11/5/21

Colonial Serpents

Humberto Ak’abal’s poem “Paradise” references the Biblical book of Genesis and the story of the garden of Eden. When I read this poem, I interpreted the serpents as colonizers and colonial entities. Ak’abal writes that “there was no forbidden fruit/the snakes were mute” (3-4). Before the colonizers, life was paradise. The “fruit” could be interpreted as traditional indigenous cultural practices. Therefore, once the serpents spoke, they “forbade the fruit and divided paradise among themselves” (10-12) can be understood as the banning of indigenous culture in favour of assimilation. No longer does the land belong to the indigenous people, it was forcefully taken by colonial forces who gave little thought to the rightful owners of the land. This reminded me of the Canadian government and Catholic Church’s program of residential schools in Canada. The purpose was to “kill the Indian within the child”, and to assimilate into so-called “civilized” white society. Ak’abal seems to be lamenting the interventionist practices of colonial settlers, and reminiscing over times when the land belonged to the Indigenous peoples, who treated it with respect. Land is more than just a “resource”, it is also a family member in many Indigenous cultures. Paradise can only last as long as it is not infected by colonial greed.

09/26/21

Religious Critiques and Their Effects

I find his critique on Colonialism in the Paradise text to be very profound. I can see this becoming very controversial for the time. I am curious to hear other students’ perspectives on the matter. Do you think its parallels would have warranted a reaction similar to that of Paradise Lost (A text famous for its critique on the bible, God, and the fall of Lucifer) or other critiques of the religion? I think its main difference with Paradise lost is that it’s not directly critiquing the bible, rather the people who are colonizing their culture and changing their paradise for the worse in the name of God. It does a good job of pointing out the irony of holiness in this type of setting. I could see the lines where he refers to the colonizers as “serpents [who] spoke, forbade the fruit and decided paradise among themselves” could be a particularly divisive statement as a snake is considered to be a representation of the devil. It also indirectly brings to light the idea of religious freedom. As much as it is their right to practice Christianity it is also the right of the “Indio” to freely embrace their paradise in order to embrace their spirituality. Why should religious freedom be only applicable to Christians at the expense of Native Americans? I hope the effect of this poem did manage to provide a meaningful critique that hopefully some Christians at the time took to heart and convinced them to become supporters of indigenous beliefs, despite their differences.