Spirit and Identity

The interractions between whites and indians during the colonial period greatly influenced the lives of American Indians. We can see in Zitkala-Sa's narrative how whites tried to mold the indians to their ways. Moving east to get a white man's education, both Dawee and Zitkala-Sa left the safety of the familiar to go to an unknown place, filled with ideas of abundant apple trees. Zitkala-Sa soon realizes her mistake of leaving her family and feels "as frightened and bewildered as the captured young of a wild creature" (45). Although the palefaces try to greet her, their greetings are unfamiliar and it seems absurd to her that someone would treat her as a plaything (50). An essential idea in the indian culture is the concept of the spirit. Zitkala-Sa refers to her spirit in a few instances, tracing its way to non-existence. "And though my spirit tore itself in struggling for its lost freedom, all was useless" (52). Here she speaks of a torn spirit, but later she laments losing that spirit altogether. "Then I lost my spirit" (56). This spirit can also be thought of as identity. The indian culture nurtures individuality, while she finds that at the white's school the existence of "chains which tightly bound [her] individuality" (67). Zitkala-Sa feels that she has lost her place in life. "Even nature seemed to have no place for me. I was neither a wee girl nor a tall one; neither a wild Indian nor a tame one" (69). Is this loss of identity the reason why she has trouble going back to her family? Has the familiar become unfamiliar because she is not the same person she used to be? Does Zitkala-Sa find her spirit again? Does she find a familiar place, a home, in the world of the whites?

The Lives of Selves

Zitkala-Sa writes of her life story with a simpleness that almost hides the deeper meaning of her words. While reading about her care free attitude I was astounded at the sense of freedom she felt. Because she lived in such an open environment, or because she thought she lived in an environment in which there was no danger, she felt like she was not tethered to things. Despite the warnings of her mother to be wary of the "pale faces" she was still allowed to frolic with her friends.

The paragraph that struck me as a defining moment in this book is when she notices her shadow. She writes, "Before this peculiar experience I have no distinct memory of having recognized and vital bond between myself and my own shadow." This quote makes one think about what a shadow is. Is it a blurred part of yourself from which you can never be detached? Is her shadow a symbol of not truly being free? Could it be nature telling her that she is not as free as she thinks? Whatever one thinks it means it is a truly life-changing experience.

Zitkala-Sa (1898)

Studio portrait taken by well-known photographer Gertrude Kasebier, who also took studio portraits of members of Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show.

American Indian Stories-The Collective "I"

While reading American Indian Stories, I found it difficult accept this text as an autobiography. For one, this book is really a collection of stories from a variety of people's lives, not just one, all of which are told through the voice of the author. Thus, the book's classification as an autobiography is not only complicated by the fact that the stories do not portray the life of the author, but also by the fact that the "biographies" are mostly just pieces of a variety of lives. Additionally, there are parts of the book where the autobiographical "I" is completely missing and instead the story is told in the third person. For instance, consider the stories of "A Warrior's Daughter," "A Dream of Her Grandfather," or of the "Blue-Star Warrior." Within these, the lives of the protagonists are told as if from an outsider looking in.
After struggling with the classification of this book for a while, I came to the conclusion that this text could fit into the category of an autobiography if we view the autobiographical "I" into a collective "I". By telling the legends and stories of other people with similar struggles and backgrounds, Zitkala-Sa is able to portray her life as an Indian in the time of assimulation. While she may be an individual, she is also a person among people. The stories of others is her story because she identifies with the other Indians at the time. She sees bits of her life in others and in that way, the collection of stories can be thought of as her own.

Vanity

"Hereby, too, I shall indulge the Inclination so natural in old Men, to be talking of themselves and their own past Action, and I shall indulge it” (pg 3). Franklin begins his autobiography by stating that he has the reserved right of saying whatever it is he desires whether or not it be vain or selfish. He has done his merit, and the very fact that he is of old age has granted him the right to compose a work in which he salutes himself. He warns the reader, “since this may be read or not as any one pleases” (pg 3). Therefore, one has to accept the matter and realize that the reader has been noted. One can draw an existential sentiment in the text; he has created meaning his life and he writes in order to prove the latter. Similar to Stein’s writing, as the reader turns the page we seem to find out more and more about the people involved in his life. He notes his keen interest in the history of his own family, and throughout the first part of the work he brings the attention of the reader to the subject (family). At the same time, Franklin does not fail to mention his astute knowledge of writing. He makes sure that the reader understands that he was an exceptional student from an early age, but in a comical fashion he does consequently mentions that he was never an exceptional arithmetic student. Is it safe to say that the purpose of his autobiography is completely different than Stein’s? The connotation behind the language/text that Franklin uses does not come off as selfish or sneaky, but it is quite frankly filled with excerpts flourished with vain discourse. In my opinion, Franklin’s writing serves as an information pamphlet; Franklin literally tells us almost everything (to a tee) concerning his knowledge of the English language among other subjects. Could it be that he is merely paying respect to those who have taught him so well?

Why Franklin wrote his autobiography

When I started reading the new book, I was happy that finally someone admitted to the real reason for writing their autobiography - vanity (at least in Franklin's case). I felt that the authors of the previous two books we read tried to convince us (and maybe even themselves) that they we writing their stories for the readers. For example, Seaver mentioned in his introduction how people were really interested in Mary Jaminson's life and that's why he convinced her to tell her story. Her initial reaction left me with the imression that the only reason she agreed to do it was to share her story and to familiarize people with the Indians. Stein, on the other hand seemed to have written her autobiography because she wanted to relive her life, and maybe to sell the other books she wrote. Nobody ever mentioned vanity as the reason. My personal opinion is that anyone who decides to write the sotry of his/her life probably feels that he/she is a rather important and interesting person. That's why I really enjoyed reaidng Franlin's perspective: "And lastly, (I may as well confess it, since my Denial of it will be believ'd by no body) perhaps I shall a good deal gratify my own Vanity. Indeed I scarce ever heard or saw the introductory Words, Without Vanity I may say..."
I was a little disappointed later when I read the letters in the beginning of part two. It looked like Franklin was including them to justify the reasons for writing the book. So now I am not sure anymore, why did Franklin decide to write the second part - because of his readers, or out of vanity?

Franklin's purpose

I think that fact that Franklin writes his autobiography for his son makes this a completely unique book (to start).  He passes down crucial life lessons and advice with a certain sincerity and intimacy that cannot be recreated when writing for a broader audience.  Does anyone else agree that the intimacy he writes with is lost as the book progresses?

To me, the coolest part about Franklin is his modest, yet extremely dedicated, upbringing.  Before this, I couldn't imagine a Founding Father being so down to earth and able to relate to the average person.  Working in his father's shop was not good enough for him; he had bigger aspirations.  The obstacles he overcame to reach this idea of self-betterment were astounding.  His actions are a reminder to his son that you can always improve yourself and not to let anyone tell you that you can't. 

As perfectly shaped as Franklin's life seems, he admits to some faults along the way: "That Felicity, when I reflected on it, has induc'd me sometimes to say, that were it offer'd to my Choice, I should have no Objection to a Repetition of the same Life from its Beginning, only asking the Advantage Authors have in a second Edition to correct some Faults of the first" (p.3).  I think that the mention of his errors serves as a reminder to his son to not make the same mistakes he did (typical fatherly advice).  

Is the formal diction and ridiculous capitalization a symbol of his style or of the time period he lived in?

Sorry that post wasn't too focused...just trying to throw a few thoughts out there.