unwillingness, supported by the media?
British indignation upon hearing of this latest Boer out- rage was keen, if stiffly expressed: to have made public such pictures, declared Amateur Photographer, “serves no useful purpose and appeals to the morbid side of human nature solely.”
Quote of a quote... quote-ception. Will be helpful if responding to this in the future as there is a lot to be unpacked here.
Taken by an unknown Boer photographer ten days after the British defeat, which had cost the lives of thirteen hundred of their soldiers, it gives an intrusive view down a long shallow trench packed with unburied bodies. What is particularly aggressive about the image is the absence of a landscape.
Important example of being on the other side of the intent of the camera.
Yet the Times reporter cannot resist the melodrama that mere words supply (the “dripping bodies” ready for “the gaping trenches”), while reprehending the intolerable realism of the image.
Is this truly melodrama exclusively or a symptom of a popularized style of writing that was incredibly verbose? I feel as though they are sympathetic not only to the women as the author states but beyond that, and for the life that was taken. There is an understandable loss that the image makes you feel; imagine being here.
bodies, are of those who seem most foreign, therefore least likely to be known. With subjects closer to home, the photographer is expected to be more discreet.
I wonder if this is still exclusively relevant in today's society. I can't help but feel as though the democratization of photography and the ability to propel anything into the public sphere on social media makes me question if this still stands.
And the viewer is in the same position as the lackey behind the camera; the experience is sickening.
Supporting the opening paragraph, but first time that the argument is directly stated.
T o catch a death actually happening and embalm it for all time is something only cameras can do, and pictures taken by photographers out in the field of the moment of (or just before) death are among the most celebrated and often reproduced of war photographs.
I think this is really well-stated and provocative.
By 1977, his efforts bore fruit when the Haudenosaunee andother Indigenous delegates returned to Geneva to address theUnited Nations, asserting their status as sovereign nations.Their work helped establish the UN Permanent Forum onIndigenous Issues (UNPFII) and contributed to the eventualadoption of UNDRIP in 2007.
I cannot understand why the author argues how they argue. They spend the last page describing how an International Law Council describes how the basis of International Law is rooted in the laws of Christian Discovery but then applauds what it has decided to hate when it rules in its favor. I really just don't understand. I am deeply sympathetic to indigenous causes and their rights to places but I can't help but feel as though the author is using them to crusade against Christianity (I am also non-religious and do not necessarily view religious institutions as a guideline for how to live)
Marshall's decision in Johnson v. M’Intosh (1823) codified theDoctrine of Christian Discovery into U.S. law. His rulingbecame the foundation of federal Indian law, establishing thatonly European‐descended governments could hold title over theland. Marshall ruled that Indigenous peoples held only a “rightof occupancy” to their lands, while ultimate title vested in thediscovering European nation and, subsequently, the U.S. gov-ernment.
Important for the context of this article, but I still feel as though there is so much context left out that I am puzzled as to why the author decided to start at exactly here as if the US and Colonial Britain did not shape this view already prior to this. Was Marshall really the first one that was an American Expansionist? Is this truly a Christian reason or is there more motivating questions of pure land power to consider? Is the appeal to Christian values even truly important to the one making those appeals or are they just the easiest?
Nation filed a land rights case in 2005, U.S. federalcourts dismissed it in 2010, ruling that addressing these his-toric wrongs would be “too disruptive” to the present‐dayproperty system. This decision exemplified the persistentapplication of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, which haslong justified the denial of Indigenous land rights under U.S.law (Onondaga Nation 2005).
I still question why this is being brought up. I disagree with the loose connections holding the legal argument to the Christian argument. I still feel as though this might be better served as a class argument, or an owner-vs-people argument.
ndigenous peoples have been systematically excludedfrom the very freedoms they helped shape, and their influenceremains largely unrecognized in mainstream historical narra-tives
Good quote.
ackson's actions signaled that judicial de-cisions alone could not protect Indigenous nations fromcolonial‐settler encroachment.
Why make this argument here? This has been happening for all of Colonial America's history (not saying that it is good.) Our local tribes successfully sued the Colony of Connecticut in London for their lands and still they were stripped of their rights and land despite judicial overview agreeing with them. At the same time, I feel as though this counteracts the thesis and weakens the piece.
Whileaddressed to the Indigenous inhabitants of Turtle Island/AbayaYala its intended audience and function as was granting pre-emptory absolution for the sins (atrocities) about to becommitted by the colonizers
Arguably this is the central pillar of all of Christian thought, though. I feel as though some religious context is needed.
hese papal bulls provided divine sanction for conquest and ajustification for converting human beings into souls and theninto human capital for development. The souls of theoppressed were rendered as less than, and even the convertedwere perpetually seen as less than.
Well-said.
Its theological and legal un-derpinnings were already present, though not yet fully codified.Identifying the DoCD's origins is challenging—some scholarstrace it back to Constantine's Christian empire, as Cornel Westsuggests, while others locate its roots in the broader expansionof Christendom, as outlined in Basic Call to Consciousness(West 2008; Barreiro et al. 2005).
Yay! They mentioned what I had questioned!
These demarcationlines reflect the Treaty of Tordesillas (2018), which carved up theworld between Portugal and the Crown of Castile and Aragon(Spain), thus marking the domains for the eurochristian imag-ined right of possession and domination
I agree with this part, though; Good point and important to the overall structure of the paper.
Renaming places in European tongues severed these connec-tions, imposing a eurochristian worldview and Christian terri-torial claims. Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl, the Gulf of Mexico, and theGulf of America may all share a particular body of water as theirreferent, but their ontologies are vastly different (Fig-ueroa 2014).
I agree that renaming places is generally speaking meant to go and impose a specific world-view. I agree with this on especially the local level. However, I would argue that in North America there are still considerable places that have retained their indigenous roots; Ohio, Massachusetts, Pawcatuck, Mississippi, to name a few.
In Europe, most latin-based languages call Germany some derivative of one of their more powerful ancient tribes despite the Germans themselves calling themselves "Deutsch." I feel as though this is also an element of the human condition and I think I disagree thoroughly with this argument that the paper is trying to make as it does not accurately represent the entire picture.
These texts created an enduring frame-work of domination, intertwining theology and law to sanctifyconquest, enslavement and extraction (Newcomb 2008;Wolfchild 2015).
I do not understand exactly why the author had decided to argue that those texts described above are the intertwining of religion and law when that had been predominant in all human governments, but even in Christian societies the second that Rome became Christian. Even more so, were the Crusades not exactly that- religious justification directed by both local and theological law in order to conquest lands?
European Monarchs, havingdepleted their coffers during the Crusades, shifted their colonialfocus to the Canary Islands (ca. 1436), where they testedconquest strategies: slaughtering or forcibly converting Indige-nous peoples, breaking promises of protection, and usingChristianization as a pretext for enslavement (Miller 2019;Miller et al. 2010).
Pre-text to described era of Christian Discovery. Important in order to understand the view of the following events.
Columbus' arrivalis often framed as the dawn of exploration, but in reality, itmarked the beginning of genocide, justified in the name of God.
In support of the thesis, showing directly the outline of the coming few pages. Also well-phrased.
he Doctrine of Discovery, or more accurately, the Doctrineof Christian Discovery (DoCD), has long served as a ligamentconnecting Christianity and colonization, not just in theAmericas but across Africa, Oceania, and beyond. Rooted in a15th‐century theological and legal framework, it justifiedenslavement, exploitation, and extraction (Newcomb 2008;Wolfchild 2015).
Central thesis of coming article.
Our gift was time and attention and care and red-stained fingers.Heart berries, indeed.
Tying in the central theme heavily here; Reciprocal gift giving between the land, her childhood, and her family. The appreciation for natural life and beauty runs deep and ties into family history and creation belief.
She’d kindly explain how to cook unfamiliar items and pull out thesweetest pineapple she’d been saving under the table. Once she evenhad strawberries.
Is the exchange of information not a form of gift? Is it solely in the material realm that gifts can be given?
The pair of wool socks that I buy at the store,red and gray striped, are warm and cozy. I might feel grateful for thesheep that made the wool and the worker who ran the knitting ma-chine. I hope so. But I have no inherent obligation to those socks as acommodity, as private property. There is no bond beyond the politelyexchanged “thank yous” with the clerk. I have paid for them and ourreciprocity ended the minute I handed her the money. The exchangeends once parity has been established, an equal exchange.
The next step to the theme of this paper; That consumerism, or just plain old capital consumption and exchange is inferior to the natural exchange that can occur between people. This feels as though the transaction is a cold middleman between two distant people.
From the viewpoint of a private property economy, the “gift” isdeemed to be “free” because we obtain it free of charge, at no cost. Butin the gift economy, gifts are not free. The essence of the gift is that itcreates a set of relationships. The currency of a gift economy is, at itsroot, reciprocity. In Western thinking, private land is understood to bea “bundle of rights,” whereas in a gift economy property has a “bundleof responsibilities” attached.
Central critique of Western circulation of gifts and exchange.
Her final gifts, our most revered plants, grew from her body.The strawberry arose from her heart. In Potawatomi, the strawberry isode min, the heart berry. We recognize them as the leaders of the ber-ries, the first to bear fruit.
This is the large-picture aspect of the central theme of the story. A warm gift from a tragic story. Ties in with family story of poverty if decided to focus solely on that.
He expects sellers to graciously give him what heneeds, but sometimes they don’t. The guy at the booth thinks he’s beingshaken down by an elder. “Hey, you can’t get something for nothin’,”he says. But that is exactly the point. A gift is something for nothing,except that certain obligations are attached
Is this not hypocritical in nature? I would argue that expecting a gift makes it no longer a gift as it is an obligation, an expected service. Especially when the person who is expecting the gift is seeking out the gift itself. I understand that there is a traditional element, but I can't help but feel as though approaching people with the expectation of being received all of the time is somewhat disruptive of the gift cycle.
I do not think he should have to buy it and I agree it should be willingly given, but I still feel as though it is more intentional to be open to the idea of rejection in order to have the gifts given being greater for it.
. A gift comes to you through no action of yourown, free, having moved toward you without your beckoning.
A very warm and comforting perspective on the feeling of receiving a gift presented eloquently and with purpose.
I dreamed not long ago of that market with all its vivid textures.
This whole subsection is puzzling to me. I feel like entering the imaginary realm here to try and convince the reader of an idealized view is reductive and fails to recognize the gift of friendship and knowledge described in the previous paragraph. It also has an element that Edita was not kind enough or good enough.
Perhaps it is my own inherent Western bias and this is too dismissive. I am willing to be open to debate and discussion.
Hyde reminds us that in agift economy, one’s freely given gifts cannot be made into someone else’scapital.
Simple statement regarding central theming.
What I mean of course is that our human relationship with straw-berries is transformed by our choice of perspective. It is human percep-tion that makes the world a gift.
Excellent summary and pleasent phrasing.
you don’t feel the warm feathers cool in your hand and know that a lifehas been given for yours, when there is no gratitude in return—thatfood may not satisfy. It may leave the spirit hungry while the belly isfull. Something is broken when the food comes on a Styrofoam traywrapped in slippery plastic, a carcass of a being whose only chance atlife was a cramped cage. That is not a gift of life; it is a theft.
Well-put and thought-provoking ideas on the exchange of the natural world and people, with the real idea that people are unable to see the value in the exchange when they themselves are removed from it.