Pokrewne
- Strona Główna
- Peter Charles Hoffer The Brave New World, A History of Early America Second Edition (2006)
- Natan M. Meir Kiev, Jewish Metropolis; A History, 1859 1914 (2010)
- Adams G.B. History of England From the Norman Conquest to the Death of John
- Historyczne.Bitwy Pskow.1581 1582,Dariusz.Kupisz
- Piercien i roza czyli historia Lulajci Bulby Thackeray
- Mark W. Harris Historical Dictionary of Unitarian Universalism (2003)
- May Peter Wyspa Lewis 2 Czlowiek z Wyspy Lewis
- Lewis Wallace Ben Hur
- K. J. Yeskov Ostatni Wladca Pierscienia
- Swieci W Dziejach Narodu Polski
- zanotowane.pl
- doc.pisz.pl
- pdf.pisz.pl
- hakuna.opx.pl
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.In Vietnam, the U.S.military floatedrumors of rape as part of their psychological warfare campaign.Often, women have been pressured to tell stories they would prefernot to make public, stories they perceive as shameful, so that thosestories could be used against a person or a group in power (on a farless violent scale, think of Monica Lewinski, whose relationship withPresident Bill Clinton was exposed without her consent, by a partisanopposition).The real beneficiaries of the telling of those truths arenot the rape victims, but the men struggling for power.When no such political reasons exist for the telling, women s talesof rape are often silenced, ignored.What political purpose, then, motivated the telling of the rape ofthe Shoshone?I would speculate that the motivation for documenting the rapeat Bear River finds its source in tensions regarding sexual behavior.IfConnor was going to blast Mormons for polygyny, then Mormonswere going to take note of the rape committed by Connor s soldiers.The memory of Haun s Mill was only two decades old.The Mor-mons of 1863 Utah knew better than most the military effectivenessof such brutality. Ten Digressions on What s Wrong 249And if accusing Connor s troops might, by some chance, get Con-nor off their backs in Salt Lake well, all the better, then.The rape of Native American women by European American in-vaders is poorly documented.According to Brownmiller, narrativessimilar to those recited by abolitionists, to document the rape ofAfrican slaves, were not taken down on behalf of natives.Not muchmore is known about the rape of white women by natives.White menspoke frequently about the rape of white women, often to excusetheir own violent retaliations, but white women were silent on thematter.Narratives of abducted white women were edited for chastity;it is unclear, when a captive says she lived as Indian wife, whetherwe should understand that as sexual coercion.Brownmiller suggestswe consider each narrative separately, according to the length of cap-tivity.Most historians concede that in actuality, and excluding cap-tivity situations, natives raped white women far less frequently thanwhites raped native women.This is not to say that rape did not occurin some indigenous cultures.Margaret Mead s research on Plains cul-tures uncovered remembered histories of rape, perpetrated by youngmen who regarded rape as a great adventure, upon bad women, defined as divorced women lacking male protection, or ar-gumentative women (qtd.in Brownmiller 285).We do know that perceived threats against white women wereused to incite violence against natives, and perceived threats againstnative women were used to incite violence against whites.For in-stance, the scalps of white women were used to taunt Major Mc-Garry into a rage, prompting the blunder that killed fourteen of thesoldiers who died that day.And recall how, after the Dakota War, theinnocent Chaska was accidentally killed in the mass hangings, an accident likely caused by local rage at his friendship with a whitewoman, Sarah Wakefield.So: We do know that white women were used against natives,and native women were used against whites.How would it be possible to use women of one race against an-other, if we did not first define women as property, and define femalesexuality as a thing to be controlled, a thing of shame?As an occasional HELPER, I have often wondered whether myHELP is a thing that gets used this way, as Wakefield s HELP was used.Of course it is the concept of HELP that most requires revision. 250 Conclusions without EndsWe whites often pretend that when we HELP people of color, thishas nothing to do with us.I understand why Allie Hansen said, We did this primarily forThem.But still.As if We did not do this in the first place.When the dominating attack the dominated, whose history is thehistory of domination?Women s History, another cultural phenomenon, is (in an impor-tant sense) not about women.It s about the male-generated system thatpersists in dominating women.Is this not, therefore, Men s History?You may find this book, the one you now hold, on the bookstoreshelf marked Native American History. But in truth it is the storyof what European America did to Native America.Is it not, then, Our History? Not Theirs?Do we not need then instead to HELP ourselves operate moreresponsibly in this world?Indigenist activist and intellectual Ward Churchill has con-tributed perhaps the most eloquent, and concise, explanation for whyit is necessary that we remember our Bear River Massacre.And the rape that followed it. My Lai, he writes, that hideous symbol of the American ef-fort in Southeast Asia, can only be understood through comprehen-sion that it had happened before at Sand Creek.The reason of MyLai rests solidly in the forgetting of Sand Creek (Son 504).Like many who have dedicated their lives to native rights and na-tive history, Churchill is apparently unaware of the Bear River Mas-sacre, or he would have pointed out that Sand Creek happenedbecause Bear River was itself immediately forgotten.Not that this is his fault.James Welch, in his book Killing Custer,also locates the root of this evil in Sand Creek [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl agnieszka90.opx.pl
.In Vietnam, the U.S.military floatedrumors of rape as part of their psychological warfare campaign.Often, women have been pressured to tell stories they would prefernot to make public, stories they perceive as shameful, so that thosestories could be used against a person or a group in power (on a farless violent scale, think of Monica Lewinski, whose relationship withPresident Bill Clinton was exposed without her consent, by a partisanopposition).The real beneficiaries of the telling of those truths arenot the rape victims, but the men struggling for power.When no such political reasons exist for the telling, women s talesof rape are often silenced, ignored.What political purpose, then, motivated the telling of the rape ofthe Shoshone?I would speculate that the motivation for documenting the rapeat Bear River finds its source in tensions regarding sexual behavior.IfConnor was going to blast Mormons for polygyny, then Mormonswere going to take note of the rape committed by Connor s soldiers.The memory of Haun s Mill was only two decades old.The Mor-mons of 1863 Utah knew better than most the military effectivenessof such brutality. Ten Digressions on What s Wrong 249And if accusing Connor s troops might, by some chance, get Con-nor off their backs in Salt Lake well, all the better, then.The rape of Native American women by European American in-vaders is poorly documented.According to Brownmiller, narrativessimilar to those recited by abolitionists, to document the rape ofAfrican slaves, were not taken down on behalf of natives.Not muchmore is known about the rape of white women by natives.White menspoke frequently about the rape of white women, often to excusetheir own violent retaliations, but white women were silent on thematter.Narratives of abducted white women were edited for chastity;it is unclear, when a captive says she lived as Indian wife, whetherwe should understand that as sexual coercion.Brownmiller suggestswe consider each narrative separately, according to the length of cap-tivity.Most historians concede that in actuality, and excluding cap-tivity situations, natives raped white women far less frequently thanwhites raped native women.This is not to say that rape did not occurin some indigenous cultures.Margaret Mead s research on Plains cul-tures uncovered remembered histories of rape, perpetrated by youngmen who regarded rape as a great adventure, upon bad women, defined as divorced women lacking male protection, or ar-gumentative women (qtd.in Brownmiller 285).We do know that perceived threats against white women wereused to incite violence against natives, and perceived threats againstnative women were used to incite violence against whites.For in-stance, the scalps of white women were used to taunt Major Mc-Garry into a rage, prompting the blunder that killed fourteen of thesoldiers who died that day.And recall how, after the Dakota War, theinnocent Chaska was accidentally killed in the mass hangings, an accident likely caused by local rage at his friendship with a whitewoman, Sarah Wakefield.So: We do know that white women were used against natives,and native women were used against whites.How would it be possible to use women of one race against an-other, if we did not first define women as property, and define femalesexuality as a thing to be controlled, a thing of shame?As an occasional HELPER, I have often wondered whether myHELP is a thing that gets used this way, as Wakefield s HELP was used.Of course it is the concept of HELP that most requires revision. 250 Conclusions without EndsWe whites often pretend that when we HELP people of color, thishas nothing to do with us.I understand why Allie Hansen said, We did this primarily forThem.But still.As if We did not do this in the first place.When the dominating attack the dominated, whose history is thehistory of domination?Women s History, another cultural phenomenon, is (in an impor-tant sense) not about women.It s about the male-generated system thatpersists in dominating women.Is this not, therefore, Men s History?You may find this book, the one you now hold, on the bookstoreshelf marked Native American History. But in truth it is the storyof what European America did to Native America.Is it not, then, Our History? Not Theirs?Do we not need then instead to HELP ourselves operate moreresponsibly in this world?Indigenist activist and intellectual Ward Churchill has con-tributed perhaps the most eloquent, and concise, explanation for whyit is necessary that we remember our Bear River Massacre.And the rape that followed it. My Lai, he writes, that hideous symbol of the American ef-fort in Southeast Asia, can only be understood through comprehen-sion that it had happened before at Sand Creek.The reason of MyLai rests solidly in the forgetting of Sand Creek (Son 504).Like many who have dedicated their lives to native rights and na-tive history, Churchill is apparently unaware of the Bear River Mas-sacre, or he would have pointed out that Sand Creek happenedbecause Bear River was itself immediately forgotten.Not that this is his fault.James Welch, in his book Killing Custer,also locates the root of this evil in Sand Creek [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]