Thanks for a good--albeit sometimes bizarre and tangential--conversation about Durbin's book tonight. I still haven't recovered from the awfully embarrassing vanishing e-mail that clarified last-week's burdensome reading assignment, so, again, apologies.
In any case, per the plan announced in class tonight, here's how we will approach Thornton's book this week.
Everyone will read the first two chapters, and the last chapter. Chelsea, Florence, Alex, Brittney, Blake, Leah, Sarah, and Michael will read chapter three, reporting to the class on the contents; while Ellen, Gina, Phil, Carty, Chris, Ariel, Nick, and Jesse will read chapter four. As we discussed, the book is dense at times, but there's a lot of really important stuff here. In particular, in light of our robust critique of Durbin's sometimes too-simple narrative about Southeast Alaska's recent history--and in particular her treatment of ANSCA and Native Corporations--Thornton's book will offer an important counter narrative. He's not really responding to Durbin or any of her questions, I should clarify, but the book highlights what's at issue in Southeast Alaska land debates, and will help us think more carefully and critically about the legacy of wilderness ideas. I look forward to your questions and comments in the comments here, and to our discussion next week.
Until next Wednesday,
Kevin
PS As I don't trust UAS Online anymore, I'm posting a copy of the handout detailing important paper dates here:
SEMINAR PAPER DETAILS
English
418: The Wilderness Act at 50
Per
the description on the syllabus, your 12-15 page seminar paper may be about any
text(s) we've read for class and/or any topic related to wilderness that you
find interesting. It should be informed by your careful reading of key secondary
materials, but you should use these secondary sources as a means to enter into
an ongoing scholarly conversation surrounding the text or issue you choose
rather than as "support" for your position.
Here
are some of the steps that will make this paper process more productive.
Wednesday Oct 30. Prospectus. (optional, but HIGHLY
recommended)
The
prospectus should be a very quick (no more than a page in length) summary of
what you imagine will be the main points of your paper. It should gesture toward a scholarly
conversation you imagine you might enter, noting the key questions at issue
surrounding your text. It should also
indicate your position, and outline or hint at some of the textual evidence you
might use to defend your position.
Wednesday
Nov 6. Annotated Bibliography.
The
annotated bibliography should include a mostly complete bibliography with at least
4 secondary texts (properly formatted following MLA style guidelines); 2 items
in this bibliography should be annotated.
These annotations must be no longer than 150 words and should
contain: a clear articulation of the
argument of the essay or book, a brief explanation of this argument, and a
quick sentence or two that explains its relevance to your own argument. (As a point of reference this paragraph
contains 85 words—concision is key).
Wednesday Nov 13.
Preliminary Draft.
After
discussion, we will complete a peer review workshop of your papers. You should have at least 3 pages written for
this workshop.
Wednesday Nov 20 and 27. Wilderness Conference.
There will be more
details distributed in class, but as described in the syllabus, you will give a
12-minute conference presentation on one of these days. Your presentation should be a preview of the
seminar paper you will complete in the following weeks. You will also submit a 5-6 page paper with
your presentation.
Wednesday Dec 4. Full draft workshop.
Entire
session will be dedicated to a peer review workshop of your papers. You should have at least 9 pages.
Wednesday Dec 11. Final paper due
Please
bring the final version of your paper with the prospectus,
annotated
bibliography, and peer review drafts for final submission.
Being and Place served as an excellent look into a culture that identifies themselves as part of a landscape. Language has a huge impact on that. But which came first, the culture or the language? How do they relate to one another? I wonder how our language and naming conventions came to be the way they are. Why don't we name objects in the same way that the Tlingit do? Is it because of our culture, or is it an inherent tendency of English?
ReplyDeleteAs the author mentions, the Tlingit language has a beautiful system for conveying larger ideas in a fairly compact word. With a largely verb based system, augmented by a multi-prefix and suffix system, a name like "underneath the edge of the kelp" can be expressed in only a couple of syllables. In English, naming things with the same system would make simple directions a tedious affair. Does this predispose us to not be able to name things the same way, and thus not be able to view things in a similar manner?
As the book mentions, many of the places we name are in honor of people. Usually, names are fairly short, tidy affairs. Names stem from real language, from real words in either English, Latin, or a multitude of other languages. However, usually these words are no longer in common usage, they are meaningless in modern language for anything other than names. But when we apply them to the landscape, we honor that person, and as the author says, we claim the landscape. We don't signify a relationship with the land, nor do we hint at its usage or significance. Why? Especially on the frontier, this feels like an especially prudent thing to do. But perhaps the author was right. Maybe we were moving too fast, giving the land too little time to leave an impact on us before we continued expansion. Perhaps we were too afraid of Wilderness, the self-willed land, to let it shape us, rather than vice versa.
Can we change this type of thinking today? Many, many things, it seems, are already named. But perhaps it's not too late to rename them, or give significance to their original names. In English, though, we run into the too-long problem. We like our poetics, and a name like "the cove than glows green when the sun hits it just right" while beautiful, is a mouthful. English has been changing and evolving for a long, long time. Maybe it's time we started changing more, or incorporating more of the languages we originally sought to extinguish. There has to be some way for us to express our relationship to the land better than we currently do. Some way to express that, as much as we have come to think that we possess the land, the landscape possesses us as well.
Maybe we need to start with Wilderness. Maybe instead, we need to start calling it home.
What happens when the linguistic and subsistence relationship of the people to the land undergoes the changes that are seen in this book?
ReplyDeleteTo me, this has the highest potential for directing questions at the results of ANCSA and ANILCA. Indeed, it’s also reflective (to an extent at least) of the path that was favored by William Paul. He wanted to pursue land claims through clans, because, his assertion and that of the book, is that the lands were owned by clans, not villages, tribes or corporations.
A careful consideration that must be remembered in this question, however, is not to limit the ability of a culture to shift and adapt to changing times.
A trend that I’ve seen amongst natives is to identify with tribes, moieties and crests more than clans, at least on a surface level. So instead of saying I am Teeyhittaan, for instance, they might say ‘I am Tlingit’, or ‘I am Raven-Frog’. Technically, both are still true. But Teeyhittaan does not translate to Raven-Frog, or any variation of such. It means “Bark-House-People”. Simply stating one is Raven-Frog would still leave open the possibilities of: Kiks.adi, L’uknax.adi, Ishkitan, Kaach.adi, Kaasx’agweidi, Gaanax.adi, Gaanaxteidi, Teeyeeneidi, Teeyhittaan, Deisheetaan, T’akdeintaan, K’ooxineidi, and perhaps others. To what extent they claim these crests (clan crest versus house crest for instance) varies. My point is that these are extremely diverse groups with different histories, names, locations, and relationships that aren’t conveyed by Raven-Frog. The same could be done with Eagle/Wolf – Brown Bear, for instance, or Eagle/Wolf – Killer Whale, amongst others.
This isn’t to disparage the work of those who fought for land claims in any fashion what so ever. They were fighting to hold onto everything they could, and did so with extraordinary skill and determination. Ultimately, ANCSA is a doorway between the indigenous and western perspectives, but I question to what extent one can maintain that dichotomy. ANCSA Corporations don’t have clan names, clan songs, clan histories, and therefore, as shown by Thornton, the same types of relationships to the land that clans would. The answers to some of these questions are complex and nuanced, but are ones that I think indigenous peoples need to keep asking themselves.
Are Euro-Americans able to truly have a sense of being-in-place? If not could that be the cause of our differing views on wilderness over time?
ReplyDeleteGoing through this reading it is clear that the Tlingits have a very deep historical connection to the places that they live in and the wilderness they interact with. Wilderness is something that is respected and is needed for food and shelter. Wilderness is appreciated and seen as a provider. The Americans that first came from Europe had very different interactions with wilderness. Wilderness was something that was scary and unknown and should be conquered. I feel like this lack of original respect for nature set up our sort of dysfunctional relationship with it that we find today. Because Europeans that came over to America never had a strong relationship with the land or had a history with it like native peoples do, wilderness became viewed as a place where humans were not. This has caused conflicts between native Americans and euro Americans in regards to subsistence hunting and fishing.It seems to me that wilderness is either something we must destroy or not come into contact with. Because Europeans never lived in the united states wilderness we do not know from our past generations how to interact with it like Native Americans do from their elders.
Why is somethings name important?
ReplyDeleteTo Americans we may appreciate a river for some historical fact or something the river was useful to us. To the Tlingit different places hold different meanings. Meanings I may not know or understand. So when thinking about place and language its extremely clear that place is very different to the native people then it is to the english. Why is this important? Well I like to think of it like this, to me motocross was extremely important and my bike was something I cared greatly about. I put time and love into my bike. To my friends racing motocross was a hobby that meant nothing really to them from the outside but all the while helped me grow to the person I am today. I learned values and a hard work ethic. Different people have different relationships with places, languages, and things. So to an english settler in southeast Alaska we might not understand why it is important for the Native people of Hoonah to want to harvest gull eggs in Glacier Bay while they know exactly why it is important and have a rich history with the area. We as English settlers took land that was cherished and made the Native people change the way that they valued the land.
I couldnt post under yours for some reason Professor so I just hit reply. I hope that you see this. How do you measure the effects of changes in industry and the types and ways resources are used in Southeast Alaska? I was especially interested in the chapters of the book dealing with land and resource use, especially about subsistence and what are now called native arts, like halibut hook carving, weaving, and others...I find it very interesting and laudable to try and record this information in a study like the chart he presents showing different communities and the percentages of people who are using subsistence methods and the ranking of communities based on preserving links between culture and the land. I am skeptical that any real "study" can be done using Western methods...I just don't believe that you can check your white privilege or the biases inherent in social institutions and their research methods enough that you could discern the true value of what goes on in these communities that continue a subsistence culture. I feel like there needs to be some tool used that the author doesnt quite have figured out. But it was an admirable job.
DeleteWhen do you get home?
ReplyDeleteMy question is somewhat relative to Ellen’s in the sense that Euro-Americans appear to be hopeless wanderers of a landscape that they never can coexist sustainably with. I am curious as to what is intrinsic to native cultures throughout the world, not just southeast Alaska, that enable them to inherit a sense of stewardship over the places they reside that isn’t present in European culture. Of course there are exceptions to this all-encompassing statement but generally speaking there is a severe deficiency.
Is it the efficiency of production we have established? It seemed a big turning point in the book was the time-space compression that occurred with introduction of technologies such as motors and nets. Have we excluded a crucial component to the rhythm of these activities by expediting the process? Is it the written word that has allowed our culture to distance itself from the surrounding environment, and in turn, sever the sense of the caretaker by dimming our other senses? Either way it appears these cultures throughout the world are extremely content with their locations, only to be brushed aside by a group that absolutely must have their home, only to move on to the next one shortly after. Rather then answer my own question like I’m supposed to, I’ll just pose a bunch of other ones that I also cant answer.
Can a culture still be saved from the actions of another?
ReplyDeleteWe know that a lot of cultures across the Americans (both south and north) have experienced the decline of their lifestyles and culture (some becoming extinct) because of the wanderings of Euro-American and other wandering bodies of explorers. Yet at the same time we still keep these cultures in history and the cultures and people that are still left are protected and preserved. So if these cultures still live on historically and even in the modern era, is there a chance for the slow evolution of their culture to eventually come back to their original place? Or has the damage of our ancestors on both the people and their land become a insurmountable burden to bear?
How is Tlingit's view of wilderness compared to that of immigrants and settlers in Alaska and the United States?
ReplyDeleteNative cultures, especially the Tlingit's in Alaska, have a very long and complex history with wilderness and land. Thornton outline the chapters in this book very well, while he included a lot of scholarly sources and information. Each of the 4 cultural structures that he outlined: Social organization, language and cognitive structures, material production, and ritual processes brought forth new ideas from the Tlingit's perspective rather than out typical understandings.
"However, if one only studies maps or photos, or reads narratives about the geography, culture, and folklore of a place, without experiencing it directly, then one is similarly lost" (Thornton 7).
Place- "...is a framed space that is meaningful to a person or group over time" (10).
It was very interesting reading chapter four when Thornton explained the production of food from hunting, fishing, and gathering and how the Tlingit have managed to harvest large amounts of each in only a few weeks or months.
"If a man was camped at a creek claimed by his clan and household and a man of the opposite moiety came there, the visitor was not openly told of the ownership, he was invited in, feasted, and told how the host's ancestors always came there to fish. A small gift was made to the visitor" (Thornton 137).
This anecdote portrays what should be done but rather is an example of what truly does not happen with the inclusion of government, different cultures, and conflicts between land ownership and boundary lines.