Author: jdeboe (Page 2 of 4)

Creating long-term transformations in our world has always been a problem, simply because our world is not the same all around. We all exist within smaller, complex systems that make up the entire planet. These systems often differ in many ways. This is what makes solving wicked problems so difficult, since coming up with a solution for one particular issue does not guarantee that it will work for that same issue all throughout the world. Leaving many people to assume that the fight for worldwide change is impossible. However, we often forget to look at the small similarities between the systems that govern our societies. As we do start to recognize these patterns, we begin to realize that large scale change is not as difficult as it may seem at first glance. 

Adrienne Marie Brown shows in the beginning sections of “Emergent Strategies” that the most crucial step in making changes in our world is by learning about natural systems. As explained in the introduction, we are often greatly affected by changes in other ecosystems around us and vice versa. If we want to make real changes that can benefit more than just one or two regions of the world, a basic understanding of the natural systems around us is a necessity. That means learning how to sustain our population and the population of other animals that share the planet with us. “I want to understand how we humans do that-how we earn a place on this precious planet, get in the ‘right relationship’ with it. So I am focusing on the ways creatures and ecosystems function together in and with the natural world” (5). Despite so many efforts being made to leave Earth behind in the future, we often forget to notice the perfect planet we already live on. The chances of life existing at all are slim, if this planet managed to get it right, then we should spend more time trying to heal it instead of abandoning it. 

The most intriguing part of Brown’s plans for understanding natural systems is the use of emergent strategies. The term emergent strategy is best explained by breaking down the meanings of the individual words. Emergent simply means looking at multiple different layers of interactions between systems. If two ecosystems were to be closely related based on similar patterns, this relationship could help people learn how to change or sustain one ecosystem by affecting the other. “But emergence shows us that adaptation and evolution depend more upon critical, deep, and authentic connections, a thread that can be tugged for support and resilience… Dare I say love. And we know how to connect-we long for it” (14). Strategies, on the other hand, refer to the steps taken to accomplish some sort of feat. Together, emergent strategies are measures made to change certain systems based on the relationships outside and within them. This is important because many patterns in nature are often ignored or not investigated because they may not have seemed so significant at first. However, Brown argues that these patterns could be the key to solving problems throughout multiple different systems, simplifying the way we look at complexity in the natural world. 

So what’s the point? Yes, these ideas are useful for people wanting to make changes in their communities, states, or even countries. But how does this apply to water equity and the Mississippi River? How can emergent strategies be used to solve problems along one of the largest rivers in the Americas? Well, despite how different certain communities along the Mississippi may be, they all share common advantages and disadvantages. Many of these cities experience massive flooding from the river, yet they also have access to easy transportation thanks to the river. In mapping the Mississippi, we can notice the similarities in nearby communities and use that to our advantage. For example, efforts made to minimize flooding in one city could also be used in another city with the same problem. Implementing Brown’s ideas in real life could be the key to changing our goals from just a vision to a reality. 

All in all, the systems in our world are a lot more connected than we may realize. Many different cities and states along the Mississippi River share common problems that can be solved by noticing the patterns within them. Even beyond our country, there are several massive rivers throughout the world that may pose the same problems for the people who live along them. Water equity along the Mississippi River is an issue in and of itself, but it is not the only water related issue that is faced in our world today. If we can learn to recognize the patterns within our vicinity, we can also learn to apply these solutions to other systems around the world, making real change not just for our country, but for our entire planet. 

In every story, there are clearly defined protagonists, heroes, and antagonists, villains. The reality of these stories is that they would be vastly different if told from the POV of the “villains”. Nobody wants to see themselves as the enemy or the bad guy in their story. Instead, we tend to try and either justify the actions that we made or sweep those actions under the rug. In the case of US history, it is clear now that we were not always the good guys. For example, our treatment of Native Americans was terrible in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s. The US government originally tried to act as if all the massacres and relocations never happened, but this did not work for long. Eventually, the government had to own up to their cruel treatment of the natives and admit that they were the bad guys in this situation. However, the concept of “good” or “bad” is often based on the perspective of the audience, an idea that is explored throughout Bruce Upholdt’s “The Great River”. 

For most novels or pieces of literature that discuss the old relationship between the US government and Native Americans, they are often told in the perspective of the natives, in order for the audience to get the best glimpse of how bad the US treated them. “The Great River” is not like these texts though. Bruce Upholdt’s piece actually starts out with the point of view of a group of settlers reaching the Mississippi River. As the story progresses, it becomes apparent that the settlers did not want anything to do with the land near the Mississippi Valley. “He seemed unimpressed, repeatedly grading this floodplain territory as second-rate land. Robbins, too, had his doubts: when his former general offered a patch of the Arkansas floodplain as a part of his ‘war bounty,’ the surveyor declined, figuring it would be too much work to wring out a profit” (72-73). The groups of explorers that were sent out to survey the new land first thought that the land could not be profitable due to its depth and its cluster of bushes and trees. Not everyone shared this same opinion though. President Thomas Jefferson, the man who was encouraging settlers to explore the Mississippi River, believed that it could serve as an “empire for liberty” (75). This ideology led Thomas Jefferson to suggest the removal of natives from their tribal lands, a proposal that kicked off decades of mistreatment. Perspective is most important in this. While the settlers and Thomas Jefferson may not see themselves as the bad guys yet, since they are just trying to explore the land that they won from the British, the actions that they take to do so make them a bad guy for the natives who have been living there for hundreds of years. 

Along with giving a description of the settlers who traveled to the Mississippi Valley, the author also shows just how influential the Mississippi River was too. Even though President Jefferson wanted the river under US control, the Mississippi was not exactly “all good”. “A bad flood had liquefied forty miles of land, and even after the waters receded, there would be hazards to contend with: ‘the poisonous effects of Half dried mud, putrid fish, & Vegetable matter-almost impenetrable cane brakes, and swarms of mosketoes,’ the surveyor wrote” (82). The Mississippi River had a history of flooding, which often damaged the land around it and brought along other problems. Once the government began to realize how often these floods can occur, systems were put in place to try and “control” the once revered river. However, Jefferson was not the only man who truly admired the river. The author makes a quick nod to an account of a settler named Fink, published by Morgan Neville in 1828. In this story, Fink strives to live a peaceful life in the wilderness, while ironically killing any Indigenous person who got in his way. Once this narrative was sent throughout the country, it not only portrayed the idea of opportunities out west, but also the idea that the natives were insignificant. 

The author goes on to talk about how tension between the Native Americans and the US government grew harsher. While the settlers continued to get into confrontations with the natives, the US was once again waging war against Great Britain. In the War of 1812, the British returned to America, and this time, they recruited local soldiers to help them win the war. “Many Indigenous people, subscribing to the theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, had allied with the crown. Two Shawnee brothers-one a prophet, the other a soldier-set up the headquarters for a burgeoning anti-American movement in the unconquered territory along the Wabash River” (83). With supplies from Britain, the natives were finally able to fight back. But this was only the beginning of the conflict. The war was ended by General Andrew Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815, who would later go on to continue his attacks against the Native Americans. After Andrew Jackson was made president in 1829, his violence towards the natives shifted from small battles to massacres and large relocations. The author clearly wanted the audience to realize that the mistreatment of the Native Americans was not just a single centralized occurrence. Rather, it was a slow progression from negotiating to outright murdering innocent natives. It was a cycle that continued from president to president, from war to war, for over a century. 

Many people often wonder why settlers, and later the US government, could order for the killing and relocating of thousands of Native Americans for tens of years. Bruce Upholdt does a great job at answering this question by first showing the perspective of the “bad guys”. The members of a young country who were determined to carve out their own destiny by taking the resources that laid out west became lost in their ambitions and started to put conquest over the lives of native populations. It is important to note that throughout all of this, neither side saw themselves as the villains in this conflict. Each group was simply looking out for their own interests. The US government just let their arrogance and self-entitlement drive them to greater lengths. Which is why it is important to always look at a situation outside of your own POV. If not, you could end up as the villain of your own story without even noticing it. 

Part of growing up is reflecting on how your parents raised you and what you would have done differently. Some may resent their parents and their teaching methods, while others look back, wishing that they would have listened. But it’s only after the death of a parent when people start to realize how significant their mom or dad in their lives. This is a theme explored in a piece of literary text known as “You Don’t Have to Say You Love Me” by Sherman Alexie. Throughout the chapters of this text, the author tries to display the impact that the death of his mother had on his life. Beyond just reflecting on his mother’s teachings, the author also goes on to discuss themes on death and parental influence. 

In Chapter 38 of this text, titled “Eulogy”, the author repeated mentions how “My mother was a dictionary” (116). He continues this theme by explaining that his mother was one of the only remaining tribal members who could speak the old language. She would sing the old songs, teach her children a few phrases, and tell stories of the past, but she never taught her kids how to speak the language. When the speaker had to bury his mother, he was not just saying goodbye to a loved one, but also to an entire culture. “She knew words that have been spoken for thousands of years / She knew words that will never be spoken again / I wish I could build tombstones for each of those words” (119). The speaker truly wanted to honor those old memories and traditions. He reflects on how his mother never attempted to teach him the language, but he also starts to realize why this was the case. “She always said to me, ‘English will be your best weapon.’” (120). It is only after his mother’s death that they realize how important that lesson truly was. The author’s understanding of English and its literature is what lead him to use writing as a form of expression. Even after her death, the author’s mother is still teaching him lessons. 

Most people see death as an unfortunate ending. Funeral services are seen as events of mourning more often than not. However, the author begins to get a new perspective on life and death while commemorating the memories of his mother. When the speaker is with their cousin, they ask him if he killed the deer that her used in the venison stew. His cousin replies with a simple “Yes”. To which he responds “‘Thank you for hunting.’” (112). These seem like strange questions to ask in a regular context, but with the author being forced to come to terms with death, he begins to ponder if death was really “bad”. Sure, death can bring the loss of significant individuals, but it can also provide food to people or allow for the growth of new plant life. The author now sees death as a stepping off point, instead of an end. Just because his mother has passed on does not mean that the impact that she left in her life is gone as well. It is evident throughout the chapters in this piece of literature that the teachings of the author’s mother are still sticking to him. It’s as though his mother is living on through his own actions. 

One of the most difficult challenges parents face when raising children is trying to balance teaching and nurturing. While it usually takes a while for the children to notice how crucial their parent’s teachings were in their lives, the parents’ nurturing is often the most impactful in a child’s life. In Chapters 36 and 37, the author looks back on how his mother’s nurturing was not enough to keep him around. In the chapter titled “Utensil”, the author says “Thank you for your imperfect love. / It almost worked. It mostly worked / Or partly worked. It was almost enough” (114). Even though the author is now grateful for the love that his mother showed him, he knows that it never truly helped him become the man that she wanted him to be. However, he goes on to clarify that this was not his mother’s fault. “Yes, my mother was a better mother / To my sisters and brothers, / But they were better children / Than me, the prodigal who yearned / And spurned and never returned” (115). The author was the kid who just wanted to get away. Not to say that he resented his mother, but he was too young and careless to cherish the love and affection that his mother provided. His siblings chose to stay close, while he chose to leave and live his own life. A choice that he did not yet know that he would go on to regret. 

Altogether, death in the family was the one thing that forced the author to reflect on his mother’s life and her influence on him. Not only that, but the author also looks at death in a new way. His mother’s death was not the end of her teaching, it was the beginning of a new chapter in his life that made him finally understand what she was trying to tell him. Now leaving him with one final question to answer: “How will I honor my mother’s life?”.