This reading begins with talking about a specific event that happened during 911. An American Indian scholar named Ward Churchill publishes a controversial essay that saying all the victims in 9/11 were “little Eichmanns” (Kelly, 2016, p.240) and points out that, “9/11 attacks were provoked by decades of American military conquest in the Middle East” (Kelly, 2016, p.240). His argument enrages the public and soon he was found out that he is not even a real Indian according to his blood ancestry. The author Casey R. Kelly made a clear clarification that what he want to investigate expanding from Churchill’s case is the issue behind blood quantum, which is so widely using to confirm one’s identity.
Kelly first starts with the case itself. He points out that “Focusing on whether or not Churchill is a ‘real Indian’ overlooks both his positive contributions and his relevant failures” (Kelly, 2016, p.243). By …show more content…
He links the word “blood” with biological and science so that it’s standing on the opposite of emotion and culture. Which in my opinion is a clever move because by drawing this distinction, he raise his argument from whether or not we should focus on Churchill’s identity into whether or not should one’s blood decides one’s self identity. He keeps using the words relevant with individualization and culture, which can make the readers sympathize with him. For example, when analyzing the characteristic of blood, he addresses that “Blood metaphors are also ideological. Many scholars find that race is a construction contingent upon a confluence of historical and geographic factors, rather than any innate biological facts” (Kelly, 2016, p.243). By saying blood as a metaphor, he changes blood into a rhetorical method rather than a scientific test. Meanwhile, this metaphor is “ideological”, which means it’s up to human but not “biological
Kelly first starts with the case itself. He points out that “Focusing on whether or not Churchill is a ‘real Indian’ overlooks both his positive contributions and his relevant failures” (Kelly, 2016, p.243). By …show more content…
He links the word “blood” with biological and science so that it’s standing on the opposite of emotion and culture. Which in my opinion is a clever move because by drawing this distinction, he raise his argument from whether or not we should focus on Churchill’s identity into whether or not should one’s blood decides one’s self identity. He keeps using the words relevant with individualization and culture, which can make the readers sympathize with him. For example, when analyzing the characteristic of blood, he addresses that “Blood metaphors are also ideological. Many scholars find that race is a construction contingent upon a confluence of historical and geographic factors, rather than any innate biological facts” (Kelly, 2016, p.243). By saying blood as a metaphor, he changes blood into a rhetorical method rather than a scientific test. Meanwhile, this metaphor is “ideological”, which means it’s up to human but not “biological