September 2020 – Page 6 – English 2100 x 90: Fall 2020

_________

When tragedy strikes, it can tear a community apart, or it can bring it together. But reconciliation and/or restoration cannot and will not begin if the tragedy isn’t even seen for what it is. The statements and reports by officials, whether they be the commander in chief or local PD, are a claim; when not made truthfully, they create chasms of confusion and hopelessness across America. But the people that stand to benefit or be endangered the most from these statements aren’t the authorities– it’s the communities that fall into the cracks. Balko and Parker’s frustrations begin with the tragedy, but they truly culminate at the moment when a public official approaches the opportunity to unify, squanders it, and persistently and violently rocks the public into a dark place of ambiguity.

By placing the significance on what’s not said through long blanks, Parker intends to illicit anger and cynicism simultaneously. The reader can feel the anticipation the nation felt. That clawing, climbing up to the hopeful standard, word by word, until you reach for a blank and plummet back down into the reality that too many people live in. When people in power only see “visions” of these events that statistically and historically burden the black community without at least giving them the nation’s ear, they further and further shatter the US and shove it’s citizens into the cracks away from any hope of a solution.

The Curious Grammar of Police Shootings

This article was very enlightening to read as it brought up a new aspect of news articles I haven’t considered before. When reading about police shootings, it seems very black and white since in theory, you were either correct in shooting them or not right? Balko introduces the idea that despite the justifications, the police always seem to be portrayed as the good guys. While it isn’t blatantly said, the wording used undermines the events and the purpose of the article making it lackluster at best. If Long Soldier maintained this type of writing style, it would have caused many sympathizers of “Everything is in the language that we use” to have a nonchalant attitude towards her article instead. To not use the needed grammar only signifies to reader that this story is not important or newsworthy to add literal effect. This heavily adds insult to injury to the victim’s family as their story is being poorly misrepresented by the media in an effort to soften the blow on affected communities. It is the responsibility of these various medias to educate the public of the ironies throughout our system of the very people sworn to protect us, committing murder. We can further extend this irony to whether the same people who are supposed to “educate” us, are actually misleading us.

The Grammar of Police Shootings

If Soldier hypothetically wrote, “everything is in the language we do NOT use”, it would be more applicable to real life; specifically the news stories about the tragic events that we read. Balko’s piece on how reports regarding police brutality differed from the written police reports. Clearly, the police department does not want to hold their own officers accountable for their actions when writing their reports. If they were to be truthful, it would be up to them to carry out the investigation of their own officer. To avoid that, they use a specific language that is language is unclear and written in a completely false perspective (that leaves out key details) that will make the officer seem innocent. In the specific report written in Balko’s article, we can tell that the police report was leaving off many important details. For example, it didn’t include the age of the male “suspect” or the fact that there was a dog present in this situation. The American police system was created to protect their own above anyone else, which completely defeats the purpose of having police as our “protectors”.

The Grammar of Police Shootings

The article “The Grammar of Police Shootings” by Radley Balko gave examples of how the use of language and grammar can affect how people interpret information. The language and word choice people use can alter what actually happened in an event, and influence the audience to think in a way the speaker wants them to think. The author goes into explaining a case in Georgia when a police deputy shot a young boy in the leg. A report about the event stated “a deputy…was approaching the property when a dog ran up to him”, which made it sound like it wasn’t the deputy’s fault. In addition, the report continues “The deputy’s gun fired one shot, missing the dog and hitting the child.” The author of that report had to choose to leave out the part “missing the dog”, but he/she chose to include that. What can’t be changed is the fact that the deputy shot the child, but the language in the report shifted responsibility from the officer to the dog, emphasizing that the deputy was only trying to shoot the dog.

I think that if Long Soldier hypothetically wrote “everything is in the language we do not use”, she would be emphasizing how people’s explanations of an event are all different. She would encourage the audience to be aware of the language people use and keep in mind that everyone is biased. It’s better to gain information from more than one source to formulate a better picture of what actually happened in an event. However, one can never really know the exact true story of what happened because if the audience were to witness the event first-hand, they would also form their own interpretation and opinion. I think both Parker (poet) and Balko incorporated contrasting elements in their writing to convey their message. Parker claimed “He is nobody special like us. He says brothers and sisters” and Balko used police officers making mistakes as examples. Government officials such as the president and police officers are supposed to protect the people and side with them, but instead they avoid speaking about their mistakes. That’s the language they do not use. People avoid language that contradicts them and their beliefs. They want people to side with them and form opinions supporting them, and not against them.

Let’s not talk about it, It’s “easier” that way

At first when I read “The President Has Never Said The Word Black”, I was quite confused about what exact message I was supposed to get from the poem so I decided to move on to the article, “The Grammar of Police Shootings”. This article discusses the importance of how language is used in order to manipulate the public and to downplay the severity of crimes and mistakes made by the police. Author Radley Balko displays the contrast between how civilians crimes use verbs to show intended actions such as fired, produced, and striking with the help of adjectives like numerous to show that the acts they commit were intentional. When the murder of a 10-year-old boy by a police officer occurs, phrases such as “The deputy’s gun fired one shot,” and “not clear if the gun was accidentally fired by the deputy” is used taking all responsibility away from the cop’s careless actions and instead puts the blame on unfortunate circumstances. The clear difference in how similar events are described as “circumstantial” is no coincidence. With the recent focus on police brutality, it seems that there is an importance on how to cover up the countless mistakes which lead to death made by the officers who are supposed to protect and serve, rather than teaching officers how to correctly react to situations they are placed in. It seems that now a day’s the only people police departments are meant to protect are themselves.

If Long Soldier hypothetically wrote “everything is in the language we do NOT use”, she would be discussing the downplaying of situations through elementary language in order to not draw attention to the true severity of the matters being presented. By purposely eliminating the focus on topics through vague language, we draw away attention from them, hoping whatever the author is trying to cover up will stay that way; covered up. Balko wants us to feel the dissatisfaction with how information is presented so we can better analyze future readings to see the discrepancies and truth that is being hidden about specific situations. After coming to this conclusion I then got a hint at what Parker’s poem was trying to say. The president at the time was Barack Obama, and Morgan Parker feels like he did an injustice to the black community by never addressing their struggles as black struggles. It is insinuated that while he can refer to those who are black as his “brothers and sisters” he cannot identify himself as black, as if he is afraid or embarrassed by the word. This all ties back to the language we do not use, by holding back on such an important identifying word, it creates a harmful message that one shouldn’t be aware of who they are and what role that plays into the injustices they experience. Overall these two pieces showed me that there is more to writing than picking the right words and structure to my sentences. They taught me that I have to be observant to the language I choose not to use, and to analyze why that is so and how it effects the message of my writing.

The President Has Never Said the Word ‘Black’

In The President Has Never Said the Word ‘Black’, the author uses rhetorical diction, or lack there of, to illustrate the lack of attention towards a troubling issue in the US. Rather than going into detail in the poem about who the president is and his specific wrongdoing, she leaves it out and allows the reader to imagine these things, thus allowing the reader to have their own unique interpretation fo the poem. By doing so, the author is mocking the president and portraying her anger toward the president, even more than if she went into detail explaining. The reader truly feels the lack of language as it sweeps them off their feet and address’s the problem at hand, rather than the person not persisting to fix it. She also uses the lack of the word black to emphasize how it feels to be treated like she does not matter. The blank adds emphasize to the statement and makes the reader contemplate about why the president does not use the word. This brilliant tactic is a rhetorical device that allows the reading to feel unique and individualized as it renders the reader thinking without even using as much text. Its interesting when the reading said “The president be like we lost a young boy today”. While writing in her unique style the lack of the word black holds a strong place, even though it is not even written. This incredible writing style address’s the problem while indicating how reader’s feel the impact of a lack of something even more than if it was present.

Dakota “38”

This poem is very unique from any other poem that I read. When i recall all the poems that I have read in the past, they all spiral into one group, which would be poems that rhyme or have a certain pattern to it. However, this poem is completely different because a story is being told about history. This poem is also a completely different genre from the ones i have read. This one is historical. Layoli is telling the story of the 38 Dakota men that were hung. She emphasizes on the irony of President Lincoln’s decision at the time he decided to sign the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed the slaves, but he also ordered to kill 38 Dakota men the same week. When Layoli says, “Everything is in the language we use” she is referring to the way people structure the way they speak to other people. This reminds me of when she talked about how the Dakota leaders were tricked into signing the treaty because of the language. The Dakota leaders didn’t understand the language, but Layoli knows that if they did they would have never signed it. Layoli also repeats the words “starve” and “starved”, stating that they don’t need emphasis. This also adds to what she meant by “Everything is in the language we use”. She used the word starve as a straightforward word that isn’t being exaggerated so that the readers can understand the power of those words. The Dakota people were stripped of their land and rights. Layoli makes sure to use the right language to make an impact on readers. She is being straightforward and plain throughout the whole poem, but the language that she uses throughout the poem have a huge impact and are very powerful.

“38”

“Everything is in the language that we use.”

I thought this unconventional poem represents the senseless dichotomy of mankind’s relationship with language. With self-aware, cold and informative diction Layli Long Soldier draws similarities between the language she uses to write a poem, the language used by the United States government to disenfranchise the Dakota people, and the “language” used by the Dakota 38 during the Sioux Uprising. She purposefully avoids the usual rhythm and structure of what most consider to be crucial to a poem and instead chooses to simply tell a story. For every action made on the behalf of the government, there’s two words; one that actually describes the action, and one that conveniently paraphrases it the same way the government did. Through writing a poem with no rhymes or syllable scheme, she begins to challenge the perceived role language plays into the humanity of our race. At it’s most basic level, is not language supposed to be a reflection of reality? And yet it so often isn’t. And what’s the goal of poetry? It seems to be another reflection of reality but revealed through metaphors and symbolism. Soldier makes it clear how the US government rarely honored language’s tie to reality through lies and deceit. The Dakota 38 refused to allow this. Maybe leaving Andrew Myrick with his mouth full of grass was their way of forcing him to honor his word. I believe in the same way the 38 wished for the base function of language to come to fruition, Soldier avoids the regular poetic flourishments as a way of bringing her words as close as possible to the factual reflection of reality that was the uprising. I believe this re-evaluation of language’s functionality is vitally important for humans who live in a society that’s over flowing with double-speak, misleading nuances, and verbal powerplays. While poetry has its place and time and is beneficial in many ways, what the Dakota 38 understood and what Soldier reveals is that when dishonest language is all that remains in any given institution, maybe all that’s left is action.

38

38 by Layli Long Soldier was definitely unique – unlike any other poem that I have ever read or listened to. The use of informative language is very uncommon to poems, at least compared to the ones I have read. The best way to describe its originality would be to say, if you were to only listen to it, without seeing its structure, you wouldn’t have known that it’s truly a poem. Something else that stood out to me was its informal style. While reading the poem, along with listening to it, it felt as though she was speaking to me one on one, saying thoughts straight from her mind. What also made it seem like an interpersonal conversation were the somewhat off-topic comments, such as , “keep in mind, I am not a historian”(Long Soldier) or “yet, I started this piece because I was interested in writing about grasses”(Long Soldier). You wouldn’t normally come across such comments in a formal and informative piece of text, thus making it seem more informal.

The line “everything is in the language we use”(Long Soldier) conveys one of, if not the most important message in the poem. She is trying to say there are messages and meanings behind the words and names we use today in our language. This statement was brought up in the context of explaining the meaning of Minnesota Treaties, which translates to something along the lines of turbid water agreements. Meaning, it was a confused and unclear agreement between the two parties which in turn greatly benefited one side and impaired the other.

Dakota “38”

After reading the poem “38” by Layli Long Soldier, my view about poems has changed. This poem is very unique in the way that it doesn’t have a rhyme scheme like the poems we are used to reading. Instead, the author tells a story in very specific details. The quote that stood out to me the most was “everything is in the language that we use”. She is trying to strengthen her thought about using the perfect word in every situation. Throughout the poem soldier is always explaining Herself and trying to make everything very straight forward. Soldier makes sure to minimize confusion and any line in the poem that can be interpreted in a few different ways was clarified. Soldier does an amazing job of informing the reader about this event. She uses literary devices to stress certain parts of the story. Soldier uses repetition of the word “starved” to stress how poorly The Dakota people were treated and how harsh their conditions were. They were given very little land to live on and had no money to buy food.

Soldier also mentions Important political figure in the situation such as Abraham Lincoln. She emphasizes that in the same week that Lincoln passed the emancipation proclamation, he also said to massacre The Dakota nation. She also talks about the word “treaty”. Treaty is supposed to mean an agreement between both sides. However, Soldier states that the indigenous group didn’t receive their side of the treaty. They still were living in very harsh conditions and Soldiers tries to make the audience have pity towards these and the way they were living.