Category: Blog

Layli Long Soldier’s “38” emphasizes the connection between the fundamentals of language and history. Throughout the poem”38″ Soldier utilizes words, sentences and letters, all making up the foundation of language, to honor the history of Dakota 38 and the men who were executed. Soldier gives little attention on interesting a reader and more attention on providing the raw accounts of the Dakota 38. Soldier creates a contradictory tone by telling the readers that the 38 Dakota men were hanged after Christmas, a warming holiday. Through the contradictory tone, Soldier brings attention to the brutality of the mass execution. Solider also corrects on her diction to help the readers understand the past tense of hung and that “the correct past tense is hanged” reiterating the significance of language in retelling history.

One part of the poem that stood out to me was the aftermath of Andrew Myrick’s death. Finding out that when Myrick’s body was found, his mouth was stuffed with grass emphasized the inhumane action. Solider emphasized the cruel behavior by breaking up her sentences which also tells the readers that the structure of a sentence is  a significant aspect of language. Similarly, Soldier ends her poem with broken structural sentences and refers to the grasses that was once found in Myrick’s mouth which leaves the reader to think about the creulty and inhuamne nature humankind can possess.

“38” by Layli Long Soldier is a self-analyzing poem that emphasizes the connection between language and action when telling the story of the Dakota 38. Long Soldier begins with a little bit of situational irony when introducing the fact that on the same week Lincoln passed the Emancipation Proclamation and becomes the liberator, he also orders the massacre and oppression of another group: the Dakota Nation. I referred to this piece as self-analyzing due to the author’s commentary on her own writing as part of the poem to clarify the importance of each linguistic decision. The powerful quote “everything is in the language we use” took me back to the beginning of the poem where Long Soldier states, “Here, the sentence will be respected.” She wasn’t only talking about respect in the grammatical sense, this is a commentary on all the “sentences” and or treaties not respected through the manipulation of language. The Dakota Nation’s “payment” for their land was confinement and starvation.

Something else that stood out to me was the change between Minnesota and  Mnisota. Layli Long Soldier explains that “The word Minnesota comes from mni, which means water; and sota, which means turbid.” By referencing Minnesota as Mnisota she reclaims the original language that was stolen from her culture just like the land was stolen from the Sioux people. It is a subtle reminder through the piece that the displacement of language is synonymous with the displacement of land.

Towards the end of her writing, Long Soldier makes the point that poetry goes beyond it’s written form when discussing the irony surrounding Andrew Myrick’s demise. He was quoted as saying, “If they are hungry, let them eat grass.” in response to refusing credit to the starving Dakota people. After the Sioux Uprising, Myrick was found with his mouth stuffed with grass, which shows that there can be so much interpretation and meaning between action and language.

The author opens up the poem by explaining that writing and grammar have their rules, and so will this poem in that it will not exaggerate any events that took place. The poem opens up by explaining, chronologically, what Dakota 38 was and how it originated. The author utilized an informative style of writing the poem in order to teach us the significant events that took place during this hanging, as well as keep the readers engaged throughout the poem. The author enforces that when a situation that is difficult to understand comes by, that she will take the time, or an extra line, to explain the full meaning of what occurred for those who may not have fully understood. Language that may have been difficult to understand, was later explained by the author through parenthesis or explanations. “But another way to understand that sort of ‘purchase’ is:Dakota leaders ceded land…” The use of explaining these ideas and the use of parenthesis throughout the poem allows for the reader to stay engaged and focused on what the author is saying. This style of writing poems is not familiar with me as I am used to working with lyrical and or dramatic poetry.

After stating that Dakota had lost nearly all of its land as only 10 miles of it remained, and explaining where the word Minnesota originates from, the author utilized a key point that, “everything is in the language we use.”After stating this point, the author later refers to Minnesota as, “Mnisota,” which is directly related to the statement that was made prior. The author, rather than fully writing out Minnesota, shortens the word of the state to express her disappointment that such a barrier even created such a situation in which the natives in Minnesota got practically no money for giving up their land. The use of language has created barriers amongst people, but it can also create a façade throughout the media. For example, Abraham Lincoln was an astounding president that is praised even today for his contributions to society. However, as the author states, during the same week that President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, he ordered the largest legal mass execution in US history, to this day. This goes to show that language can prevent us from seeing the truth and thus, generating the barrier that we know today.

 

So I’ve just finished reading/listening to “38”, a poem by Native American Poet Layli Long Soldier, and I have to say that was one of the most intriguing poems I’ve ever read. The reason being that it was written differently than the poems I have grown accustomed to reading. Usually when I think of a poem, I think of rhyming, lots of vivid imagery, and overall a beautiful message. Although this poem contained some similar aspects of past poems I read such as imagery and containing a beautiful messauge, it was quite frankly pretty dark in nature. The imagery described horrific murder essentially and delivered a somber message. As for the way it was read, it was delivered in a slow manner, with the motive of really getting the message across each sentence being apparent. As for the language used, she  didn’t over complicate and got straight to the point with her language. It was simple and I think that was the purpose, as she was trying to prove a point the entire time. As for the phrase, “everything is in the language we use”, a lot can be said. For one, the author was trying to convey a serious message. She didn’t want to confuse or have the reader think really hard. She used simple language, thus the message was clear from the get-go. As for what was said before and after the phrase, she was explaining words that contain deep meaning that one might’ve just brushed off. Although the words don’t seem difficult in the sense of tough comprehension, the simplicity of them add such value to her overall message, such as when she explains Minnesota’s name and the definition of treaty.  Long Soldier wants us to understand that everything is hidden in plain sight. As she mentioned before, everything comes to a full circle and everything connects with one another, even if it may not seem that way. And that everything we say has deep meaning, even if it may seem simple, we can make it have deeper meaning.

I thought the piece was refreshingly honest and blunt, only portraying facts and events to the reader. Often throughout my history classes, teachers have occasionally  mentioned how textbooks and media removes information that does not benefit their intent, but I have never searched for direct proof of this. However, it was astounding how history films such as “Lincoln” kept such important events out of the story line without even a mention. The purpose of movies such as these are to be first, historically accurate so the watcher can learn about said topic in a different form. Additionally, within the articles I have read, I can often spot instances where the writer unknowingly or possibly knowingly insert their own ideas into the writing, in turn slowly changing the article from  nonfiction to  persuasive.  This was absent both in the writing and particularly, in the tone it was read. Overall, this add an effect of seriousness that the text needed to show the severity of the injustices done towards the Dakota people.

The phrase “everything is in the language we use” means that when conveying a thought, it is important to use grammar and words that suit it. This is shown in the article where at the start of the article, she included some rules of grammar. These rules were explained to show the effect of punctuation used throughout the article such as “.”. Often times, the purpose of such grammar is forgotten when reading, where a pause emphasizes a particularly powerful idea and is instead read without emotion, losing the effect. Here Long Solider is trying to show how such a minor but destructive event as the Sioux Uprising can be overlooked just as a “.” in a sentence.

The poem about the 38 men that were hanged was indeed a tad misleading at first, but began to click. As I read on I started to truly understand what the writer was attempting to do. The writer chooses to use language that is monotone and a reader that does not have emotion in her voice, but is still able to get across as powerful. Rather than using emotion in her words or in her writing, the writer uses a monotone text and voice in order to state facts. This genius method at getting the message across acted like a suppressed gun as it was silent and struck deadly. In other poems I have read, the authors tend to use emotion and bias in order to hook the reader and entice them to continue reading. However in this text, the author uses blunt facts in order to daze the reader and leave the reader fased. While using this unique fashion of writing the author explains each word carefully, so that the reader interprets each sentence exactly how it was meant to be perceived. The author uses the phrase “everything is in the words we use”, which in this case portrays how she uses factionary diction to express her message. In the end she put a smile on the face of the reader using irony as well as exhibiting an underdog perspective in order to get the support of the reader. A major takeaway from the quote is when the author explains the meaning of Minnesota as water and turbid, then defines turbid. In a later sentence after defining treaties, she describes the treaty between the US and Dakota as “turbid” subtly, in order to portray the injustice done unto the people. Rather than bashing on the treaties bluntly, the author uses ironic puns to emphasise the illigitamase of the US treaty and demonstrate the US’s abuse of power. 

 

This poem was unlike any other poem I’ve read, it had a very interesting story and a very unique way of telling it. The choices the author used for the language of the poem was intriguing. It was different to see how the author described why she was using certain diction throughout the poem. She would state an important point in her story and use italics to emphasize a word, and she would go on to explain why she did this. Which is very engaging. And by doing so it created a more dramatic affect to her language and her story.

“Everything is in the language we use”. This is a very dramatic statement, which shows how language is a violence unto itself. Language can be used to portray any idea we want it to, but can be interpreted in many different ways. When we look at the context this sentence is placed in, it is while the author is descriptively discussing how the US broke an important treaty with the Dakota Nation. This sentences creates a dramatic effect that enhances her story, and how its important that we don’t overlook how terribly these Native people were treated by the US.

Soldier uses language in a perfect way to help the reader understand her points. I feel that what Soldier wants us to take away from this story is that through all of the trickery, the treaties, how humans scheme and plot against one another, it could all be found in the choices we make in our language.

I thought that the poem was really interesting. In the poem, the author, Layli Long Soldier, sheds light on the deaths of the 38 Dakota men and the struggles the Dakota had to deal with, something that seems like an important event but is rarely mentioned in modern day media. Many people see Abraham Lincoln as a savior and a hero to the United States, but his actions in the Dakota 38 reveals that even Lincoln has his flaws.

The poem is written in an unconventional style, varying hugely from traditional poems. The poem seems informal, as Long Soldier gives insight in the format of the poem and the tone of the poem seems as if she was talking about the events rather than writing about it. I find it interesting how throughout the poem, after Long Soldier discusses the language we use, she spells Minnesota as Mnisota. I also find the style of the ending of the poem interesting, as the formatting of the text makes it seem like the words are doing what they are; swing, from the platform out to the grass.

In the poem, Long Soldier uses the phrase “everything is in the language that we use.” She uses this phrase as she discusses the origin of the name Minnesota, which roughly translates to turbid water, and defines what a treaty is. Doing so gives the events of the Dakota 38 a sense of irony. For example, Long Soldier defines a treaty as a contract between two sovereign nations. The Minnesota treaties were contracts that promised the Dakota money, but they did not receive any money, as the “turbid treaties” promised.

When reading “38” by Layli Long Soldier, the first thing I noticed was that: this isn’t your conventional poem. Unlike the sonnets, sestinas, and villanelles that are so commonly taught in classrooms, this particular poem follows no apparent format or rhyming scheme. Instead, it almost seems like a conversation. Throughout the entire poem, Soldier guides you through every single italicization and line leaving you little room for confusion. There are no flowery words or fluttery thoughts, there is only the harsh truth of what happened to the Dakota people.

In fact, “‘Real’ poems do not ‘really’ require words” is the perfect way to describe this poem. In “38”, Soldier calls the Dakota’s revenge on Myrick a poem. There was no words, no dialogue, only an act of taking a stand. I believe this is the very essence of what Soldier is trying to incorporate in her own poem; that all a poem needs is to have something to say. It is quiet, a little sassy, and with a hint of exasperation, but you can feel the systematic oppression Soldier is pointing at with her words.

On the contrary, the act of imposing various overbearing treaties onto the Dakota people from the US government is not described as a poem by Soldier. Rather they are described as trickery, muddy, and puzzling. They [the treaties] do not get to the point, they are constructed to be sly and undermining, they are written to leave further loopholes to be abused. But I do also feel inclined to say that this act can also be called a poem, if we are to go by the basis that all a poem constitutes of is having something to say. For the Dakota warriors, it was a cry against the injustice they’ve faced and suffered. For the US government, it was the disdain and contempt they held against the natives.

Poems do not always need to follow the orthodoxies of established poems. Neither do they need to be praising the valiant acts of heroes who fought against tyranny or tyranny reigning supreme. They just have to have something to say, because “everything is in the language that we use”.

 

 

This poem is definitely unique and different from a poem I am used to reading. The first thing about it that stands out to me is the way that it relays a story through a narration, rather than the classical “rhyme pattern” based poems. More specifically, the author begins the poem in a strange but yet intriguing manner, where she is basically reflecting on the way she wrote the poem, not even diving into the actual content of it. However, beyond the structure of the actual poem, the topic on which the author is referring to is also very interesting. With her very unique style of composing a poem, Layli Long Soldier is able to both inform the reader with details about an event that occurred in the the United States’ history, and also captures the readers attention by adding suspense when she reveals that the act is actually looked over in American history. Strong states that president Abraham Lincoln was responsible for the hanging of 38 Dakota natives and also signing the emancipation proclamation in the same week, yet only the signing is what receives attention. From this, she continues on to explain that in fact the mass execution was actually caused by a rebellion brought upon by the Sioux who were getting exiled from their land little by little by turbid American contracts. She clearly uses this poem to demonstrate the harsh actions of the United States towards the Natives.

Additionally, Strong uses the quote ” everything is in the language we use”. This quote is not only significant in the way that she uses specific language to inflict a certain mood towards the reader, but also within the poem she includes sentences that are a mere reflection of the meaning of this quote. for example, regarding to the use of language to inflict a mood, Strong states ” the Dakota people starved” and then adds that there is no need to emphasize “starve” because in reality the people of the Sioux were actually starving to death. Here, it is evident that Strong purposely uses very specific and detailed language to imply a mood of sorrow or remorse towards the natives by the reader. Furthermore, when Strong is referring to Andrew Myrick and his comment telling the natives to “eat grass” she completely embodies the meaning of the quote ” everything is in the language we use” in her writing. When she states that the natives executed Myrick and filled his mouth with grass, she calls it irony and later adds that the words “eat grass” put the poems gears into click, demonstrating literally how the language she used through out the poem reflect one of the main points within the story she was relaying.