Johawk Interruptus Analysis

To contrast the major arguments of The Land of Open Graves and Mohawk Interruptus, is to contrast the different experiences of two major marginalized groups within the wealthy and powerful nations of Canada and the United States. These two ethnographies highlight the discrepancy between the views of marginalization and the actual methods deployed to marginalize; however, what De León and Simpson hope to bring to attention are the forms with which each respective group resists said marginalization. Here is where the commonality is found between the two authors’ main arguments. Audra Simpson on one hand writes the entirety of Mohawk Interruptus as an ethnography of refusal. By doing so, she highlights the will of the Mohawk to resist encroachments
The differences between each author's tone, structure, and voice further build on the dichotomy between the experiences of the Mohawk at the northern border and migrants at the southern. Both the migrants and the Mohawk have resisted marginalization; however, this is where the commonality of resistance quickly forks off into two distinct paths. As alluded to by Audra Simpson, the Mohawk people are hoping to gain sovereignty, whereas the migrants are hoping to integrate themselves into the US population (Simpson 116). The Mohawk, like other American Indian groups, hope to establish themselves as distinct entities from the United States and Canada. Meanwhile, migrants are hoping to gain access to these political entities only to be turned away for lack of belonging. To emphasize this dichotomy of experience and further their arguments, Simpson and De León construct very different ethnographies. The Land of Open Graves plays with hyper-realism in tone and voice. In De León’s work one can find a solemn topic dotted with jokes and light language (De León 148-151). This plays into De León’s purpose of highlighting the humanity of migrants by imitating human emotion in writing. Likewise, De León uses imagery to his advantage with the descriptive power of his writing. For example,
Their use of distinct tones, structures and voice further their arguments which are surprisingly similar in that they both acknowledge the role of refusal in resisting marginalization. Despite both authors effectively defending and bringing attention to their arguments, some weaknesses remain relatively apparent. At first glance, Audra Simpson’s ethnography appeared to have the largest handicap. With an overly academic voice, many of her points were awkwardly presented and it felt like much of what she was saying got lost in the minutiae of her overly complicated sentences which often spanned many lines. In one instance, Simpson hopes to emphasize the importance of a genealogical connection to the topic of her ethnography (Simpson 97). Much of this statement comes off as vague and wordy which makes it especially difficult for the reader to comprehend. Where the effectiveness of Simson’s argument was limited by her academic voice, this same voice seemed to assert the presence of the Mohawk on another level. Simpson’s connection to academia as asserted through her expansive diction and complicated writing structures stood as immovable forces symbolic of how the Mohawk people have established themselves as immovable. This style of writing is distinctly assertive and powerful which draws a parallel to Audra Simpsons statements. Likewise, Jason De León’s greatest weakness is also