[Client’s Name]
[Client’s Professor]
[Client’s Subject]
[Date Passed]
Indigenous people (the Cree) vs. British settlers: How does the confrontation between Mrs. Andersen and Crow Eagle dramatize the differing values and the racist attitudes that created conflicts between two cultures?
The confrontation between Mrs. Anderson and Crow Eagle served to show just how different the Canadians and the Indians are. It also showed a question of what it really means for a person to be civilized.
In the play, Mrs. Anderson reported Crow Eagle for stealing her ‘bath tub’. Her point was that stealing is against the law. Crow Eagle however, defended that their tribe needed a ‘drum’ and that Mrs. Anderson’s ‘tub’ was perfect for it. It was seen in the play that Crow Eagle did not understand why it was such an issue when Mrs. Anderson had two tubs while their tribe sorely needed one drum. It was however seen that Mrs. Anderson seemed to be angrier at the fact that her tub was stolen by an Indian. Her racist attitude was clearly demonstrated in the play when she jumped from the topic of her stolen tub to Indians possibly ‘murdering them in their sleep’.
The play also reflected that even though Crow Eagle was seen as the ‘savage’ one, he clearly demonstrated civilized attitude with his patience and willingness to listen to what the officers had to say. He was also willing to follow the suggestion of the officers to settle the issue – to pay skins for the stolen tub. On the other hand, Mrs. Anderson kept whining and refusing to settle, showing her childishness and immaturity simply because she was prejudiced against Indians.
Also, the ‘tub incident’ as we can call it, showed the different values of the two cultures. In the play, Canadians had a strong value of having laws and adhering to it. On the other hand, the Indians were seen as people whose laws were based on the issue of life and survival.
Post #9
Describe the characteristics of Clarence. How is he established as a character foil to Walsh? What kind of revelations does he have in the Nez Perce scene (60-64) and in the scene with Sitting Bull and Crow Foot?
Clarence at the start is seen as a naïve new recruit to the force. He believes the rumors about Sitting Bull and the Sioux nation quite easily despite not really knowing the truth. This shows that Clarence is someone who believes something if ‘everyone says so’. He looks forward to playing an important role in the Indian War if there would be one in Canada. He is idealistic and simple minded in that what he only sees is the recognition taking part in an Indian War would give him. He did not think about the harsh realities of life – that death always accompanies war on both sides of the fighting groups. However, Clarence is not stupid. He is willing to learn and to listen to those he respects. In fact, after a while of listening to Harry and Walsh, he realizes that the only those who were with Custer at his time of death would know what really happened.
In the Nez Perces scene, Clarence was exposed to reality’s ugly truths. He saw how the Americans burned the border every ten miles to drive the buffalo away. He saw how this affected the Sioux as they were unable to hunt. He also begins to see the Indians as human beings as can be seen by his devastation when he saw a woman and her baby that died because they were shot and his words: “what about out Indians?I don't believe it! It ain't fair [] They're people, aren't they? You don't let people starve to death, do you?” In this scene, we see Clarence as someone with a heart.
Because the Sioux were beginning to starve, Clarence snuck food for Crowfoot, Sitting Bull’s son. Spending time with Sitting Bull and Crowfoot had taught him to respect them, very different from his first perspective of Indians. He also believed that the Sioux nation deserved better thus he asked Walsh to speak to the Prime Minister about what the Sioux were going through. He wholeheartedly believed that it would make a difference, reinforcing our earlier view of Clarence as someone who is idealistic and a character that believed in the goodness of people. Unlike Walsh, his respect in the Sioux never wavered and he tried to help them as much as he can to the very last moment.
Post #10
In the scene with Walsh and MacLeod (“Walsh’s last stand”), what does Walsh’s choice reveal about his pressures and priorities? Is he a victim of immovable forces, “a Puppet” (97), or is he motivated by “self-preservation” (99)?
Walsh is sympathetic towards the fate of Sitting Bull and the Sioux because he has clear principles about respect and justice. He considers Sitting Bull a friend and that is why he believes it is his duty to help the Sioux as evident in the lines: “and now , they hold here in Canada, the remnants of a proud race, and they ask for some sort of justicewhich is what I thought I swore on oath to serve!”
However, he is also loyal to his duties as a member of the force as can be seen in the scene where he said to Louis that he trusts those who are above him. It can be deduced that he was talking about his superiors in the force as well as the government he is under.
However, Walsh’s duties and principles clash when MacLeod (his superior) gave him an ultimatum by forbidding him to help Sitting Bull and the Sioux at all cost. He chose to obey. When Sitting Bull came to him, he turned him away saying: “Cross the line if you're so hungry, but don't, for Christ's sake, come begging food from me!”
Walsh can be seen as both a victim of immovable forces as well as the need for self-preservation. He did try to help Sitting Bull but every step he made, every report he filed was ignored by the government thus demonstrating that a person really cannot go against the ruling system and those that are in power. In this sense, he was merely a ‘puppet’. However, he had a choice whether to remain a ‘puppet’ or not. When he decided to submit to this system and turn his back to Sitting Bull, he had demonstrated that he was trying to save himself. After all, he knew the consequences of the orders of his superiors. He opted for ‘self-preservation’ even at the cost of the potential death of innocent people.
