Month: September 2020

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.

When reading the poem, I felt a great deal of sympathy and pity for the Dakota men who were hanged. I noticed about the language of the poem that it is trying to make the reader feel something towards the Indeginous people. This poem is different from others because it invoked a certain emotion that other poems can’t compare to. I’ve found that poems usually have a problem where they can’t emotionally connect with the reader through the text that well. One poem that I have read that actually compares to this one is Howl by Allen Ginsberg. The sentence “everything is in the language that we use” means that the language that we use to present a story is an important factor in getting a message across. In this case, the language used in the poem is precisely made in order to appeal to my empathy. The particular words that the author decides to use shape the poem into a work of art and makes it more than just words. The Long Soldier wants us to understand the oppression and mistreatment that was swept under the rug and does a good job of this through his use of diction. This poem helped me understand how misshaped history was and what we all learned in school left out many major details. The impact that this poem had on me will stay with me for the rest of my life and I will never forget what happened to those 38 Dakota men that day. 

This poem offers the readers both a lesson on Abraham Lincoln’s downfalls, and a deep insight into the rules and wording of writing. The poem is carefully and well constructed from top to bottom with insights throughout to pinpoint to the readers the main purpose of her work: to show that “everything is in the language that we use”. The author justifies that statement through ways “hidden” throughout the article, and these are a few of my insights into that statement.

What I realize firstly, is her word choices to state her thoughts. In modern language, we only know Minnesota as… Minnesota. However in the poem, she uses prefixes of that word (“Mnisota”) in replacement of the one we know most commonly (“Minnesota”) and continues to use it for the remainder of the poem. (“However, as further consequence, what remained of Dakota territory in Mnisota was dissolved”). To me, this important yet minute detail may be one of the aspects of “everything is in the language that we use”, for we may use any sort of prefix to replace how one states a word or statement, under the condition that it is logically reasonable.

A second, yet broader aspect is the redundancies within the poem. For example: “Why were thirty-eight Dakota men hung?”… is followed by “Why were thirty-eight Dakota men hanged?” These two, in modern language, both make sense. However, to the author, it is the much deeper aspects that differentiates the two. This, to me, also conforms to the statement “everything is in the language that we use”, since like “hang” and “hung” in that sentence, we may use any form of a word to describe something in modern language, with the condition that it is understandable.

I think the author utilized this poem as a convenient and straightforward method to inform the audience about what happened that gave name to Dakota 38. The author uses repetition and short sentences to make sure the audience learn about the Dakota people starving as a cause of the American government. This poem is a bit different from other readings that I have encountered because the author separated each sentence and not put everything in paragraphs. This allowed me to not be overwhelmed by the amount of new information I’m learning about and it helps me stay focused.   The sentences were all key points explaining what happened in the event and not just unimportant details.

There was a meaningful quote that resonated with me. In the poem, it stated “Everything is in the language we use”. I think that Long Soldier meant that the way people convey their messages can influence others into thinking the same way they did. For example, people praised Abraham Lincoln for the passing of the Emancipation Proclamation but did not bring to light what he did, the same week, to the 38 Dakota people. This can influence the public to forget about the event. In textbooks and readings, students know President Lincoln as the man who helped African American slaves, but not many of the students know about the execution of 38 Dakota men. The quote from the poem reflected that if people don’t choose the right words to convey their message, their stories can be forgotten. In the sentence after the quote, the author described the treaty between the Dakota people and the U.S. government that promised the Dakota people money in exchange for their land. The word “treaty” has a positive connotation, however, the Dakota people didn’t receive the payment from the government. Instead, they were contained in a small territory and were unable to purchase food and resources. Long Soldier wanted the audience to learn to interpret the different stories/perspectives on the same event. Everyone’s version of an event is different.

Layli Long Soldier’s Piece “38” Is a tragic yet elegant interaction between the variance of language, in terms of usage and consequence, and the plight of the author’s culture, The Dakota Nation. The poem initiates readers into the setting of dismay, as Long Soldier enumerates the numerous monstrosities committed against the Dakota Nation. At this time Long Soldier is dually reverting back to, and commenting upon, her usage of language in the poem, obsessing over her grammatical accuracy. Long Soldier’s obsession with grammar, plays out as a satire against the English language, which following the same rules, aided in wiping out the Dakota nation via treaties that were worded in trickery and never meant to be followed in the first place.

The second half of Long Soldier’s piece shifts gears from usage of the English language (in regards to Native American culture) and transitions into a place where she can discuss the meaning and implication of language used by the Dakota Nation. For Long Solider, The Dakota Nation’s dialect can be summarized around a central idea that “everything is in the language that we use”. Long Soldier’s first example speaks to the many different meanings of Mnisota, which in English translates to Minnesota, the original territory of The Dakota Nation.

The first example starts out at the surface level, as Long Solider soon delves into the ways in which “action” is also embedded in language. To commemorate the death of 38 Dakota citizens executed during Lincoln’s presidency (depressingly only a few days after the Emancipation Proclamation was signed), modern day citizens of The Dakota Nation ride from South Dakota to the site of the execution in Minnesota where a performance soon follows. Rather than honoring fallen ancestors with words, The Dakota Nation replaces the written word with performance, as a preferred method of language to commemorate an event of unspeakable tragedy.

Long Soldier’s last point is also almost as powerful, as she details a time when a white settler, who believed that starving Native Americans should “eat grass”, was found dead with grass stuffed in his mouth. Shortly afterward, Long Soldier informs readers that “Real poems do not really require real words”. This fits the previous narrative well, as the audience can almost feel the “poetic” justice invoked when visualizing the lifeless trader with grass in his mouth. This is very much language, channeled via the most theatrical of mediums. The substitution of the written word for the sake of action and performance is paramount to the experiences of the Dakota Nation, and to Long Solider, who refuses to conform to a white-washed and “written” representation of language.