If you ever wondered how that big blue off-campus dorm got the name Dobie, or why J. Frank Dobie’s name keeps popping up around campus, look no further than his writings about longhorns and mustangs. As I read his impressions of the two animals, it felt like I was reading about Texans. And I don’t mean the watered down version of us today—I thought about the early inhabitants. Dobie describes the longhorns as survivors against ranchers, weather, nature, etc. His story about Sancho might as well have been the description of the first Texan: Starts out orphaned and alone (like our lone star state), brought up on tamales (spice!), mesquite beans, Mexican sugar, and feels a tie to the land he grew up on. Dobie says in Longhorns, “He was a drifter at times; he ranged far and could walk to the end of the world; but the Longhorn was also a home lover and a persistent returner to his querencia, as the vaquero language calls the place where an animal is born or to which he shows a strong attachment. (258)” Sancho’s story was about going back to his roots no matter what stood in his way. Despite the long cattle drive that took him all the way to Wyoming, he found his way back to his home, his spicy food, and his shade under the mesquite tree.
Here is a picture of mesquite trees. They are all over my grandparents’ ranch.
Sancho and I share one thing in common: we both have our own querencia. Granted I feel certain ties to my Houston home of 14yrs, but my grandparents’ ranch holds tighter ties. Like longhorns and other animals, I feel that people feel connected to places or things from their childhood. We all have our own querencia. I can list many songs, movies, and books that hold a special place in my heart, but nature is the most powerful connection that compels me to return. We connect better to the living whether it be a person (especially family), a pet, or nature--it’s why we always preferred a real puppy versus a stuffed dog. My grandparents’ ranch is alive with mesquite trees, typical Southern Texas fried grass, meandering cows, and all sorts of critters that I’ve known since childhood. Naturally, this means I feel compelled to return to the ranch when I’ve been driven away and feel lost in the herds of classes being pushed along to a “higher purpose.” There’s comfort in the familiar, and a certain peace when you’re where (or around what) you’re tied to. Thinking about it literally, it’s as if we’re on a tether attached to our querencia ; it stretches as we travel away, but we only feel the relief of the constant tug when we’re back to where it’s tied to. What enables this invisible tether work is having the freedom to return.
And we all know how important freedom is for Texas. We celebrate Independence Day. We were our own country for a while. Before the booming population of Texas, the inhabitants valued the open prairies as a freedom to roam. Dobie’s descriptions of longhorns like Sancho and Table Top are reflections of the original Texans who value the freedom to return to the land they are tied to. The perseverance demonstrated by these animals is inspiring. Dobie says, “The cattle I am thinking of made their reputations in fierce, hardy, persistent, resourceful, daring efforts to maintain freedom.” 2 It is no wonder that our university and state look to these animals for guidance when Dobie says of them, “Instead of being outside the law, they followed the law of the wild, the stark give-me-liberty-or-give-me-death law against tyranny.(266)”
The same admiration is seen for mustangs when Dobie says, “The true conceiver [of mustangs] must be a true lover of freedom—a person who yearns to extend freedom to all life.(314)” Mustangs are also survivors, but more importantly, they are the most magnificent in their wild form. They embody the freedom and liberty our state prizes. And when mustangs are caught and broken, they lose their majesty. I can’t help but be reminded of another Disney movie called Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron when Dobie says, “The look of a caged eagle was still in his eyes” when describing a broken mustang. The movie’s message stuck with me as much as Dobie’s descriptions of mustangs as they both deal with the transformation of the majestic wild horse to the broken, fenced one.
Here’s a picture that sums up the movie:
Short summary for those who haven’t seen it: The story is about a horse that leads a group of mustangs, but is caught by humans. He overcomes many obstacles to regain his freedom and return home such as being a work horse, living with Native Americans, and surviving the training of an army horse.
The eagle in his eyes quote reminds me of the symbolism of freedom in the movie. The main character’s favorite pastime is to race the eagle in wide open prairies, so once he is captured, you often see him reminisce on the memory. The horse endures all odds to return to his querencia. The mustangs as well as humans and longhorns feel the connection because “only the sense of being in place gives natural horse or natural man contentment.(318)”
Dobie mentions the problem with fencing in horses and man becoming more mechanized. The movie is a great example of all that obstructed the mustangs. It may seem silly because it’s animated, but the movie is informative, inspiring, and it helps you understand the value of freedom.
There are many scenes I’d love to use, but this one sums up the “breaking” of the horse. In it, our main character has just been captured and is being taken in to the army to be broken. You’ll see the eagle (his freedom) slipping away, and especially take note of his reaction once he comes into the barracks. The lyrics are also worth paying attention to.
Over all, Dobie’s writing about the mustangs and longhorns is eye opening in what matters most when it comes to places like Texas. These animals take us back to our roots because they are our roots.
One thing I realized as I was looking for the most appropriate scene in the movie was how affected I was watching this fictional story. It reminds me of Hemingway's discussion of the two types of people in the world. In Death in the Afternoon, he says, "people may possibly be divided into two general groups; those who...identify themselves with, that is, place themselves in position of animals, and those who identify themselves with human beings.(5)" Hemingway believes the first type to be more capable of hurting humans because of their ability to "switch shoes" with animals. Even though I understand where he is coming from, I have to disagree because I think there is another category. Because even if someone does not readily identify with animals, they can empathize with them despite having no motivating attachment. For example, I did not know the animals in Earthlings personally, and I did not put myself in their place, but I immediately felt a surge of sadness anyway. My thoughts were more along the lines of they wouldn't be doing this if these animals were people. Holocaust and other historical events aside, the breeding, capturing, and destruction of humans wouldn't be tolerated. And this reaction gives a third category to Hemingway's thoughts because some people identify with humans, but they also can see animals as having human-like characteristics. In short, as we've all heard a hundred times, animals are people too.
No comments:
Post a Comment