Sherman Alexie's poem "What You Pawn I Will Redeem" tells the story of a Native American man named Jack, who is desperate to get back his grandmother's powwow regalia, or traditional dance clothes, which he sold for cash when he was struggling financially. The poem is set in a pawn shop, where Jack is bargaining with the shopkeeper to buy back the regalia.
The poem is rich with themes of identity, family, and cultural heritage. Jack's desperate desire to regain the regalia is tied to his sense of self and his connection to his ancestors. The regalia represents a part of his identity that has been lost, and he is willing to do whatever it takes to get it back.
The shopkeeper, on the other hand, is more interested in the monetary value of the regalia than its cultural significance. He sees it as nothing more than a commodity to be bought and sold. This contrast between Jack's emotional connection to the regalia and the shopkeeper's detachment highlights the theme of the commercialization of culture and the way in which it can undermine the value of traditions and heritage.
The title of the poem, "What You Pawn I Will Redeem," suggests that Jack is willing to pay any price to reclaim the regalia. This phrase also has deeper meaning, as it suggests that Jack is willing to redeem not only the regalia, but also his own sense of identity and connection to his culture.
Ultimately, the poem speaks to the importance of cultural traditions and the way in which they shape our sense of self and our connection to our ancestors. It also critiques the way in which these traditions can be commodified and stripped of their meaning in a capitalist society.
In conclusion, "What You Pawn I Will Redeem" is a poignant and thought-provoking poem that explores themes of identity, family, and cultural heritage, and the way in which they can be threatened by the forces of capitalism. It is a powerful reminder of the importance of preserving and valuing our cultural traditions.
A law research paper is a document that presents a legal argument or analysis on a particular legal topic or issue. It requires extensive research and analysis of relevant legal sources, such as cases, statutes, and secondary materials, in order to provide a well-informed and nuanced perspective on the subject. In this essay, we will provide a sample law research paper that discusses the issue of qualified immunity, which is a legal doctrine that protects government officials from civil liability for damages resulting from their official actions.
Qualified immunity is a controversial doctrine that has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years, as it has been used to shield government officials from accountability for their actions, even when those actions have resulted in harm or death to individuals. The doctrine originated in the United States Supreme Court's 1967 decision in Pierson v. Ray, which held that government officials are entitled to immunity from civil liability for damages resulting from their official actions, unless those actions violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights" of which a reasonable person would have known.
In practice, however, qualified immunity has been applied in a way that has made it difficult for individuals to hold government officials accountable for their actions. For example, in the case of Anderson v. Creighton, the Supreme Court held that a police officer was entitled to qualified immunity for conducting a warrantless search, even though the search violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.
There are several arguments for and against qualified immunity. Proponents of the doctrine argue that it is necessary to protect government officials from frivolous lawsuits and to allow them to carry out their duties without fear of legal retribution. They also argue that it promotes judicial efficiency by allowing courts to dispose of cases that do not involve clearly established rights without the need for a full trial.
However, critics of the doctrine argue that it creates a "culture of impunity" for government officials, as it allows them to avoid accountability for their actions, even when those actions are clearly unconstitutional or violate the rights of individuals. They also argue that the doctrine is too broad, as it allows officials to escape liability for actions that should clearly be found to be in violation of established rights.
In recent years, there have been calls to reform or eliminate qualified immunity, as it has been used to shield government officials from accountability in a number of high-profile cases. For example, in the case of Floyd v. City of New York, the family of George Floyd, who died after a police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes, argued that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity because his actions were clearly a violation of Floyd's Fourth Amendment rights.
In conclusion, qualified immunity is a complex and controversial doctrine that has significant implications for the accountability of government officials. While it may serve a valuable role in protecting officials from frivolous lawsuits, it has also been used to shield officials from liability for actions that violate the rights of individuals. The ongoing debate over the doctrine highlights the importance of balancing the need for government officials to be able to carry out their duties without fear of legal retribution with the need to hold them accountable for their actions.
