Erin Walsh
ENGL 601
Reading Response-
Postcolonialism
3/5/12
For
this week’s readings, I’m actually pretty glad I read the Jack London story
before the Bressler chapter on Postcolonialism. When I was originally reading London’s “The League of Old
Men,” the point of the story that frusterated me the most was the old Whitefish
man, Imber’s, inability to adequately communicate with anyone else in the tale,
aside from Howkan. Now, after
reading Bressler’s chapter, I realize that the success or failure of
colonization really does come down to communication. (In fact, while I was reading London’s short story, I even
wrote a note to myself asking why it was that whenever an
indigenous/native/non-white culture was being stereotyped or belittled, it was
always their language, speech, and communication skills that was the first to
be targeted).
I
will however say that I do not agree with the notion brought up in the
beginning of Bressler’s chapter that it is the most acceptable course of action
for the colonized or oppressed culture to take on a vow of silence of sorts. Rather, I would argue that it is more
important that in order to maintain their culture as well as adapt to the
inevitably newly emerging culture, these people must learn how to connect the
broken barrier of communication between themselves and the colonizers. I am sure this is not a novel idea to
many colonized cultures but in the majority of Postcolonialism literature I
have come across, the generalized view of the colonized peoples is that if they
lose their language, they lose their culture, and so they will refuse to
subject themselves to accepting the white mans tongue. But by doing so, and not giving in to
this main, (and I’ll admit, pride-insulting), demand, they unfortunately just lessen
the opportunities they would have had to look after their people’s priorities
of what should remain in their culture’s best interest.
My
next couple little remarks are mainly just more reactions on the London piece,
nothing earth shattering, or enough to spark a lively debate, but just things
that stuck out to me as I was reading.
First, I found it interesting that the oppressed culture that was being
primarily represented here was the people of the Whitefish group. I
found this funny for two reasons; One the actual fish, whitefish, was what we
used to consider dog food, growing up, and was a fish that we actually made fun
of (as far as being able to make fun of a fish can go), and so to hear Imber
speak so adamantly about the Whitefish men being the epitome of manly men, it
just sounded odd to me; and two, it seems a little ironic that the name of the
group/tribe of people that hated White men, were chosen to be
represented by the Whitefish people. I wonder if London intended for there to be that play on
words there…
Another
couple little side thoughts that confused me was when Imber first killed the
two white mail men in the canoe, then made a point to comment on how nice of a
canoe it was, and then went on to say how he and his men burnt the canoe and
the supplies there on the spot.
Considering Jack London was a white author, I would have assumed that he’d
chose to portray the natives of Alaska in their most stereotypical sense,
whereas they are characterized as never wasting anything. I’m not sure if I agree or disagree with
how he chose to incorporate this detail into the story but it makes me wonder
just what sort of a perspective London was writing from.
As
for my final quick comment, “phantasmagoria?” Really? London,
you went all this time using the same level of vocabulary and then you throw
this word in there?
No comments:
Post a Comment