The use of poetic language brings about a change in an argument and interpretation drastically. Both Ziadah and Long Soldier have precisely chosen specific words to bring about an accurate and detailed look on history. In “38”, Long soldier explains the history behind the word “Minnesota”(Page 4), which is also the name of the treaties for the Dakota people. The definition of “Sota” is reflective of how the treaties occurred as the Dakota people were “unclear” and “confused” of what they were signing. This led to them never obtaining the money from the government that was initially promised, and therefor breaking the treaties. This broken judicial sentence contrasts with Long Soldiers intent for grammatical accuracy. The irony presented here…show more content… They fought back in their own ways, just like how Long Soldier and Ziadah are fighting back and bestowing light to these events in their different methods. They both want the injustice to be heard by others and provide evidence for the innocence of the Dakota and Palestinian citizens. Both poets bring light to the fact that their higher governors trapped the citizens. They both display this fact through different ways. Long soldier states, “The previous sentence is circular, which is akin to so many aspects of history” (Page 5). This is referring to when the Dakota people were promised money for giving up their land and then needed the same money to live but was not given any. It shows how the Dakota people were bounded by the government’s promise that they did not follow through with. They were left stranded and starved with no ways to support themselves. Long soldier emphasizes the fact that the government trapped them to make all needs difficult to obtain. Her use of the word “circular” symbolizes that there is no way out of the governments set up, leaving them in a confined
