It is apparent in Boudinot's writings that he is writing for his people, but the way in which he writes and asks the audience for support is unlike the ideals and values of his people. By saying that the Cherokee nation is becoming stronger, and then coming to the whites as an inferior or on all fours begging for support does not show that strength. If Boudinot is saying that the Cherokee nation is ready to contribute and maybe compete with its bigger neighbor, then it would only make sense not to grovel, but to come with charisma and confidence.
There is no reason to act inferior when the stereotype is already in place, instead of being the dog with its tail between its legs, Boudinot should have been the pitbull with his teeth showing. I'm not suggesting that Boudinot's address to threaten the whites, but instead of listing off numbers of wagons or cows, or telling people how much he loves God, he could tell them how proud his people are, just like them. Boudinot cannot change the minds of whites by staying in his place, instead, Boudinot should have came to them as equals, as a proud people with ideals. In the end, I'm sure it would not have changed a thing, but it bothers me when an oppressed people remain oppressed and take on the mentality of the oppressed.
They just needed a John Sully.
I agree. I think there are some interesting rhetorical problems going on with Boudinot. I, too, get why he might feel compelled to come in with an attitude of submission in order to gain funding and seem non-threatening, but I think we have to ask if this is the best strategy in the long run. We'll see the rhetorical strategies change over the course of the next few weeks. I wonder, too, if Boudinot's own internal colonialism is what led him to sign the Treaty of New Echota. Perhaps he saw no other way because he had assumed this rhetorical position of white superiority for so long. If he had maintained a stronger sense of resistance throughout his campaigns then perhaps he would have have continued to resist. I guess I see Boudinot as acting with a mentality of survival, but perhaps lacking in the area of resistance.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you should check out this article and report back: http://io9.com/5422666/when-will-white-people-stop-making-movies-like-avatar
I also agree! It seems like he is conforming to the whites' ways and traditions! I guess Boudinot might have thought that his way would have helped them survive, but the way I see it is that the whites were powerful. So if they wanted to, they could have eventually taken over the Cherokee nation (if they wanted to) no matter what Boudinot did. If Boudinot thought like me, it would have been much better to go down a proud man and a proud culture, rather than what he actually did.
ReplyDeleteI don't by any means defend Boudinot's actions, but I think there's something to be said about confronting such a daunting situation. I would like to think that I would never do that to my own people, but at the end of the day people are people and they are unpredictable. Survival in the face of danger can drive a lot of compromises that people would not normally consider.
ReplyDeletehaha the link that you posted was pretty funny. i think avatar was an amazing movie, visually, but in all other aspects it was garbage. as far as the genre of white people coming in and becoming the hero, i agree that it's overplayed and boring. but coming back to avatar, it worked for that movie, because viewers don't want to think, they just want something that looks good and is shiny. another example of the white guy coming in and being the hero is the last samurai with tom cruise. hahaha which was pretty good. i agree with the article though, i want to see a movie that is told through the perspective of some aliens or someone who isn't a white male, just because it's overplayed ;)
ReplyDelete