Whether it is simply to enhance the narration or symbolic, Zitkala-Sa's description of the Devil is disturbingly vivid. It is a multi-layered, unimaginable description that equally intrigues and horrifies the viewer; that said, it also has some interesting language used to describe it.
First, she calls it "the white man's devil" (62). This not only distances her from it, but makes it seem like a trick or custom, rather than a palpable being. She also says, "the paleface woman [said] this terrible creature roamed loose in the world, and that little girls who disobeyed...were to be tortured by him (63)". Thus, Zitkala-Sa portrays the devil as a tool for controling children, and she treats it as such when she scratches out its image in a book (64).
Furthermore, almost all of the descriptions of the Devil's composition pertained to animals. This indicates that the white culture vilified the animals that Zitkala-Sa loved, or possibly that they perverted their peaceful image and converted them to a horror.
One last uncomfortable note: she says that the Devil "...did not know the Indian language..."and, "...he had beared cheeks, like some I had seen palefaces wear..."(63,62). Any guesses as to who the Devil might be?
1 comment:
Jesus Christ himself. I thought I was the only one who related her description to him. The act of scratching out a page of a Bible, whether it was a picture of a devil or not, is sort of a desecration. As mentioned in class, Zitkala-Sa is making a statement about Christianity as a tool for justifying and holding control, and a superstition against all other superstitions.
Post a Comment