What are some of the comments that Pollock makes on ourcontemporary society? Why does she veil it in the discussion of Fort Walsh and the situation surrounding Sitting Bull rather than a contemprary play?
24 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Pollock is trying to say that even today society has not changed much in the treatment of the indians. I agree with her because even now right of the native canadians are being taken away. Back in the time of Fort Walsh it was the neglegation of the George the 3rd medal. She doesn't use a comtempoary play maybe becuase this situation really emphasizes the problem because it is a historically known event.
Pollock makes several comments including that concerning the ignorance of the government to certain people of this nation, as well as the racism still evident in society. Pollock uses this setting so that she may bluntly reveal these issues without stretching things too far to be realistic (as she would have in a contemporary setting). It gives the audience a genuine understanding of the connection between what is obviously wrong in their society and the wrong which may be veiled in our society. She uses obvious problems to give the audience a clear recognition of those problems that are less obvious in todays society.
This scene is when the Sioux meet Walsh and the other representatives of the Canadian government. There are several conflicts, few of which get resolved because something else interrupts it. I think this organization is also one of Pollock's ways of commenting on how things work in our world, especially in politics! Often, we're working on solving one thing, when something else comes up half way through and we run off to go fix that. Then something else happens, and this cycle continues and very little gets done.
Pollock also makes more specific implications on today's society, namely how the Indians are still being cheated out of what they need and deserve. Growing up in Canada herself, she would have known all about the conflicts, which side demanding what, and now seeing that much of what the government agreed to grant the Indians still hasn't been given to them, such as being allowed to be self-governing. This is also helping to speed along the loss of great cultures, who have much to contribute to our society, but do not get the chance to.
Yes, this situation concerning racism back then and now is quite......interesting. Seeing as back during that time before the 1900s, the people of Canada, or perhaps more accurately; most of the early immigrants, paid no concern for the natives, and now although there are still a number of people who do not genuinely care for the natives, a significant number of people have taken action in attempt to preserve Native way of life. This cannot be said for the government though, as it still does pay as much concern towards the Natives back then as it had back then. An example coming from recent times would be from the mid 1900s (I can’t exactly remember what it was but I remember from history class last year, would someone mind reminding me?).
The Canadian government was attempting to sway Quebec into officially joining Canada in the Canada Act, although still a distinct French society. This was about to succeed, however, a Native representative kept creating speeches which he did have a right to, generally asking that if Quebec obtained such a position, then why were the aboriginals and natives denied it. This example shows governments lack of attention towards the Natives now, as it had back in the time of Walsh, thus Pollock’s reason for presenting this situation with Walsh and Sitting Bull, instead of simply a contemporary play (If any of my facts are inaccurate, please feel free to correct, as I’m not exactly up to scratch with my Canadian History on Government....).
Pollock probably chose to present her ideas in the discussion of Fort Walsh surrounding Sitting Bull because she wanted to make a connection between a historical event, to what’s happening now, in an original way. She could have made a contemporary play based on injustice and racism in our current society, and got the same message across, but in Walsh, she explores these ideas in a unique way by showing how injustice and rascism affected people in the past and how they are still affecting people today.
Pollock shares her point of view upon the treatment of the First Nations people through her writing of Walsh. It almost provides a way for Pollock to open the eyes of those oblivious to the mistreatment of our Native peoples. She makes a clear statement upon the fact that this neglect thrust upon the native population is not only evident now, but it was definitely evident many years earlier as well. Pollock is able to make this statement in Walsh, subtly getting across her ideas, without causing too much of a political stir. Simply because the story in Walsh is a well known one, many might pay it more attention, than something that Pollock might have written in present day.
First of all, by veiling comments about today's contemporary society of Fort Walsh and the situation surrounding Sitting Bull, Pollock has made it easier for the audience to understand the message she is trying to get across. The period of time that Pollock set this play in was one that was crucial in Canadian history. Canada was a young dominion (not becoming a totally independant nation until 1931 or something like that) at the time, and was just getting used to the idea of partial self-government. Also, the United States was a nation looking to gain power and seizing territory in Canada would have been a good way to do that. Also, the indifference about the situations surrounding the natives was more prominent back then, then it is today. Pollock hides her message in that time frame because in contemporary society these type of racial struggles and disputes are often well hidden. However, it is fairly easy to detect it when Canada was a new dominion with a lot less races. Usually writers set their plays or novels, etc in modern times because it is easier to connect with the reader using the world around him/her. However, this type of situation is not common and by helping the audience see how it effects the people of that time, it can help the audience look for it today. If Pollock had set her play in modern times it could have easily been passed off as a story (how could this happen in the world i live sort of thing). But using the government's refusal to help the Sioux shows us that the promises made to natives who signed treaties are not being kept today. When the Sioux met the Sioux, Gall showed him a George III medal. They were promised that the queen "would look after your red children". However, it is easy to see that in Walsh that promise is not kept. A connection can be made between that and the treaties Natives signed with the government while Canada was young. The Natives were promised a whole variety of things, among them self-government. However, they have not been granted that and (i think) Aboriginal peoples were one of the last to be granted voting rights in Canada. The Aboriginals who have been on this land longer than Europeans were neglected. Also, Canada promises protection for refugees who are being persecuted in their own countries. Even if the Sioux hadn't presented the George III medal, the Canadian government should have tooken care of them. After all,they did come into Canada like refugees. In America, the Natives were being persecuted first by Custer and then by General Terry. They fled to Canada to escape that persecution, however the Canadian government's main motive was to drive them back. In their eyes, the Sioux did not qualify since Sitting Bull was claimed to have killed Custer (whoever did kill Custer probably did it out of self-defence, he was attacking them after all). Also, (again i'm not totally sure), after World War II the Canadians refused many refugees fleeing war-torn countries. For example, "On May 15, 1939, the St. Louis, a steamship carrying 907 German Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany, set sail from Hamburg, Germany for Havana, Cuba. However, on May 30, when it reached the Havana port, the Cuban government refused to recognize the passengers' entrance visas and none was allowed to disembark. No other Latin American country would admit the refugees, and the St. Louis had to leave port. Canada and the United States were the Jews' last hope, but Mackenzie King ignored the protests of Canadian Jewish organizations and said the crisis was not a "Canadian problem." Frederick Charles Blair, the director of the Immigration Branch of the Department of Mines and Resources was quoted as saying, "No country could open its doors wide enough to take in the hundreds of thousands of Jewish people who want to leave Europe: the line must be drawn somewhere." Canada only took in 8,000, or one percent of the 811,000 Jewish refugees admitted into countries across the world. Mackenzie adopted the policy of "none is too many" regarding the immigration of European Jewry seeking refuge from the Nazis." (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/canada.html) What makes us so sure that the government wouldn't do that again.
Walsh and General Custer are historic figures that are fairly well known although Custer is name that usually is thought of along with the word "hero" for killing many Indians. Polluck is trying to portray her thoughts using this historic event of how the indians are mistreated even to this day.
The issues surrounding Fort Walsh in the play still occurs in our society right now. Prejudice, rascism, maltreatment.. Pollock uses Walsh to get her point across clearly without appearing to be too blunt which would cause some kind of uproar or issues. Maybe the best way she thought of how to get her point across is to discuss the governments' treatment of the indians and show the seriousness of what's being done to them. She may not present these ideas using a contemporary play because adressing these issues set in modern time would probably result in some of the readers taking things seriously and eventually lead to "hurting" some people's feelings.
Pollock comments on some historic issues that still remain in our current society. The negative way the Indians are being treated, and racism, etc. To present her ideas in a play like this, in the discussion of Fort Walsh and the situation surround Sitting Bull rather than a contemporary play because it is likely the best way to express such serious issues and not to be offending anyone. There are issues that people tried dealing with in the past that were never resolved, and up until today those issues are still being dealt with. Providing a play in a situation around Sitting Bull and Fort Walsh may give the audience a deeper understanding of what it was truly like when all the historic issues was happening. If the play was a contemporary play, there may be some modern thoughts and inputs that affect the whole seriousness of the original issue, as people of our current society may see the issue on a different account.
In the play, Pollock demonstrates how the Native Indians were cheated and betrayed by their government. They were maltreated and lied to because of their ethnic background. Pollock does not use contemporary play because I think that this is the best way to relate the event that is happening nowadays.
In the play, Pollock demonstrates how the Native Indians were cheated and betrayed by their government. They were maltreated and lied to because of their ethnic background. Pollock does not use contemporary play because I think that this is the best way to relate the event that is STILL happening nowadays.
Comments that Pollock suggests in the literature walsh are things such as the government not living up to what they said they would or should do. For example, this is shown on page 44 when gall presents a george the 3rd medal which shows that the Queen was to look after them but walsh eventually tells them that the government had made peace with the longknives; the americans which the natives helped fight long time ago in 1776, and were no longer at war with them. This shows that Pollock is saying our society doesn't keep the promises that we give
Pollock is suggesting that our society has always been facing issues of racism and unfair treatment of people. By using the situation surrounding Fort Walsh and Sitting Bull, an event that happened so long ago, and not a more present-day example, Pollock is using time to emphasize that these that these problems have always been underlying problems in society. After so much time has passed since this event, these issues are still visible today. As well, it would be more difficult for Pollock to express these ideas in a contemporary play, as people will have different opinions on current events, which could take away from the messages she is trying to convey.
I agree wuth g-ray the cheese ray, Pollock is trying to convay that even in todays society not much has changed in respect to the treatment of aborginal peoples. This is also shows how much our society lacks in growth if the problems of the past have not yet been solved today.
Some comments that Pollock is making on our society is that the issues going on in Walsh that are occurring in our lives today yet not on such a large scale. Natives still are trying to fight for their rights and some disagreements occur between racial groups. As well although most people are reluctant to admit racism occurs today and many of our points of views may be altered due to this. I believe that she uses Fort Walsh and the situation surrounding Sitting Bull rather than a contemporary play to emphasize historical events and it may be easier for some people to connect to the book this way.
It is quite evident that our society is still not rid of many predjudice views towards race, religion, background etc... Even though these views are not shared by everyone, Pollock points out that many people are torn between many views and can be influenced by society to think what others believe is "right". Pollock uses the example of Walsh in order to demonstrate that our society has not changed much since this historical event and that we still have much more progress to make until we can be rid of these prejudice and racist views.
In the play Walsh, which is set more than one hundred years ago, Pollock has revealed the heartaches that the Native tribes go through. Pollock describes how the Natives are being forced into reserves where resources are limited. An example being when that time..i dont clearly remember the specifics...the governemnt promised the Natives a vast amount of land, but when they realized it had a rich amount of resources, they limited the reserve to an area of smaller size in an area of less resources, even though the Natives were promised the original land. Another example is set by Pollock, throught the play Walsh, where the American government promised the Sioux land in America with no punishment for Custers murder, but they then took back their word. Pollock has used the discussion of Fort Walsh and the Sioux that took place more than one hundred years ago, rather then a contemporary society to portray the unfair treatment that Natives recieve. By using the play Walsh, we can see that events that occured so long ago, have not changed regarding situations today. Situations today still involve unfair treatment with different cultures, as many people stereotype and judge other cultural groups.
lol.... xD last one again O.o? xD anyways, Polluck uses the past to empahsize the present. By writing about this event it may allow many people to realize what exactly has happend, and what exactly is happening. I'm sure many have noticed things around here and there but didn't really care. Introducing this event through a play may allow the people finally realize that there is a problem. Like how Oedipus was blind to see the problem, it is now the present society that plays Oedipus's role. This play in ways plays the Tiresias figure in our modern society.
24 comments:
Pollock is trying to say that even today society has not changed much in the treatment of the indians. I agree with her because even now right of the native canadians are being taken away. Back in the time of Fort Walsh it was the neglegation of the George the 3rd medal. She doesn't use a comtempoary play maybe becuase this situation really emphasizes the problem because it is a historically known event.
what does contemporary mean? will somebody plz explain.
Contemporary (in this context) means current.
Pollock makes several comments including that concerning the ignorance of the government to certain people of this nation, as well as the racism still evident in society. Pollock uses this setting so that she may bluntly reveal these issues without stretching things too far to be realistic (as she would have in a contemporary setting). It gives the audience a genuine understanding of the connection between what is obviously wrong in their society and the wrong which may be veiled in our society. She uses obvious problems to give the audience a clear recognition of those problems that are less obvious in todays society.
This scene is when the Sioux meet Walsh and the other representatives of the Canadian government. There are several conflicts, few of which get resolved because something else interrupts it. I think this organization is also one of Pollock's ways of commenting on how things work in our world, especially in politics! Often, we're working on solving one thing, when something else comes up half way through and we run off to go fix that. Then something else happens, and this cycle continues and very little gets done.
Pollock also makes more specific implications on today's society, namely how the Indians are still being cheated out of what they need and deserve. Growing up in Canada herself, she would have known all about the conflicts, which side demanding what, and now seeing that much of what the government agreed to grant the Indians still hasn't been given to them, such as being allowed to be self-governing. This is also helping to speed along the loss of great cultures, who have much to contribute to our society, but do not get the chance to.
Yes, this situation concerning racism back then and now is quite......interesting. Seeing as back during that time before the 1900s, the people of Canada, or perhaps more accurately; most of the early immigrants, paid no concern for the natives, and now although there are still a number of people who do not genuinely care for the natives, a significant number of people have taken action in attempt to preserve Native way of life. This cannot be said for the government though, as it still does pay as much concern towards the Natives back then as it had back then. An example coming from recent times would be from the mid 1900s (I can’t exactly remember what it was but I remember from history class last year, would someone mind reminding me?).
The Canadian government was attempting to sway Quebec into officially joining Canada in the Canada Act, although still a distinct French society. This was about to succeed, however, a Native representative kept creating speeches which he did have a right to, generally asking that if Quebec obtained such a position, then why were the aboriginals and natives denied it. This example shows governments lack of attention towards the Natives now, as it had back in the time of Walsh, thus Pollock’s reason for presenting this situation with Walsh and Sitting Bull, instead of simply a contemporary play (If any of my facts are inaccurate, please feel free to correct, as I’m not exactly up to scratch with my Canadian History on Government....).
Pollock probably chose to present her ideas in the discussion of Fort Walsh surrounding Sitting Bull because she wanted to make a connection between a historical event, to what’s happening now, in an original way. She could have made a contemporary play based on injustice and racism in our current society, and got the same message across, but in Walsh, she explores these ideas in a unique way by showing how injustice and rascism affected people in the past and how they are still affecting people today.
Pollock shares her point of view upon the treatment of the First Nations people through her writing of Walsh. It almost provides a way for Pollock to open the eyes of those oblivious to the mistreatment of our Native peoples. She makes a clear statement upon the fact that this neglect thrust upon the native population is not only evident now, but it was definitely evident many years earlier as well. Pollock is able to make this statement in Walsh, subtly getting across her ideas, without causing too much of a political stir. Simply because the story in Walsh is a well known one, many might pay it more attention, than something that Pollock might have written in present day.
First of all, by veiling comments about today's contemporary society of Fort Walsh and the situation surrounding Sitting Bull, Pollock has made it easier for the audience to understand the message she is trying to get across. The period of time that Pollock set this play in was one that was crucial in Canadian history. Canada was a young dominion (not becoming a totally independant nation until 1931 or something like that) at the time, and was just getting used to the idea of partial self-government. Also, the United States was a nation looking to gain power and seizing territory in Canada would have been a good way to do that. Also, the indifference about the situations surrounding the natives was more prominent back then, then it is today. Pollock hides her message in that time frame because in contemporary society these type of racial struggles and disputes are often well hidden. However, it is fairly easy to detect it when Canada was a new dominion with a lot less races. Usually writers set their plays or novels, etc in modern times because it is easier to connect with the reader using the world around him/her. However, this type of situation is not common and by helping the audience see how it effects the people of that time, it can help the audience look for it today. If Pollock had set her play in modern times it could have easily been passed off as a story (how could this happen in the world i live sort of thing). But using the government's refusal to help the Sioux shows us that the promises made to natives who signed treaties are not being kept today. When the Sioux met the Sioux, Gall showed him a George III medal. They were promised that the queen "would look after your red children". However, it is easy to see that in Walsh that promise is not kept. A connection can be made between that and the treaties Natives signed with the government while Canada was young. The Natives were promised a whole variety of things, among them self-government. However, they have not been granted that and (i think) Aboriginal peoples were one of the last to be granted voting rights in Canada. The Aboriginals who have been on this land longer than Europeans were neglected. Also, Canada promises protection for refugees who are being persecuted in their own countries. Even if the Sioux hadn't presented the George III medal, the Canadian government should have tooken care of them. After all,they did come into Canada like refugees. In America, the Natives were being persecuted first by Custer and then by General Terry. They fled to Canada to escape that persecution, however the Canadian government's main motive was to drive them back. In their eyes, the Sioux did not qualify since Sitting Bull was claimed to have killed Custer (whoever did kill Custer probably did it out of self-defence, he was attacking them after all). Also, (again i'm not totally sure), after World War II the Canadians refused many refugees fleeing war-torn countries. For example, "On May 15, 1939, the St. Louis, a steamship carrying 907 German Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany, set sail from Hamburg, Germany for Havana, Cuba. However, on May 30, when it reached the Havana port, the Cuban government refused to recognize the passengers' entrance visas and none was allowed to disembark. No other Latin American country would admit the refugees, and the St. Louis had to leave port. Canada and the United States were the Jews' last hope, but Mackenzie King ignored the protests of Canadian Jewish organizations and said the crisis was not a "Canadian problem." Frederick Charles Blair, the director of the Immigration Branch of the Department of Mines and Resources was quoted as saying, "No country could open its doors wide enough to take in the hundreds of thousands of Jewish people who want to leave Europe: the line must be drawn somewhere." Canada only took in 8,000, or one percent of the 811,000 Jewish refugees admitted into countries across the world. Mackenzie adopted the policy of "none is too many" regarding the immigration of European Jewry seeking refuge from the Nazis." (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/canada.html)
What makes us so sure that the government wouldn't do that again.
that last answer was a little too long...
sorry i tend to ramble
Walsh and General Custer are historic figures that are fairly well known although Custer is name that usually is thought of along with the word "hero" for killing many Indians. Polluck is trying to portray her thoughts using this historic event of how the indians are mistreated even to this day.
your smartness awes me dale.
The issues surrounding Fort Walsh in the play still occurs in our society right now. Prejudice, rascism, maltreatment.. Pollock uses Walsh to get her point across clearly without appearing to be too blunt which would cause some kind of uproar or issues. Maybe the best way she thought of how to get her point across is to discuss the governments' treatment of the indians and show the seriousness of what's being done to them. She may not present these ideas using a contemporary play because adressing these issues set in modern time would probably result in some of the readers taking things seriously and eventually lead to "hurting" some people's feelings.
Pollock comments on some historic issues that still remain in our current society. The negative way the Indians are being treated, and racism, etc. To present her ideas in a play like this, in the discussion of Fort Walsh and the situation surround Sitting Bull rather than a contemporary play because it is likely the best way to express such serious issues and not to be offending anyone. There are issues that people tried dealing with in the past that were never resolved, and up until today those issues are still being dealt with. Providing a play in a situation around Sitting Bull and Fort Walsh may give the audience a deeper understanding of what it was truly like when all the historic issues was happening. If the play was a contemporary play, there may be some modern thoughts and inputs that affect the whole seriousness of the original issue, as people of our current society may see the issue on a different account.
In the play, Pollock demonstrates how the Native Indians were cheated and betrayed by their government. They were maltreated and lied to because of their ethnic background.
Pollock does not use contemporary play because I think that this is the best way to relate the event that is happening nowadays.
In the play, Pollock demonstrates how the Native Indians were cheated and betrayed by their government. They were maltreated and lied to because of their ethnic background.
Pollock does not use contemporary play because I think that this is the best way to relate the event that is STILL happening nowadays.
Comments that Pollock suggests in the literature walsh are things such as the government not living up to what they said they would or should do. For example, this is shown on page 44 when gall presents a george the 3rd medal which shows that the Queen was to look after them but walsh eventually tells them that the government had made peace with the longknives; the americans which the natives helped fight long time ago in 1776, and were no longer at war with them. This shows that Pollock is saying our society doesn't keep the promises that we give
Pollock is suggesting that our society has always been facing issues of racism and unfair treatment of people.
By using the situation surrounding Fort Walsh and Sitting Bull, an event that happened so long ago, and not a more present-day example, Pollock is using time to emphasize that these that these problems have always been underlying problems in society. After so much time has passed since this event, these issues are still visible today. As well, it would be more difficult for Pollock to express these ideas in a contemporary play, as people will have different opinions on current events, which could take away from the messages she is trying to convey.
I agree wuth g-ray the cheese ray, Pollock is trying to convay that even in todays society not much has changed in respect to the treatment of aborginal peoples. This is also shows how much our society lacks in growth if the problems of the past have not yet been solved today.
Some comments that Pollock is making on our society is that the issues going on in Walsh that are occurring in our lives today yet not on such a large scale. Natives still are trying to fight for their rights and some disagreements occur between racial groups. As well although most people are reluctant to admit racism occurs today and many of our points of views may be altered due to this. I believe that she uses Fort Walsh and the situation surrounding Sitting Bull rather than a contemporary play to emphasize historical events and it may be easier for some people to connect to the book this way.
It is quite evident that our society is still not rid of many predjudice views towards race, religion, background etc... Even though these views are not shared by everyone, Pollock points out that many people are torn between many views and can be influenced by society to think what others believe is "right". Pollock uses the example of Walsh in order to demonstrate that our society has not changed much since this historical event and that we still have much more progress to make until we can be rid of these prejudice and racist views.
In the play Walsh, which is set more than one hundred years ago, Pollock has revealed the heartaches that the Native tribes go through. Pollock describes how the Natives are being forced into reserves where resources are limited. An example being when that time..i dont clearly remember the specifics...the governemnt promised the Natives a vast amount of land, but when they realized it had a rich amount of resources, they limited the reserve to an area of smaller size in an area of less resources, even though the Natives were promised the original land. Another example is set by Pollock, throught the play Walsh, where the American government promised the Sioux land in America with no punishment for Custers murder, but they then took back their word. Pollock has used the discussion of Fort Walsh and the Sioux that took place more than one hundred years ago, rather then a contemporary society to portray the unfair treatment that Natives recieve. By using the play Walsh, we can see that events that occured so long ago, have not changed regarding situations today. Situations today still involve unfair treatment with different cultures, as many people stereotype and judge other cultural groups.
lol.... xD last one again O.o? xD anyways, Polluck uses the past to empahsize the present. By writing about this event it may allow many people to realize what exactly has happend, and what exactly is happening. I'm sure many have noticed things around here and there but didn't really care. Introducing this event through a play may allow the people finally realize that there is a problem. Like how Oedipus was blind to see the problem, it is now the present society that plays Oedipus's role. This play in ways plays the Tiresias figure in our modern society.
Post a Comment