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.
Your analysis of the article was very well written! I thought your examination of word usage was interesting, especially how you explained why she chose words such as “starved” instead of words like hungry. I also appreciated the conflicting interests of Lincoln that I am sure would turn some heads in the public who previously thought Lincoln was a champion of the native people. It wasn’t right as that the natives were cheated out of the treaty which you mentioned contradicts the meaning.
You are correct that this isn’t like any ordinary poem with a rhyme scheme as it is just story telling that is structured like a poem. The author is even aware of that by not referring to her work as a “creative piece” and yet we’re still looking at it like it is one. So this begs the question of what is a poem and if we should consider this one as one? I would argue yes because the verses in this poem has meaning to it as you described it to carry “literary devices to stress certain parts.” This means that even though she wants us to believe that there isn’t anything deep, there is something we can find in between the lines and think about.
You did great analyzing the article and writing out your understanding of how she informed the reader. I agree with your view of how she uses a very specific style of writing to inform and explain this story. I like the way you interpreted her use of “treaty,” and how while she explained the true meaning, what happened did not at all actually replicate that of what a treaty should be.