How does Pollock present the relationship between Walsh and Sitting Bull. Which of the two has more power in the situation?
21 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Pollock seems to give more power to Walsh in the sense that Sitting Bull entrusts decisions to him, for example, when Sitting Bull asks what Walsh thinks about moving to a reserve and talking to General Terry. However, you can also look at this from a different perspective, one where Sitting Bull has more power in the situation because Walsh is friends with the Sioux, but also serves the government, so because of Sitting Bull and the Sioux's situation, some of Walsh's decisions and ideas waver. For the most part of the play, Walsh is in control though.
I think that throughout the play Pollock changes the power given to each character. In the begining Sitting Bull has more power because his situation makes Walsh seem to feel bad for him and want to help him and his people even though he knows he is not able to. Then once confronted by General Terry Walsh is given an ultimatum, to help Sitting Bull or get fired. Walsh knows that there is no room for him to feel bad for Sitting Bull, he understands that in order to keep his job, he must be strong and not give in and at that moment he is given the power.
The fact that Sitting Bull is the one who is asking for help immediately suggests that Walsh has the upper hand. But, we know that Sitting Bull "is a man of great presence and personal magnetism", as it is stated in the stage directions on page 43, and his monologue to Walsh shows that he is very passionate about the injustice showned by certain white people to the indians. Walsh understands this, and that is why some call him 'the white forehead chief' - because he is willing to listen to them and understands their situation and genuinely cares, rather than automatically stereotyping them and seeing them as a people that is beneath him, which some white people do. With this, it could be a certain 'weakness' of Walsh- that sometimes his compassion overcomes his sense of duty, which happens later on in the play when Walsh doesn't follow 'proper procedure'. So, it would seem that Walsh is in control of the situation, but he allows his compassion to overcome his judgement sometimes, causing him to lose some of his sense of duty.
(Whoa, that was long. Am I overthinking this?...=\)
During Pollock's play, Walsh's and Sitting Bull's relationship would seem as a somewhat uneasy relation at first, but the two quickly become rather good friends. Throughout the play, in terms of his relationship with Sitting Bull, Walsh is placed in a position of power as Sitting Bull is coming to Walsh to ask for his help. Although it may appear that Sitting Bull may have power over Walsh in certain situations (As in their first meeting, surrounded by Sioux), Sitting Bull is still wholly dependant on Walsh as a connection to the Canadian government.
Walsh and Sitting Bull's relationship shows trust in Pollock's play. Sitting bull had taken the advice from Walsh and stayed in Canada when General Terry had attempted to force the Sioux tribe back to the U.S Border. I believe Walsh is in control because he represents the Canadian Governmen't and therefore authority over the Sioux. Walsh also has the power to stop delivering food and living needs to them.
Walsh and Sitting Bull's relationship shows trust in Pollock's play. Sitting bull had taken the advice from Walsh and stayed in Canada when General Terry had attempted to force the Sioux tribe back to the U.S Border. I believe Walsh is in control because he represents the Canadian Governmen't and therefore authority over the Sioux. Walsh also has the power to stop delivering food and living needs to them.
The way Pollock reperesents the relationship between Walsh and Sitting Bull is through a controversial conversation between these two characters. Sitting Bull is attempting to get Walsh to do the right thing and assist the Sioux shadowing the trust Sitting Bull has given to Walsh. However, this leaves Walsh in a dilemma as he contemplates over his duty or the trust that he has with Sitting Bull. The reader can see a shift in power but mostly in Walsh's favour. Initially, Walsh reminds Sitting Bull that he must return to America and that he belongs to the President implementing Walsh's formal duty. Neverhtheless, after Sitting Bull pleads his case emotiton overcomes Walsh, which gives power to Sitting Bull. The strongest moment of power though, comes at the end of the reading when Walsh responds to Sitting Bull by telling him of his government position and that it his job to get Sitting Bull back. Subsequent to that Walsh implements the friendship and advises Sitting Bull to meet with General Terry and Sitting Bull fortifies their trust by agreeing to meet with him despite his similarities to General Custer.
Although it seems Sitting Bull has the power at times in the play, it is infact Walsh who has the power. Walsh works for the Canadian government, and Sitting Bull comes to Walsh to get help. Just by the fact that Sitting Bull came to Walsh, the reader can already tell who has the upperhand. Also, although Walsh disagrees with what the government is doing, at the end of the day Walsh chose to work for the government. At any time Walsh could have gone against the government, and tried to help Sitting Bull. Sitting Bull, on the other hand, doesn't have as much choice. He chooses to come to Canada for help, but he never chose to lose his land, or to be in need of the assistance of the Canadian government. Because Walsh makes a concious decision to be in the position he is in, and Sitting Bull did not, Walsh is the one with more power.
Though it is true that the power is always shifting between both Walsh and Sitting Bull, in general it appears as though Walsh continually has the upper hand. The fact that Walsh is more powerful than sitting Bull gives the audience an better understanding of Sitting Bulls inability to protect his people. The audience is more sympathetic to Sitting Bulls situation.
Walsh and Sitting Bull both are powerful and always do what they think is right,But they seem to have a bond more of understanding then friendship. Sitting Bull understands that he needs to listen to walsh so he and his people will be able to stay in canada so there fore sitting bull gives the power to walsh
I would say Walsh has the power in the relationship. It is Sitting Bull who is asking for help, and in the end it is up to Walsh to say no. Though Walsh must make a tought decision which is swayed by the good intentions of the Sioux, and the fact that sitting bull and his people have just reasons for not wanting to rerturn to the states, it is never up to sitting Bull, what will happen.. As Louis says later on in the play, the idnians have no choice but to trust".. this implies that theur fate is entirely in the hand of the white men.
Both Walsh and Sitting Bull seem to have the upperhand depending on the situation. In regarding to physical and military force/power, Sitting Bull had the advantage. He had an army of 4000 Siouxs to fall back on, while Walsh had only about 60 red coated men. When concerning the significant decision making power, Walsh had the command. He had the support of the Canadian government and the influence of the Great White Mother. Therefore, he had the ability to make radical verdicts and pronouncements regarding the Sioux nation.
Pollock first presents a type of nutural relationship between Sitting Bull and Walsh, suggesting that they have about the same power. For example, Walsh at the begining does not push Sitting Bull to do whatever he wants, nither does Sitting Bull. Both of them simply gives comments to each other once in a while. However, near the end when Walsh was frustrated about the situation with the Sioux, pollock then demonstrated that Walsh has more power over Sitting Bull especially when Sitting Bull and the Sioux Nation was weak because they are running out of food. Like Lawton said, I also think that the reason for Pollock to give more power towards Walsh is to make the audience feel sorry for Sitting Bull and the Sioux Nation. Then at the end, without any choice, Sitting Bull was forced to go back to the States.
Although Sitting Bull is the one asking Walsh for assistance to aid his thriving Sioux tribe, Sitting Bull has control over Walsh in the sense that the life that his tribe has is deciding the impact of Walsh's inner conflict. As we see at the end of the book, the extinction of Sitting Bull's tribe is the cause of his exasperation of the situation, giving up his duties as a NWMP.
Sitting Bull gives Walsh a Native name indicates his acceptance. It seems that Walsh's role of assisting Sitting Bull has been modified over the course of the story to a character who advises him to do things. In reality, Sitting Bull 'basically' has more power to do what he likes, but by taking Walsh's advice gives Walsh more power although not likely the final say since it's primarily up to Sitting Bull himself.
Pollock gives most of the power to Walsh, this power is given to Walsh because he is a government official, while Sitting Bull is just a chief of a native tribe. The fact that she gives Walsh the power is symbolic of our belief that the Canadian government is above the natives, which is strange because the natives were here first. The only case where Sitting Bull seems to have the power is when Walsh feels guilty that he wasn't able to help Sitting bull stay alive
Pollock presents Sitting Bull and Walsh as friends even though Walsh has a higher status and more authoritative power over Sitting Bull due to his position in Canada as an officer. In terms of persuasion it is Sitting Bull that has more power in this situation. This is because Sitting Bull is asking Walsh for help and due to the fact that they consider each other as friends, Walsh sincerely wants to help Sitting Bull. The only thing stopping him however is the government regulations. Walsh recognizes that Sitting Bull and his people are in need of assistance and he really wants to help (as Clarence depicts throughout the play), but must refrain from doing what he believes is morally right because of his responsibilies to his occupation. The audience knows that Walsh would help Sitting Bull in a heart beat because of their relationship but has to consider at the same time that it is ultimately his duty to do his job.
The relationship between Walsh and Sitting Bull shifts throughout then play, but when Sitting Bull is initially introduced he is portrayed as a friend of General Walsh. Throughout their discussion(s), Sitting Bull constatnly is asking for confirmation that the Canadian people including Walsh, will help and support them in a time of despair. But Walsh consistently vocalizes that he cannot help them any further, and his job is to only look over them. Seeing that Sitting Bull is controlled directly through Walsh's mercy, Walsh is the one who holds the most power between the two. Walsh stands as the answer to all of Sitting Bull's "questions" and without further approval from Walsh and the government, Sitting Bull has very little influecing power.
It is seen literally that Walsh is the man with the power, but if read between the lines, it is apparent that in the beginning of the play, Sitting Bull is the man who has the power. Walsh has to protect Sitting Bull, but he also tries to obey his requests, which nearing the end, he slowly can't fulfill due to the fact that Walsh is representing the "Great White Mother". Many decisions are based on what Walsh thinks, and how he wants to deal with a certain situation. Because of this, he also holds a lot of power. I would say that the two men have power, but in different ways. Though for the relationship between the two men, I would say that there has definetely been a strong bond. If it had not been for Sitting Bull and Walsh being friends, Walsh would've never had to consider betraying his duty in the first place. Walsh says he doesn't want to take sides, but his friendship with Sitting Bull sure sways opinions floating in his mind.
After Walsh's position of duty is threatened, his power is immediately strengthened due to fear and his sadness that he can no longer be a true friend. At this point, he chooses his power over their friendship, and it is when he loses his compassionate side, his strength overpowers Sitting Bull's.
I think that the power exchange during the play changes at different times. For instance, at the beginning of the play despite seeking refuge, Sitting Bull has power because he presents himself as a great chief and LEADER of his people, where as Walsh is a representative of and is ultimately accountable to the government. Towards the middle of the play we see Sitting Bulls desperation which makes him look weak in comparison to Walsh. This changes at the end of the play because I don't believe that any of them actually has any power or any more that the other has. Walsh is powerless to help a cause that he believes in and Sitting Bull is powerless to help himself or his people.
21 comments:
Pollock seems to give more power to Walsh in the sense that Sitting Bull entrusts decisions to him, for example, when Sitting Bull asks what Walsh thinks about moving to a reserve and talking to General Terry. However, you can also look at this from a different perspective, one where Sitting Bull has more power in the situation because Walsh is friends with the Sioux, but also serves the government, so because of Sitting Bull and the Sioux's situation, some of Walsh's decisions and ideas waver.
For the most part of the play, Walsh is in control though.
I think that throughout the play Pollock changes the power given to each character. In the begining Sitting Bull has more power because his situation makes Walsh seem to feel bad for him and want to help him and his people even though he knows he is not able to. Then once confronted by General Terry Walsh is given an ultimatum, to help Sitting Bull or get fired. Walsh knows that there is no room for him to feel bad for Sitting Bull, he understands that in order to keep his job, he must be strong and not give in and at that moment he is given the power.
The fact that Sitting Bull is the one who is asking for help immediately suggests that Walsh has the upper hand. But, we know that Sitting Bull "is a man of great presence and personal magnetism", as it is stated in the stage directions on page 43, and his monologue to Walsh shows that he is very passionate about the injustice showned by certain white people to the indians. Walsh understands this, and that is why some call him 'the white forehead chief' - because he is willing to listen to them and understands their situation and genuinely cares, rather than automatically stereotyping them and seeing them as a people that is beneath him, which some white people do. With this, it could be a certain 'weakness' of Walsh- that sometimes his compassion overcomes his sense of duty, which happens later on in the play when Walsh doesn't follow 'proper procedure'. So, it would seem that Walsh is in control of the situation, but he allows his compassion to overcome his judgement sometimes, causing him to lose some of his sense of duty.
(Whoa, that was long. Am I overthinking this?...=\)
During Pollock's play, Walsh's and Sitting Bull's relationship would seem as a somewhat uneasy relation at first, but the two quickly become rather good friends. Throughout the play, in terms of his relationship with Sitting Bull, Walsh is placed in a position of power as Sitting Bull is coming to Walsh to ask for his help. Although it may appear that Sitting Bull may have power over Walsh in certain situations (As in their first meeting, surrounded by Sioux), Sitting Bull is still wholly dependant on Walsh as a connection to the Canadian government.
Walsh and Sitting Bull's relationship shows trust in Pollock's play. Sitting bull had taken the advice from Walsh and stayed in Canada when General Terry had attempted to force the Sioux tribe back to the U.S Border. I believe Walsh is in control because he represents the Canadian Governmen't and therefore authority over the Sioux. Walsh also has the power to stop delivering food and living needs to them.
Walsh and Sitting Bull's relationship shows trust in Pollock's play. Sitting bull had taken the advice from Walsh and stayed in Canada when General Terry had attempted to force the Sioux tribe back to the U.S Border. I believe Walsh is in control because he represents the Canadian Governmen't and therefore authority over the Sioux. Walsh also has the power to stop delivering food and living needs to them.
The way Pollock reperesents the relationship between Walsh and Sitting Bull is through a controversial conversation between these two characters. Sitting Bull is attempting to get Walsh to do the right thing and assist the Sioux shadowing the trust Sitting Bull has given to Walsh. However, this leaves Walsh in a dilemma as he contemplates over his duty or the trust that he has with Sitting Bull. The reader can see a shift in power but mostly in Walsh's favour. Initially, Walsh reminds Sitting Bull that he must return to America and that he belongs to the President implementing Walsh's formal duty. Neverhtheless, after Sitting Bull pleads his case emotiton overcomes Walsh, which gives power to Sitting Bull. The strongest moment of power though, comes at the end of the reading when Walsh responds to Sitting Bull by telling him of his government position and that it his job to get Sitting Bull back. Subsequent to that Walsh implements the friendship and advises Sitting Bull to meet with General Terry and Sitting Bull fortifies their trust by agreeing to meet with him despite his similarities to General Custer.
Although it seems Sitting Bull has the power at times in the play, it is infact Walsh who has the power. Walsh works for the Canadian government, and Sitting Bull comes to Walsh to get help. Just by the fact that Sitting Bull came to Walsh, the reader can already tell who has the upperhand. Also, although Walsh disagrees with what the government is doing, at the end of the day Walsh chose to work for the government. At any time Walsh could have gone against the government, and tried to help Sitting Bull. Sitting Bull, on the other hand, doesn't have as much choice. He chooses to come to Canada for help, but he never chose to lose his land, or to be in need of the assistance of the Canadian government. Because Walsh makes a concious decision to be in the position he is in, and Sitting Bull did not, Walsh is the one with more power.
Though it is true that the power is always shifting between both Walsh and Sitting Bull, in general it appears as though Walsh continually has the upper hand. The fact that Walsh is more powerful than sitting Bull gives the audience an better understanding of Sitting Bulls inability to protect his people. The audience is more sympathetic to Sitting Bulls situation.
Walsh and Sitting Bull both are powerful and always do what they think is right,But they seem to have a bond more of understanding then friendship. Sitting Bull understands that he needs to listen to walsh so he and his people will be able to stay in canada so there fore sitting bull gives the power to walsh
I would say Walsh has the power in the relationship. It is Sitting Bull who is asking for help, and in the end it is up to Walsh to say no. Though Walsh must make a tought decision which is swayed by the good intentions of the Sioux, and the fact that sitting bull and his people have just reasons for not wanting to rerturn to the states, it is never up to sitting Bull, what will happen.. As Louis says later on in the play, the idnians have no choice but to trust".. this implies that theur fate is entirely in the hand of the white men.
wow.. meant to press edit .. but yeah publish happened.. so their are alot of mistakes in that last one.. my bad
Both Walsh and Sitting Bull seem to have the upperhand depending on the situation. In regarding to physical and military force/power, Sitting Bull had the advantage. He had an army of 4000 Siouxs to fall back on, while Walsh had only about 60 red coated men. When concerning the significant decision making power, Walsh had the command. He had the support of the Canadian government and the influence of the Great White Mother. Therefore, he had the ability to make radical verdicts and pronouncements regarding the Sioux nation.
Pollock first presents a type of nutural relationship between Sitting Bull and Walsh, suggesting that they have about the same power. For example, Walsh at the begining does not push Sitting Bull to do whatever he wants, nither does Sitting Bull. Both of them simply gives comments to each other once in a while. However, near the end when Walsh was frustrated about the situation with the Sioux, pollock then demonstrated that Walsh has more power over Sitting Bull especially when Sitting Bull and the Sioux Nation was weak because they are running out of food. Like Lawton said, I also think that the reason for Pollock to give more power towards Walsh is to make the audience feel sorry for Sitting Bull and the Sioux Nation. Then at the end, without any choice, Sitting Bull was forced to go back to the States.
Although Sitting Bull is the one asking Walsh for assistance to aid his thriving Sioux tribe, Sitting Bull has control over Walsh in the sense that the life that his tribe has is deciding the impact of Walsh's inner conflict. As we see at the end of the book, the extinction of Sitting Bull's tribe is the cause of his exasperation of the situation, giving up his duties as a NWMP.
Sitting Bull gives Walsh a Native name indicates his acceptance. It seems that Walsh's role of assisting Sitting Bull has been modified over the course of the story to a character who advises him to do things. In reality, Sitting Bull 'basically' has more power to do what he likes, but by taking Walsh's advice gives Walsh more power although not likely the final say since it's primarily up to Sitting Bull himself.
Pollock gives most of the power to Walsh, this power is given to Walsh because he is a government official, while Sitting Bull is just a chief of a native tribe. The fact that she gives Walsh the power is symbolic of our belief that the Canadian government is above the natives, which is strange because the natives were here first. The only case where Sitting Bull seems to have the power is when Walsh feels guilty that he wasn't able to help Sitting bull stay alive
Pollock presents Sitting Bull and Walsh as friends even though Walsh has a higher status and more authoritative power over Sitting Bull due to his position in Canada as an officer. In terms of persuasion it is Sitting Bull that has more power in this situation. This is because Sitting Bull is asking Walsh for help and due to the fact that they consider each other as friends, Walsh sincerely wants to help Sitting Bull. The only thing stopping him however is the government regulations. Walsh recognizes that Sitting Bull and his people are in need of assistance and he really wants to help (as Clarence depicts throughout the play), but must refrain from doing what he believes is morally right because of his responsibilies to his occupation. The audience knows that Walsh would help Sitting Bull in a heart beat because of their relationship but has to consider at the same time that it is ultimately his duty to do his job.
The relationship between Walsh and Sitting Bull shifts throughout then play, but when Sitting Bull is initially introduced he is portrayed as a friend of General Walsh. Throughout their discussion(s), Sitting Bull constatnly is asking for confirmation that the Canadian people including Walsh, will help and support them in a time of despair. But Walsh consistently vocalizes that he cannot help them any further, and his job is to only look over them. Seeing that Sitting Bull is controlled directly through Walsh's mercy, Walsh is the one who holds the most power between the two. Walsh stands as the answer to all of Sitting Bull's "questions" and without further approval from Walsh and the government, Sitting Bull has very little influecing power.
It is seen literally that Walsh is the man with the power, but if read between the lines, it is apparent that in the beginning of the play, Sitting Bull is the man who has the power. Walsh has to protect Sitting Bull, but he also tries to obey his requests, which nearing the end, he slowly can't fulfill due to the fact that Walsh is representing the "Great White Mother". Many decisions are based on what Walsh thinks, and how he wants to deal with a certain situation. Because of this, he also holds a lot of power. I would say that the two men have power, but in different ways. Though for the relationship between the two men, I would say that there has definetely been a strong bond. If it had not been for Sitting Bull and Walsh being friends, Walsh would've never had to consider betraying his duty in the first place. Walsh says he doesn't want to take sides, but his friendship with Sitting Bull sure sways opinions floating in his mind.
After Walsh's position of duty is threatened, his power is immediately strengthened due to fear and his sadness that he can no longer be a true friend. At this point, he chooses his power over their friendship, and it is when he loses his compassionate side, his strength overpowers Sitting Bull's.
I think that the power exchange during the play changes at different times. For instance, at the beginning of the play despite seeking refuge, Sitting Bull has power because he presents himself as a great chief and LEADER of his people, where as Walsh is a representative of and is ultimately accountable to the government. Towards the middle of the play we see Sitting Bulls desperation which makes him look weak in comparison to Walsh. This changes at the end of the play because I don't believe that any of them actually has any power or any more that the other has. Walsh is powerless to help a cause that he believes in and Sitting Bull is powerless to help himself or his people.
Post a Comment