 |
| From the Virginia Quarterly Review |
Answer TWO of the
following:
Q1: After confronting the performers
at the beginning of the essay, the author asks herself (and us), “Was I also
commoditizing my culture when I performed my identity, or was I offering
reverence to my ancestors? Could anything profitable be authentic? Did any of
this matter if you were simply trying to survive?” (43). What do you think
about this: if you get paid for a performance, can it be real? And
should you worry about authenticity if you simply need to feed your family (or
yourself)?
Q2: How does the tribe in
general feel about “chiefing” and do they actively support it—or quietly
discourage it? What makes it difficult for the tribe to do away with chiefing
entirely? Does the author suggest that they should—or will—in the near future?
Q3: The Museum of the
Cherokee Indian is unique among many similar institutions in that it requires
“visitors to contemplate human suffering” (47). Why do you think the museum
takes this approach, when so many other museums try to present history in a
more general, non-offensive manner? Wouldn’t this risk offending or alienating
their audiences?
Q4: The author says at the
end of her essay that “their readiness to share so much with their former
tormentors might be one of the most radical acts of forgiveness I know” (55).
What makes this an act of “forgiveness,” and what do you think the tribe hopes
to accomplish by participating in these chiefing activities? Do you agree, as
some people do, that by “forgiving” their oppressors they are merely perpetuating
the cycle of injustice?
No comments:
Post a Comment