Respond to: The Freedom of Real Apologies

When Layli Long Soldier says that she was surprised that she has never heard about it, she is referring to the apology that happened in the year of 2009. She did not heard about the apology till a year later after it happened. She also says as a reason that she heard about it later is because there really was not a lot of risk taken in the way that it was delivered. Here there is this resolution that was in fact passed but it was never talked about, never spoken aloud. I believe it is important to note that she had not heard about this apology before is because of the way this apology was made and delivered. The words that they used in the apology were very "careful" like Ms. Long Soldier would say. They were not as clear as they should have been, and some of the words were not the best for this type of apology and for this situation.

Layli Long Soldier also talks about the phrasing they used in the apology. The phrasing where they talk about the arrival of Europeans in the States and how that opened a "new chapter" for Native Americans. She talks about this specific phrasing because she believes the words used for it are incorrect. Her tone especially imphasizes on the words "new chapter". In the way they said these words, they make it sound like it is something that eventually turned out to be good, something that the Native people ended up growing from. The truth is that what happened was a genocide. This is the word that Long Soldier believe should be used instead of saying they entered a "new chapter". This word is better because it clearly describes what actually happened then. This word is less "careful" as Ms. Soldier would say. Instead it is facing the problem straight and forward.

In this whole podcast one of the major things that we are observing is the use of specificity. The reason it was used so much is because in this topic they are concerned with specificity is a nessecery tool. Specificity also gives us a btter idea and visualization in the whole topic. This helps us to better understand the subject and even form our own opinions about it. As much as specificity is important in this podcast, it is also important in our own papers. Specificity helps our audience to better understand the subject we are talking about and also tells them what we specifically think about this subject.

This interview is structured very friendly. To me it sounded more like a discussion between friends than an actual professional interview. There were sometime asked specific questions but also there were times where they would just talk about the topic and give their own opinions about it. The tone was also very friendly. It was very good emphasized on the right words, which helped us the audience to better see the subject from their point of view. One think to get from the way this interview was structured is to try to have more of a discussion with the person you are going to interview instead of straight questions and answers.