I cannot help but to disagree with the notion that the use of anecdotal evidence by female Native American writers is of any less value to the survivance of Native American peoples. Numbers, charts, and graphs can only say so much. The numbers that Boudinot used to try and convince the government to give him money did not reflect the human element, it reflected the mechanics and proficiency of their community. Boudinot's style of argument may very well have given Native Americans more business and economic competence in the government's eyes, but it did not raise the respect for Native Americans as individuals, who think and feel just as everyone else.
Autobiographies have profound effects on readers in more emotional and personal ways. Anecdotal evidence, used in the right way, can remind us that we are all basically human beings and may even create a parallel between the readers life and the storyteller's. If this occurs there can be major influence by the storyteller. In the case of Winnemuca she is able to create a child's view of the white man and then shows how the changes with more immigration. No doubt, there was some aspect of her story that people connected with at least at some primitive level. This connection changed their view of Winnemuca, therefore anecdotal evidence in Native American writing is good for survivance.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you are right that anecdotal evidence is just as strong as hard facts when it comes to survivance texts. Some may say that it is even more powerful because, as you point out, it includes a human element. I wonder if that could explain why Boudinot was so quick to give up in his resistance -- he underestimated the power of the people and was overwhelmed by the sheer "facts" and odds facing the Nation.
ReplyDelete