Are corporations needed for globalization?

Does the real issue lie with "grouping" and categorizing people in the first place? This section of the article seems to explore individual issues and what happens when a person does not fully conform to the group to which they are assigned.

basically to deviate from the generally accepted norm?

Discrimination and inequality definitely exists within the minority groups, this is an important perspective.

What is a "reasonable range"?

Taking the responsibility away from the governing powers, but can we trust that the native people will do it on their own?

What are "cultural materials"? Would this just be exposure to facets of a culture, as in learning about events and customs?

The same historical account is written differently from various cultural perspectives, so should these variations be included when taking in the history of a nation as a whole?

"Tribal sovereignty refers to tribes' right to govern themselves, define their own membership, manage tribal property, and regulate tribal business and domestic relations; it further recognizes the existence of a government-to-government relationship between such tribes and the federal government."

from: civilrights.org

What does integration entail?

The introduction of "extrinsic" vs. "intrinsic" is something I haven't fully considered before.

Is this a form of colonialism? What would this be called?

I believe that both are necessary until the community has reached the point where one or both are no longer needed.

This is true, we do not have control over where or when we are born.

Is it still considered a cruel act when the group is doing it to themselves, or is it thought of as part of their "culture"?

This is an interesting concept, that would be inviting tourists and newcomers to adapt more quickly rather than depending on their mother tongue to communicate in a foreign country.

Which makes sense because these are areas of knowledge that they can freely bring to their destination.

What differentiates "toleration" from equality exactly? It seems that there would have to be a baseline for each group member to start from in order to be treating one another the same way. Tolerating to one person could mean equality to another. These terms would be culturally relevant as well, inclusion is a broad spectrum.

There is so much untapped creative potential in the world, but creativity is a process that is not typically easy.

She knows this will not all change overnight, she recognizes that the society of her era will need to transition.

I wonder how more traditional women would have processed this. What is the audience here? Is Murray looking toward a younger generation of women, or is she advocating change in the present?

educate first, love later.

Leave no room for the flattery to seep in and stain your goals.

Reminds me of a quote from Purple Hibiscus by Chimamanda Ngozi:

"I realized then, setting higher and higher jumps for them in the way she talked to them, in what she expected of them. She did it all the time believing they would scale the rod. And they did."

sarcasm?

adding detail to clear things up

Look past the façade of compliments from men, or anyone for that matter. Learn that there must be a focus and a determination that cannot be deterred by hollow remarks. Remember that the world has a set idea of beauty and how women should achieve, and that this set path is tempting. It is not the only path.

To go through life without accomplishing anything but being beautiful. Reminds me of T.S. Eliot's Hollow Men, "This is the way the world ends: Not with a bang but a whimper."

Using "you will" makes Murray seem so much more assuring in terms of her daughter's future.

She doesn't want her daughter to rely on the adoration of others for her self-worth.

Murray realizes that she cannot protect her daughter from everything.

Being treated equally is a birthright.

what secret is she speaking about here?

The priorities are dramatically shifted when education is neglected, and the "beautiful female" does not find a purpose or achieve what Murray knows children are able to. She's also making the point here that children are impressionable at such a young age, and the damage cannot be undone once they have grown up.

It is necessary to continue learning after one has left the school environment. Murray is speaking about continuing to be curious and going above what was taught in school.

Interesting definition found on wordnik.com (first search result on Google, just wanted to share):

"laudible" [sic] exercise of building "a bridge across the social and intellectual divide that exists between most of US academia and the so-called heartlands."

Merriam-Webster says this:

"Worthy of praise, commendable."

Women had no say in the matter what their gender would be, but all of these views on women are constructed by society. On a side note, I'm enjoying (one of) the semantic field(s) in this text: "bounds", "anchor", "confin'd", "directed", "narrow".

Also, has anyone noticed that there are roughly ten syllables in each line? Does that make it a sonnet? Why would she deliberately choose to write this as a sonnet? It could be for the shock factor, many traditional sonnets did not include content such as this. Interesting how she'd choose a sonnet to 'rebel' when the form is so restricted.

The bosom is one of the most defining features of a woman, something to be celebrated, yet it limits women in society. A body part that is meant to nurture is suddenly harmful?

For some reason, part of me doubts the Natives just let this happen without any resistance or fight whatsoever. If there was enough of them to make a town or collect in one place, at least some of them would have woken up? Then again, never underestimate the element of surprise.

They can never win, how is forming a town bad?

Why are we all of a sudden believing his account when he speaks about the Natives? It all sounds just as ridiculous as the stories about the witches to me. Still an untrustworthy narrative.

This isn't courageous of him at all! When I first read this, I interpreted it as he had a change of heart and couldn't set one child apart from the others, but it appears that he simply couldn't tell them apart! Playing God isn't courageous, I'm glad he had to stay.

When is a regular occurrence not remarkable to Mathers?

Geez Mathers, tell us how you really feel.

They've all picked safe methods of confession, hiding behind Carrier yet still revoking their sins in the process.

Oh nooo, cut off from all of the lies!

I wonder...it was so easy back then to spin these stories and not be refuted, but would the a similar situation be the least bit possible with technology nowadays? How can so many people at once be moved to gang up on particular people with no proof? It seems unthinkable in modern context. There were no photographs, only the spoken and written word of others. I truly would like to have known what went through some of their minds.

Anything that was devoid of knowledge or explanation was blamed on the "witches". Clearly none of these people want to take responsibility for their own shortcomings as keepers of cows.

How far did they really investigate it?

How far did they really investigate it?

Such convenient timing.

Because the Doc cut a bunch of holes in him!

So in Mather's narrative, things that probably weren't a big deal (such as a sore on the foot) get the utmost gore and attention, whereas truly painful endeavors just get a "meh" response. "Very great misery" probably doesn't even begin to cover the agony he must have been in.

Seems like there was more corruption than the actual sore. Proportions?

How did they define "evidence"?

Seems a bit too well-thought out and constructed, is it possible some of the children were coached?

Shocking, people in the room turn into demons or perhaps owls.

There is a crystal clear separation here, very "us" and "them" oriented.

Mob mentality! It was all an act.

Shapeshifter? Dehumanizing language.

He's made it abundantly clear up to this point that he's doing everyone a favor by writing this.

Interesting that he chose to say "a" Satan rather than just "Satan". I suppose this makes sense if everyone is being prosecuted as the devil at this time, there are buckets of sinners that make up the devil as a whole, right?

He makes this narrative appear as if it's his only purpose in life, or his ultimate mission.

A massacre

Connecticut?

Cutting them off and waiting, smart move.

There is a clear separation between the "wild" of the forest and the tame agriculture. Forests were considered to be sinful during this time period.

I doubt very much that this was a "friendly" piece of writing.

Is he conveniently forgetting how many Native Americans were slain by Europeans?!

Again, I feel that he's leaving out crucial bits of the story, and he continues to portray Native Americans as less than human and evil.

The Native Americans are now armed with white man weapons.

Suggests that it won't last forever.

Another form of literature besides the bible?! How modern of him.

Once religion is removed from the equation, they seem to prosper.

demean him in every way possible

Land that was not theirs to begin with!

Painting a ruthless portrait of Native Americans.

Although they are working together as one machine, he continues to refer to them as "these" people. I doubt that separation term will change.

The white men are probably allowed to keep their weapons with them though...

It was a difficult trip for them all, yet they pressed on...

Fear of the unknown prevails again, are they not just as wild men themselves for embarking on this trip in the first place?

"The master's tools dismantling the master's house"

symbolic castration: punishment for abuses, impotent without his sword. Phallic imagery.

Dutiful, sees past the fog.

why is the full responsibility shifted to them?

not entirely sure what the significance of the full moon is in Native American culture, but they could have also chosen this time to have more light during the event itself.

rightfully so!

that's not very priestly of him.

Yet the Spanish are outraged when the Natives burn their Christian things.

The Spanish probably used their many technologies to convince them.

building them up to break them all down.

A little self-centered here, again relaying the story in order to make himself look more heroic.

Whose kingdom is it?

How thoughtful of him.

Setting it up so it seems the odds are not in his favor, which will ultimately paint him in glory later.

Never mind your homes being on fire, the churches must be saved.

It's strange how as a modern audience we tend to feel less sympathy toward the colonists, and pity the American Indians more. If another colonist of that time were to read this very same passage, they would see the Natives as villains.

What an atrocious thought to defend ones own home!

they were destroyed first!

This makes it seem as if they're trying to provoke, the Natives have already been provoked themselves, and it's conveniently left out that they did not always act this way.

There has to be a catch of some sort here, I doubt they would be fully pardoned.

Interesting coincidence that he saved himself.

the narrative makes it seem like the Native Americans were "released back into the wild", like animals. Speaks volumes about how the Westerners viewed the indigenous peoples.

A home away from home, making new location like the old one for purposes of familiarity.

Why on earth was it so difficult to get there?

the incorporation of the indigenous language slightly deepens the understanding of the culture.

could their friendliness have anything to do with the fact that they need the extra CO2 to survive? Must an organism be lacking a brain in order to be considered fully "good"?

opposition is not tolerated even in the meekest of forms.

she is deciding this about her own people, she feels entitled.

it is terrifying to wield that amount of power.

Why can these roads only be seen under the influence of peyote?

What is this medicine meant to be curing?

There is a certain kind of honesty that goes hand in hand with the deepest fears.

I wonder why they chose the number "four" for this ritual.

It is intriguing that a specific time is given here, it creates an element of inevitability.

While the method of exclusion is awful and unwarranted, it isn't totally nonsensical since so much history was omitted in the past. This makes it more difficult to collect an ample amount of information.

Everyone is contributing to the prosperity of the foreign culture, creating a culture of becoming hybrid and confused.

It's interesting how these imposed treatments transcend through generations of the culture. Eventually these dispositions become imprinted.

Is it possible for people outside of the culture to FULLY understand that culture? Does having direct familial roots change this?

Marginalization is decided upon by those who can manipulate a given society.

Europeans were accustomed to imposing their ways on colonies around the world.

Colonizers and explorers treated the Native Americans as if they were nothing more than animals; everything less than human. Native Americans reacted much in the same ways the animals did, and perhaps the explorers i.e. foreigners in North America represent both the animals and the plants simultaneously. They appeared to nurture the Native Americans at first, but soon inflicted pain and torture on their world. The Westerners played God just as the animals and Native Americans in this story did. Unnatural death in itself is sinister, but there does not seem to be a solution apart from considering every walk of life to be equal.

does the 'talking' aspect make animals more equal to humans?

makes it seem more ludicrous than necessary. Unnatural death always has a consequence, trade-off?

can the taking of a life be justified by need?

the way the story is told makes the notion of killing humans less sinister.

(18th, 19th c)bad digestion, stomach pains, constipation. The amount of bile is said to be determined by the severity of each of these.