Friday, January 22, 2010
Thompson and survivance
I was really intrigued by the question posed at the end of class on Thursday regarding whether we saw Lucy Thompson's writings as an act of survivance or not. I feel that her writings are a clear act of survivance and that she has done a great deal to help her culture endure. A prime example is her detailed description of the different rituals that her people performed throughout the year. For instance, the white deerskin dance. She went into such elaborate detail that it seems almost possible to recreate the dance and the rituals surrounding it. One of the few instances where her work does not fit with the notion of survivance is when she says that when she dies the true name of her people's God will forever be lost. However, I see this as an inescapable by-product of what has happened around her. If she were to speak this name to anyone but the Talth it would be betraying the fundamental belief of her people. I think it is better to allow the culture to end this way than to forsake its sanctity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I almost wonder if Thompson is being honest in this regard. Could she be protecting the next generation of Talth by not naming them? I think she is a survivance writer, and I'm curious as to how forthcoming she is, entirely.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this text is an example of survivance. People may say that because she has a white husband that she is maybe "white washed" and doesn't truly live in her culture but I think that should have no effect on the influence of her book and the role it plays. It tells of her culture through both non-fictional stories and descriptions and fairy tale/legend fictional stories that often reveal a lot about a culture's beliefs and ideals. Those aspects of the Klamath tribe will not live on at least through the existence of this book.
ReplyDelete