Nightmare on a Boat

As you search for purpose and reason in your life through the realms of academia and erudition, perhaps fervent scouring of the vast depths of philosophy and science have sapped the essence of your weary mind; it is now then, the time to embrace your unique soul and the boundaries of raw emotion to harness your latent aptitude. Romanticism embodies the feeling you get after finishing all of your finals or papers, an exuberant spark of joy, the exclamation mark, the incessant cry of a newborn, a declaration that emotion holds more meaning to the human experience than the infinitude of logic.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s The Rime of the Ancient Mariner takes you on a distortion of reality, an eventful mind-bending tale of confounding sequences. The journey that you embark upon while reading of the experience that the Ancient Mariner shares, encourages you to look beyond what you see, to listen to more than what you can hear. Your imagination is paramount and to neglect it would spell emptiness and suffering altogether. Coleridge’s poems tell us to live fruitfully and experience continuously, reinventing the norm and insinuating creation and originality. Centuries later, his tale of a nightmare at sea, would continue on.

Plug the amp, align your cymbals, tune your six-strings, where else but music lays the ultimate expression of individuality and freedom of spirit? Iron Maiden breathes horror, excitement, uncertainty, fear, and wisdom in their reinterpretation of the romantic classic. The phases of varying tempo in Iron Maiden’s version of The Rime of the Ancient Mariner express the development of emotion in the story. Repetition echoes the lament and suffering of the Mariner. The sudden intensity of the climax breathes raw emotion and absolute passion through persistent beats. Perhaps the spirit of Coleridge remains head-banging to this metal classic Although the song represents creative ingenuity, the powerful imagery of Coleridge’s Poem is unmatched through the metal reproduction.

The ominous feeling of grief and hopelessness captured by Samuel Taylor Coleridge can not be imitated. “The water, like a witch’s oils, Burnt green, and blue and white.” (30)The unusual coloring of the water signifies an abnormal otherworldly presence. The lines of The Rime of the Ancient Mariner induce spooking chills and a sense of uncertainty.

The juxtaposition of intense metal and image-inducing poetry enables us to understand the capacities of human imagination. Emotion can be represented in an endless number of ways. As Iron Maiden’s classic, of a romantic classic, lives on to entertain new audiences, we are reminded that imagination and individuality live on and on. I’m sure Coleridge would be proud, in some way.

plate08

Thomas Pham

Advertisements

Gulliver Conforms

The suggestion given in Gulliver’s Travels aludes to the notion that Houyhnhnm way of living is the key to happiness, is perhaps Swift’s satiric method in showing how such a society is impossible, if anything, hysterically fictionalized.  In addition, as the reader, we can’t help but find it odd that the species do not carry a sense of their own individuality. If anything, their identities are rather ambiguous, thus the world that they live in lacks variety; in other words, there is no diversity, hence all Houyhnhnm are seen as perfect based on the reflection they see in one another.  

Gulliver’s arrival to the foreign land, and reception by the Houyhnhnm even shows their curiousity towards him for appearing different and for his choice in having migrated there. Gulliver describes in Part IV, Chapter I, “They were under great Perplexity about my Shoes and stockings, which they felt very often…using various gestures, not unlike those of a Philosopher,…when he would attempt to solve some new and difficult Phenomenon (209).” This not only shows their “perplexity,” but it also shows Gulliver’s as he can’t help but compare their characteristics, even in the way they delegate, versus what he is used to with the English.  

Later in the chapter we learn that the only diversity that does is exist is between two kinds, the Houyhnhnm and the Yahoos; of course, one is seen as less civil.  The irony in that is that Gulliver cannot distinguish the difference until it is brought to his attention, therefore again alluding to the impression that that species themselves are living a lie, a lie they have been conditioned to believe since their beginnings.  

Slowly, but surely we see Gulliver begin to remove any previous ways of thinking and beliefs he had, previous to arriving on their land.  He puts them on a pedestal, and eventually assimilates himself into their culture.  He disregards anything that seems unfair, especially the perspective they have towards the Yahoos; hence, we can assume that society would rather turn a blind eye to social injustices rather than resist.  Gulliver basically blindly conforms to the Houyhnhnm “enlightened” society.

-Maricela Martinez (Marcy)

*eugenics

*slave

*deportation

Travel Points for Gulliver

Yahoos is a word that is constantly being repeated and I noticed that there is a personal beef with the Yahoos in how the Houyhnhnms look down on them. There is a very bold elephant in the room that needs to be addressed. The Houyhnhnms are looking at the Yahoos as literal fecal matter and it becomes closely related to the genocide ideology we have seen with the Nazis. This repetition allows for us to keep consistently thinking on what the outcome of the Yahoos is going to be. The irony is that they are horses and usually horses are ridden and owned and tamed by their masters in real life. When Gulliver seems to go crazy after trying to talk to his horses, it really questions as to how far the imagination of someone can go from envisioning fiction and trying to bring it into real life.

Master seems to be a word that sounds out of place. It makes me uncomfortable in the sense that someone is praising a horse and is ok with someone being second-class. I guess I can relate an example to how we look at celebrities and envision everything they do to be perfect so we place them on a pedestal. We think everything a celebrity does is godly and would not mind being their doormat to be walked on everyday. There is a funny meme that says someone could get slapped by Beyoncé 20 times and say thank you every time. So it seems ok ideally that Gulliver would idolize these horses since they seem to have much more down in their ideal Utopia and don’t have any problems. Gulliver unfortunately is too clouded to see that they are not the best people to be inspired by.

Subtly, I see that Swift makes it aware through the satire to us that it is not ok for this superiority mindset. While Gulliver is awed in all the glory the Houynhmnms seem to present, it is to be shown to the reader that exterminating someone for their own good is not morally ok and presents a sense of disguist in how people “horses” can be perfectly comfortable with this decision in the sense that they are doing the world a favor. I would like to know in more detail or as a footnote or attachment why Gulliver was so fascinated by Houynhmnms in an explanation from Swift. I also would like to know what drove Gulliver to look like a lunatic once he started speaking to horses. To the average reader who cannot see the bigger message Swift blends in the satirical-style writing, it may bring forth the intent of the writing in a way that people can see thing that are not ok in a form of bullet points.

gulliver-pindar-houyhnhnm-mare

 

-Daniel Estrada

I Hate Having Feelings as Much As the Next Person but This Is Drastic

We live in a world that obliquely places objectivity and subjectivity at odds, and privileges one over the other. A researcher is considered more fair if he is “unbiased,” and a news outlet is considered more trustworthy if they have no traceable emotive agenda. But there’s two problems with that: firstly, true objectivity is formally impossible. No-one with real working human feelings can ever look at an object or idea without some sort of emotional tint. We all have lenses that inform how we see the world. For example, if you simply say the word “red” in a group of people, they will all inevitably see different things. I imagine a big block of scarlet, and then I go on to think about a song from the musical Matilda where the titular character explores this very concept. Someone else might see an amorphous blob of burgundy, and then go on to think about all the people they associate with that color. Yet another might think of a stripe of carmine, and think to themselves about the hex code for their favorite shade of red. That is subjectivity. It’s a gut reaction to recontextualize the knowledge you receive based on your life experiences and the way your thought process is constructed. It is humanly impossible to avoid. Second, objectivity is not inherently better than subjectivity. The privileging of objectivity in the forced binary opposition is so arbitrary! Why do we inherently value the idea of steril, cool consideration over a thought process affected by passion? Don’t we want the people conducting research to be passionate? A white person studying racial disparities in the housing market approaching the study “objectively” is simply going to miss things that a more “subjective” person of color might; similarly, a person of color “objectively” studying white people’s perception of their own race’s societally constructed image might miss certain nuances than a more “subjective” white dude.

The Houyhnhms’ solution for that first problem is to simply live an existence without emotion–a perfect utopia devoid of passion, excitement, short tempers, fury. And, not to be a bleeding heart, but that is absolutely no way to live. Certainly, it creates a world without conflict–there is no conflict without feeling. The Trojans went to war over Helen, and it was a long and arduous war that lasted because of feelings: Paris’ passion for Helen, the Trojan’s unconquerable pride. So certainly, emotions breed endless conflict. But they also breed empathy and goodwill. To have no feelings is to know no sympathy and to have no understanding to another’s plight. To have no feelings is to never recognize oppression. No feelings, no ambition. No feelings, no tenderness. No sensitivity to others. No joy and pride in others’ achievements. No passion to achieve in the first place. The capacity for good that comes from human (Yahoo) feelings is forsaken for the unbiased objectivity of the Houyhnhm society.

Similarly, Enlightened scholars sought a world without emotion, and sought philosophy without emotional affect. But, in the same way that subjectivity can lead to a level of emotional involvement that narrows the view of an opinion, an endless drive for objectivity can create philosophies devoid of sensitivity and true empathy for your fellow man. A philosophy that counsels pure acceptance of one’s situation as wholly unchangeable is beyond cool for a rich, educated, straight white guy in the Age of Enlightenment. It’s not so cool for the African slave, who is better served by a philosophy encouraging civil resistance and ambition for a better life. A philosophy that counsels compliance with societal norms is super cool for someone who already is  the societal norm. It’s not so cool for a gay man, in an age where one’s sexuality is just beginning to be associated with one’s whole truth–he might be better served by a philosophy that counsels self-acceptance and swerving from the societal “lane” set out for him. Enlightened scholars in search of objectivity often missed the nuance that their privilege distanced them from, and in doing so, proved themselves not quite enlightened at all.

 

-TaNayiah Bryels
and, for everyone’s fun, my favorite band just released a track that has quite a lot to do with this concept

The Enlightenment as Satirized through the Houyhnhnms

Jonathan Swift’s satirical use of the Houyhnhnms, a superior race to that of the Yahoos (including Gulliver himself), allows Swift to create a conversation about the overwhelmingly positive effects of the Enlightenment, but also its negative effects. Gulliver explains in Chapter 6 of Part IV, that life with the Houyhnhnms is everything he could have dreamed of; he enjoys there “perfect Health of Body and Tranquility of Mind” (254) and is not subject to the temptations of “Treachery or Inconstancy of a Friend, nor the Injuries of a secret or open Enemy” (254). All of the degenerate, problematic, deceiving sinners and the things that bring with it misfortune that are common in Gulliver’s home country, were absent in the land of Houyhnhnms:

here were no gibers, censurers, backbiters, pickpockets, highwaymen, housebreakers, attorneys, bawds, buffoons, gamesters, politicians, wits, splenetics, tedious talkers, controvertists, ravishers, murderers, robbers, virtuosos; no leaders, or followers, of party and faction; no encouragers to vice, by seducement or examples; no dungeon, axes, gibbets, whipping-posts, or pillories; no cheating shopkeepers or mechanics; no pride, vanity, or affectation; no fops, bullies, drunkards, strolling whores, or poxes; no ranting, lewd, expensive wives; no stupid, proud pedants; no importunate, overbearing, quarrelsome, noisy, roaring, empty, conceited, swearing companions; no scoundrels raised from the dust upon the merit of their vices, or nobility thrown into it on account of their virtues; no lords, fiddlers, judges, or dancing-masters (254).

The country of the Houyhnhnms is vastly superior, based primarily on the fact that the Houyhnhnms have effectively eradicated all those disagreeable, their traits, and their vices. Gulliver mentions several times throughout this Chapter about how the Houyhnhnms have a vastly superior intellect and way of running things than Gulliver’s own country. It is for this reason that he submits himself to the Houyhnhnms, referring to them as his master, and obeying them as if a slave: “I never presumed to speak, except in answer to a Question, and then I did it with inward Regret, because it was a Loss of so much Time for improving myself” (254). What is interesting about this submission is that Gulliver happily allows himself to be subjected to the critique of his superior. When Gulliver’s master gives his discourse on the topic of a being’s rationality, Gulliver falls to his feet, completely vexed and praiseworthy of the discourse. However, his master, seeing Gulliver on the floor, reaffirms this notion that Gulliver, in the eyes of the Houyhnhnms, can easily be manipulated with a call to Reason, since “a Rational Creature can be… only advised, or exhorted, because no Person can disobey Reason, without giving up his Claim to be a Rational Creature” (257).

This directly correlates to the Enlightenment, which would have been happening around Swift’s time. Swift’s mockery of the Enlightenment, done with the use of the Houyhnhnms (the Houyhnhnms representing those philosophers of the Enlightenment), creates an interesting dialogue about the ramifications of the Enlightenment. On one hand, humankind would be happier if they could think and behaved as the Houyhnhnms do, however, as the reader realizes, on the other hand, they become slaves to discourse and philosophy (“Loss of so much Time for improving myself”), unconcerned with the human emotion (like Gulliver displays when he falls to his master’s feet and the master is unimpressed).

-Sara Nuila-Chae

Man In the Mirror? Or Horse in the Mirror?

Is Jonathan Swift Taking a Shot at Colonialism?

“I have already observed that they are subject to no diseases, and therefore can have no need of physicians. However, they have excellent medicines, composed of herbs, to cure accidental bruises and cuts in the pastern or frog of the foot, by sharp stones, as well as other maims and hurts in the several parts of the body” (349). This seems to be taking a shot at colonialism because it is well documented that the colonists brought diseases to the west. However, these Houyhnhnms have never been in contact with any type of disease. When Gulliver talks about the use of herbs it could be interpreted that the Houyhnhnms could also be a representation of the Native Americans. Before the arrival of the British or any European nation, the Native Americans were disease-free. There were no such things as smallpox or measles, but there were remedies for aches and pain in the form of ancient herbs. In my opinion, Swift intends to make the Houyhnhnms as innocent beings; just like the Native Americans.

But is this the case for Yahoos? In some way, the Yahoos could be a representation of what has become of those who have “fallen”. They are also animals, and very similar to those of a human. The reason why I say Yahoos are a representation of Native Americans that have become affected by the Europeans is because they are the only animals to have ever gotten sick. Not only that, but also their form of medication is just as bad as poop. Yes, poop!

“Their next business is from herbs, minerals, gums, oils, shells, salts, juices, sea-weed, excrements, barks of trees, serpents, toads, frogs, spiders, dead men’s flesh and bones, birds, beasts, and fishes, to form a composition, for smell and taste, the most abominable, nauseous, and detestable, they can possibly contrive, which the stomach immediately rejects with loathing, and this they call a vomit; or else, from the same store-house, with some other poisonous additions, they command us to take in at the orifice above or below (just as the physician then happens to be disposed) a medicine equally annoying and disgustful to the bowels; which, relaxing the belly, drives down all before it; and this they call a purge, or a clyster” (323).

Just like the Houyhnhnms, they have their own types of remedies but they also use the likes of spiders, dead human flesh and bones, poop, piss, etc. These all seem to be things that are less than likely to be actual medication or remedies. But they mix their medication with their own excrements and that sounds dangerous because it could potentially cause diseases to spread around. Other than that, the intention here is to prove how far these animals have fallen because of these “evils” that have consumed them. In such a manner, that I believe Swift’s intention here is to represent two sides of the Natives: the innocence and the destruction that has been set upon them.

Houyhnhnms: How the Enlightenment Should Be Like

Swift writes about the Houyhnhnms as if they are the ideas brought up during the Enlightenment. This is based on Gulliver’s observations of the Houyhnhnms in chapter 9, “They calculate the year by the revolution of the sun and moon, but use no subdivisions into weeks. They are well enough acquainted with the motions of those two luminaries, and understand the nature of eclipses; and this is the utmost progress of their astronomy” (349-350). Thus, showing the advancement of intellectual movement like the Enlightenment. By knowing the revolution of the sun and moon, they are able to identify how long a year is. Just like us today, we would also rely on this knowledge to calculate the days of the year. However, the difference between humans and Houyhnhnms is that humans actually divide the year into months, days, and weeks. Other than that, the Houyhnhnms do have knowledge of astronomy which was a very new concept within the Enlightenment era. The age of the Enlightenment showed the development of science, and so on it spread throughout Europe. In the lecture notes, it states the book satirizes ideas of the Enlightenment. And on top of that, during lecture, it has been noted that Swift was a supporter of the movement as well. I believe this is one of the many implications where Gulliver suggests that not only are Houyhnhnms the perfect example of followers of the Enlightenment, but also an example for mankind to follow. But Swift? Maybe their ideas are great but not everything is so perfect.

Poetry in a Reasonable Society? Nonsense!

Gulliver also makes a good point in chapter 9 when he states “In poetry, they must be allowed to excel all other mortals; wherein the justness of their similes, and the minuteness as well as exactness of their descriptions, are indeed inimitable. Their verses abound very much in both of these, and usually contain either some exalted notions of friendship and benevolence or the praises of those who were victors in races and other bodily exercise” (350). Here, he states that the Houyhnhnms are free to do create poetry. They are very skilled at creating poetry that it is impossible to imitate. And the message behind their poems would be either of positive things such as friendship, love, kindness, and winners. This to me, seems to be a response to Thomas Sprat’s perspective of the use of storytelling, poetry, and metaphors: ““…nothing may be sooner obtained than this vicious abundance of Phrase, this trick of Metaphors, this volubility of Tongue…” (Sprat, p. 2176). The Enlightenment was more than just a science revolution, it was the age of reason. And because of that, poetry was put on the shelf during the movement.

I believe what Swift is trying to convey here is that the Houyhnhnms are capable to do anything they want without being criticized for not being “reasonable”. In addition to that, I think Swift is saying that poetry can be great on its own category. The society that the Houyhnhnms have created for themselves are “perfect”. In a sense, where they can do absolutely anything without the interference of evil or corruption. And as innocent as they are, in a society where Sprat wants only reason and evidence, the Houyhnhnms wouldn’t know what they have done wrong because they believe it is right to create poetry. They are able to make poetry and work on science at the same time; unlike the actual Enlightenment. Therefore, I believe Gulliver is suggesting that it would be better for mankind to allow the use of storytelling in the age of science/reason. But Swift is saying that this is too sweet, and to have a utopia this good-there must be some bad, bad things going on behind the scenes.

Conclusion

Think of it like make-up, maybe the Houyhnhnms are born with it, maybe it’s Mayebline. All jokes aside Swift states, “The question to be debated was, ‘whether the Yahoos should be exterminated from the face of the earth?’… they were the most restive and indocible, mischievous and malicious; they would privately suck the teats of the Houyhnhnms’ cows, kill and devour their cats, trample down their oats and grass, if they were not continually watched, and commit a thousand other extravagancies” (346). 

This is a not so subtle warning from Swift. In order to create a perfect utopia, they must remove the Yahoos from existence. Not only that, but they also hint at Eugenics by having a standard for their own species. I see parallels to not only Hitler’s regime, but also America’s attempt at Eugenics in the early 20th century. And on top of that, we also have parallels to the witch-trials during the early western world with the description of sucking the teets of cows, killing cats, etc. It sounds eerily similar to things that have yet to come, but it just shows how the literature of power has moved one single idea throughout centuries. 

– Christopher Luong

It’s a No From Me

In the beginning of Part 4 of Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travels” the text could suggest that human kind would perhaps be happier if it could think and behave the way the Houyhnhnms. In the beginning when Gulliver meets the Houyhnhnms he admires them, and deems their behavior “so orderly and rational, so acute and judicious” (210). They react in a non violent way towards Gulliver upon meeting him they retreat to what Gulliver interprets as their “amazement at the sight of a man so very different in Habit, Feature and Complexion” (210), instead of treating him harshly as his previous experience would suggest. The Houyhnhnms also possess a certain quality that is reminiscent (and perhaps poking fun at the Enlightenment thinkers) of thorough logical thinking over anything else, and everything in their society is about reason….

All of these qualities are admirable. However, it is also these ideas from the Houyhnhnms that garner some of their qualities that shun cultural practices, such as religion. There is also a central quality that they lack which is the ability to feel pity  and think introspectively about issues garnered upon emotions. I think that this is the major reason why Swift did not create the Houyhnhnm’s as a model of what human beings should be.

Their eurocentric and colonial ideas of shunning other cultures are at the center of why we shouldn’t want to be like them. Although Swift wrote this before the Holocaust had occurred, the Houynhnm’s and Yahoo relationship has major anti-semitic ideas.

Which brings us to the big word: GENOCIDE

The Houyhnhnm’s debate whether “exterminating” the yahoos is something that they should do. After all they are “filthy, noisome, and deformed […] indocible, mischievous`, and malicious”.  Because of all their terrible qualities they should be killed off or domesticated. So, in this case, before the holocaust, and after colonialism there is the same problem being faced over and over again: that logic and reason can be used to obtain full power. (which in itself is a paradox because logically it isn’t right for anyone to have all of the power)

This idea is conflicting because reason should be why people would justify maybe NOT killing off an entire species, and keeping the order of nature that the Houyhnhnm’s believe.

-Beyanira Bautista

Rowlandson’s narrative tells it all.

 

I believe that the story confirms, contradicts, and complicates the history of intolerance and genocide.

Mary Rowlandson’s narrative gives a lens and perspective that complicates the morals attached to colonization -it creates a moral dilemma, if you will.  The imagery she presents in her writing, with the murder of one of her children, and the kidnapping of others, appeals to the emotions of the readers; whether the reader wants to or not, they will somehow sympathize with Rowlandson’s vexing experience.

At the same time, her description confirms the retaliation the natives released in their state of vigilant anger. While one may be in the position of sympathy, when reading her written work, it is the implicit understanding of that historical background, which lead up to that moment of retaliation, that one has to think about.  In Rowlandson’s experience, in comparison to the bigger picture of the American Holocaust -the systematic genocide of slavery, and violence, genocide- we can see that the numbers in the death toll do not compare.

In terms of contradiction, the story becomes so because of all of the above.  There is an internal conflict that goes on upon reading it.  We sympathize, we become angry, we are in the moment, while at the same time going back into the cruel history that led up to the crime.  We also have to be careful not to use our 21st century way of thinking when close reading this piece, but one can’t help but question any document written so long ago that one is not able to get answers to all the questions we have.  Why did she write this? Where was she when she wrote this? What effect did her gender role play on how she wrote it? What was she possibly forced to write in order to continue to the stereotype the natives were cast in? While we may not have the answers, one can conclude that she really believe that God was on her side, thus according to her, everything she saw and felt was correct.  More contradiction is when she refers to them as savages, even after the fact when they actually treated her well.

The lack of evidence, other than her words, creates a big gap.  And all we can do as a reader is look at it and attempt to put ourselves in that time period, and take from it our own individual understanding.

-Maricela Martinez

Repetitive History leads to Imperfection

The ideas of genocide are something that are viewed as a cleanse of the race that does not belong with them. It is a constant that happens throughout time and time again because there always has to be “the perfect race.” It is a need to be able to grasp this ideal of perfection and superiority that continues to exercise their decision making skills. When the city upon the hill speech was given there was a sense of superiority and arrogance in which John Winthrop exclusively believed that the “savage” people should be educated and reformed into part of their society. The evolution of this ideal then started to gradually shift and build a social construction of race in which indigenous people would be seen  as less than what they are. Even today these prejudices still exist and hold people down to believe these ideals.

The idea of perfection however is an illusion as perfection is defined as something without flaws. It is a pure concept that cannot be conceived because even now there are many flaws within the world and with people to be able to obtain it. All these mistakes and massacring and people think they are the “perfect race? What gives them the right to be able to believe thy are perfect when they are full of imperfections? Does realizing you are imperfect, make you perfect? That probably makes the step forward to become a better self and learning more about the concept.

-Alexis Blanco

Savages aka “Colonists”

Rowlandson’s narrative only confirms the history of genocide that occurred in North America. She not only failed to comprehend what the Natives went through, since they were also victims of constant captivity and slaughter, but then she justified it by adding on her Puritan ideologies. It further relates to how the colonists used their religion to hide their true intentions; wanting a new world where the natives aren’t around and that their race should be the only dominant one. She says, on the Twentieth Remove, “I can but stand in admiration to see the wonderful power of God in providing for such a vast number of our enemies in the wilderness, where there was nothing to be seen, but from hand to mouth…But now our perverse and evil carriages in the sight of the Lord, have so offended Him, that instead of turning His hand against them, the Lord feeds and nourishes them up to be a scourge to the whole land”. This is one of many instanses where she asserts her own entitlement, due to the way she was brought up in society, to undermine the people not sharing the same belief system as she does. My perspective of that statement is that the Natives are so “evil” that it should be something disproved by God but because God is so “amazing” he rather takes care of the Natives. It’s as if she tries to show herself and the Natives as one by justifying their lifestyles in the wilderness however it’s always through a backhanded compliment.

Rowlandson’s rhetoric makes it difficult to sympathize with her situation because even as a captive she already has a biased opinion on the Natives and the audacity to look at a community of Natives, some that were also mothers, and refer to them as “demonic” or “savages”. There’s also that assumption that she had no power to begin with but rather it was her husband that “brainwashed” her; since women were still being oppressed but that’s not the case here. Her rhetoric makes it clear she’s not an idiot and that she knew what impact her diction could have. Ultimately, I sympathize more for her children for they did not have the opportunity to develop their own ideologies away from the Puritan mindset. This mentality of “who should be number one” still becomes evident in the contemporary world since the fight has never finished; it’s just merely transformed as to what we see as a social norm; a norm that white people are still dominant and anything outside of that idea will make the world stop turning. The Natives are still being run off this land and the current issue of the Dakota Access Pipeline further illuminates history repeating itself.

-Kristy Frausto