Pottery in the Contact Zone
It is nearly impossible to discuss Native American art without taking into consideration the effect that western culture has had on it. Native American art, in its purest sense, is something that no longer exists. In its place is an amalgamation of an art form that was once completely Native American and the values that western culture has placed on that art form. This cultural phenomenon is what Mary Louise Pratt has termed the “Contact Zone” which is used to refer to the “social spaces where cultures meet, clash and grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power such as colonialism, slavery or other aftermaths as they are lived out in many parts of the world.” (Pratt 34) What Pratt is referring to is the situation that is created when two completely distinct cultures, that operate on totally different levels, attempt to interact. Each culture brings with them certain values and traditions that the other may not entirely understand. This predicament often leads to confusion, misunderstandings or sometimes worse. The meeting of western and Indian cultures created exactly this “Contact Zone” situation that Pratt defines. The aftermaths of the situation have been both positive and negative and have simultaneously posed a threat to the art form while providing opportunities for the artists.
Before contact with the western world, pottery making among the Hopi-Tewa Indians was a communal activity which served to strengthen social relations with tribal members not of the same family. Pottery thus objectified valued social relations where sharing with individuals not of one’s matrilineage was both important and necessary for households to functions. (McChesney, 13) As with most Native American tribes, the Hopi-Tewas strove to maintain a strong social network by dividing up the labor and working together to accomplish it. Immediately the differences can be seen between the social structure of American Indian cultures as compared to that of westerners’ which value individuality over community.
With the introduction of the railroad to the areas of northern Arizona where the Hopi-Tewas lived, entered new social challenges that threatened the Native Americans’ lifestyles. In an attempt to operate in an American cash economy, many Native Americans began to make pottery to be sold in trading posts to collectors and tourists.
He makes a point of how American’s place an extreme emphasis on “lineal order”, we take pride in “lining things up, getting thing in line… We have it all neatly separated and categorized” (16). This statement is absolutely true, if we look about our society, the city we live in, the design of our houses, the way desks are arranged in a school, everything is in straight, orderly lines. In contrast, in Native American communities “the reverse is true… instead of separating into categories of the sort, family groups sit in circles, meeting are in circles” (17). These are examples of how the Native American culture places great value on coming together and including people in their traditions. In Toelken opinion, these differences in spatial systems also affect our relationships with
Indian Givers How the Indians of the Americas transformed the world. This paper tries to explain Jack Weatherford's Indian Givers by examining the history of the Native American connection to many agricultural products that would not have been produced without the knowledge that Indians gave. Weatherford further stipulates that it is through these advances in agriculture that the United States has remained a strong contender in the global market, that without the influences of the Native Americans on the early settlers those early immigrants to America would not have survived. Through his work, "Indian Givers: How Indians of the Americas Transformed the World", Weatherford brings an insight to a people that most individuals have neglected to consider. The paper concludes that it is Weatherford's purpose to demonstrate that Native Americans have been a misrepresented and forgotten people when the history of North America is discussed.
By analyzing the Kawaiisu, a Great Basin Native tribe, I want to explore cultural wonders and observe their society as I compare an aspect of interest with that of another culture in the world, the Chuuk. Comparing different societies of the world will allow me to successfully learn about the Kawaiisu people in a more detailed and open minded manner. Populations all around the world throughout time have had different views and traditions of beliefs. Through this project, I hope to unravel and gain an understanding of different perspectives and ways of life.
This paper addresses the results of interviews, observations, and research of life in the Ottawa tribe, how they see themselves and others in society and in the tribe. I mainly focused on The Little River Band of Ottawa Indian tribe. I researched their languages, pecking order, and interviewed to discover the rituals, and traditions that they believe in. In this essay I revealed how they see themselves in society. How they see other people, how they see each other, what their values were, what a typical day was etc. I initially suspected that I would have got different responses from these questions but in reality the results in the questions were almost completely the same. I studied this topic because mostly all the people that are close to me are associated in the Ottawa tribe. I additionally love the Native American culture, I feel it is beautiful and has a free concept.
There are consistent patterns or themes regarding Native American world views and the differentiation of cultural elements and society. Native Americans retained control of institutional and cultural orders against the assimilation effort because all aspects of Native American societies are interrelated, guided by the broader cultural world views. Each cultural or institutional element is, in fact, overlapped with other elements, so change in one element inevitably affects the broader cultural and social complex. While adopting to a new environment and small changes was possible in the West, where social and cultural elements are separate from each other, Native Americans were faced with conflicts and a potential, large disruption of the existing social orders.
Pages one to sixty- nine in Indian From The Inside: Native American Philosophy and Cultural Renewal by Dennis McPherson and J. Douglas Rabb, provides the beginning of an in-depth analysis of Native American cultural philosophy. It also states the ways in which western perspective has played a role in our understanding of Native American culture and similarities between Western culture and Native American culture. The section of reading can be divided into three lenses. The first section focus is on the theoretical understanding of self in respect to the space around us. The second section provides a historical background into the relationship between Native Americans and British colonial power. The last section focus is on the affiliation of otherworldliness that exist between
In conclusion, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein shows readers how irresponsibility and the excessive need for knowledge can cause suffering among others as well as oneself. Victor never intends to cause such harm; however, he is not cautious and observant with his actions, which ultimately leads to his classification as a tragic hero. The desire to learn is most definitely a wonderful trait to have, as long as one’s knowledge doesn’t reach the extent that Victor Frankenstein’s unfortunately does.
In his essay, “The Indians’ Old World,” Neal Salisbury examined a recent shift in the telling of Native American history in North America. Until recently, much of American history, as it pertains to Native Americans; either focused on the decimation of their societies or excluded them completely from the discussion (Salisbury 25). Salisbury also contends that American history did not simply begin with the arrival of Europeans. This event was an episode of a long path towards America’s development (Salisbury 25). In pre-colonial America, Native Americans were not primitive savages, rather a developing people that possessed extraordinary skill in agriculture, hunting, and building and exhibited elaborate cultural and religious structures.
The Hopi is an Indian tribe indigenous to Northeastern Arizona and New Mexico. They live in four different villages, those being: the Oraibi, New Oraibi, Bakavi, and Hotevilla. (Brandt, 1954: 17). The villages are located on top of mesas, surrounded by rocks and desert land. The dry land allows them to grow an abundant amount of maize, beans, squash, and primarily blue corn. Hopi men and women are both responsible for different tasks in the tribe. While the men do the farm work, hunting, religious ceremonies, and sheepherding, the women have the authority to own houses, farmlands, and cisterns. Their society is matrilineal; Hopi households revolve around the women of the family. As a result of this, children are always part of the mother’s clan (Nanda & Warms, 2012: 111, 170).
Among the Apaches and the Cherokees, reciprocity was an important behavioral norm both within the tribe and toward outsiders of each tribe’s respective culture. However, this essay will mostly examine the two tribes’ behavior of reciprocity toward outsiders, with internal reciprocal acts taking the backstage. The majority of the most notable examples were indeed concerning the two tribes’ relationships with the Americans, and it is from these interactions that we can see the way the two tribes differed in their attitudes toward the Americans, yet were very similar in demonstrating a firm belief in reciprocity.
Frankenstein, speaking of himself as a young man in his father’s home, points out that he is unlike Elizabeth, who would rather follow “the aerial creations of the poets”. Instead he pursues knowledge of the “world” though investigation. As the novel progresses, it becomes clear that the meaning of the word “world” is for Frankenstein, very much biased or limited. He thirsts for knowledge of the tangible world and if he perceives an idea to be as yet unrealised in the material world, he then attempts to work on the idea in order to give it, as it were, a worldly existence. Hence, he creates the creature that he rejects because its worldly form did not reflect the glory and magnificence of his original idea. Thrown, unaided and ignorant, into the world, the creature begins his own journey into the discovery of the strange and hidden meanings encoded in human language and society. In this essay, I will discuss how the creature can be regarded as a foil to Frankenstein through an examination of the schooling, formal and informal, that both of them go through. In some ways, the creature’s gain in knowledge can be seen to parallel Frankenstein’s, such as, when the creature begins to learn from books. Yet, in other ways, their experiences differ greatly, and one of the factors that contribute to these differences is a structured and systematic method of learning, based on philosophical tenets, that is available to Frankenstein but not to the creature.
People have been living in America for countless years, even before Europeans had discovered and populated it. These people, named Native Americans or American Indians, have a unique and singular culture and lifestyle unlike any other. Native Americans were divided into several groups or tribes. Each one tribe developed an own language, housing, clothing, and other cultural aspects. As we take a look into their society’s customs we can learn additional information about the lives of these indigenous people of the United States.
Education is a tool to advance an individual and a society; however, education can become a means to gain power when knowledge is used to exercise control over another. In Frankenstein, knowledge becomes the downfall of both Victor Frankenstein and the Monster. The novel explores the consequent power struggle between Victor Frankenstein and his creation, the dichotomy of good and evil, and the contrast between intellectual and physical power. Finding themselves in mirroring journeys, Victor Frankenstein and the Monster are locked in a struggle for dominance. Through these two characters, Mary Shelley explores the consequences of an egotistical mindset and of using knowledge to exercise power over others.
Having read your article, 'Violence, Greed and the Gridiron' published in NY Times, I would like to give some of my opinions about your article.
Victor Frankenstein, the monster’s creator, is the victim of his own pride. An ego unchecked is a dangerous thing. But in truth, it really just shows Victor’s humanity. He is privileged, educated, talented, loved, adored, but he is not perfect. His flaw is his own ego and pride. Without doubt, this is the result of a childhood where he was overindulged. Overindulged to the extent he was given a little girl “Elizabeth” as a “present”, whom he considered from childhood “mine only” (Shelley 21). Little wonder the twenty year old Victor would think he could create, control and command life. But Victor as with any indulged child did not take the time to learn much from his parents about parenting and fath...