tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888438300076664400.post5221615722385894696..comments2014-12-09T17:25:07.561-08:00Comments on Words and Images: Adamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888438300076664400.post-80615251711759847642014-09-20T19:24:26.505-07:002014-09-20T19:24:26.505-07:00One issue with your reading: goats were imported ...One issue with your reading: goats were imported into America by europeans. I have a feeling that this is a significant fact when looking at the conjunction between this story & this photograph. It doesn't mean that you are guaranteed to be wrong, but it is a problematic detail.<br /><br />The notion that indian childrens with toy bows represent white settlers with guns, while a domestic (but unpleasant) goat represents Indian freedom, is really not intuitive. That doesn't mean that you're wrong - it just means that you need to focus more on evidence, and less on repeatedly stating your idea.<br /><br />Your third paragraph certainly incorporates some details, but it bothers me that you are only relying on generalizations, rather than on the specific history of the Laguna or of pueblos in general. Take this line: "When European settlers expanded to the west..." is problematic when the Southwest was invadied by Spaniards first, and by the U.S. much, much later - the fact that you don't think through any of those details at all is a problem, especially since you're trying to prove something so counterintuitive.<br /><br />Re: the paragraph on the photograph. Isn't the very fact that deerhunting is important evidence that tradition does, in fact, play a role here? You need to at least address the most obvious problems with your position.<br /><br />Overall: It's not just that your position is too counterintuitive, and that you skim over lots of difficult details - it's that you are making too big of a claim too quickly. I'm not that this story and this photograph can't be about the overall Indian experience in a big, general way. But you should get to that point through the details. This reads more like you're making lots of big, counterintuitive assumptions rather than coming to them naturally through the careful analysis of, among other things, a live goat and a dead deer.<br /><br />Kellyn's feedback seems very useful, both where it parallels mine and where it goes in different directions.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5888438300076664400.post-33342015867849245412014-09-16T20:49:56.343-07:002014-09-16T20:49:56.343-07:00I think that this is an interesting argument! How...I think that this is an interesting argument! However, I don't think it follows the given prompt. You mention that the image shows how Silko's family is heavily influenced by European settlers but you fail to mention the fact that the act of hunting isn't really European at all, as the Indians hunted before the settlers. Your essay is primarily about how the billy goats symbolize the Indians and the Indians symbolize Europeans but there is no connection between the image and goats. If possible, I would try to connect the image with the text and create a new argument that states that even though Silko and her family were heavily influenced by Europeans, traditional customs and practices still play an important part in their lives as demonstrated by the hunting in the picture. You can expand this with the text and use the bow making experience as a form of support. If you want to stick with an argument more similar to what you have already written, I would move the last real paragraph to the beginning so the reader immediately sees the connection between the visual and the story and then directly relate the picture to the text and use it to reveal a theme, like the prompt instructs.Kellyn Wilkeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16665410177620350507noreply@blogger.com