Winnemucca's communication, her translation to English, as a mode of distillation. However, what Carpenter brings to the forefront is that despite a language that perpetuates western cultural identity, through using her voice in an active political setting she reconstructs the language to not incorporate her, but to recognize her.

Questions I would like to ponder is how might translation of ideologies be a mode of distillation that undercuts national/political agency. What I mean here by translating ideologies is comparing Christian practices to Paiute spiritual practices, equating one and the other. How might this either reinforce or cause harm for political recognition? 

Repeating rituals as political power is an interesting thought here, considering that these comparisons are an act of repeating rituals. 

(1) "Although it might be tempting to imagine sentimentality as a rather conservative means of establishing her and her people’s “civility” in white terms, I read it instead as a strategy that allows her to shore up the Northern Paiute community and to critique those who threatened it: invoking her reader’s sympathy, she portrays her people as innocent victims of an inexcusable cruelty, thus refuting the common understanding of American Indians as inhuman" (94).

(2) "In a time in which women’s morality (or alleged immorality) was the focus of public debate, Winnemucca’s critique of Rinehart was particularly poignant. Her critique was not limited to Rinehart; she responded to Representative Melvin George’s question about funds that were allegedly provided to Paiutes at Yakima with a protest that those funds had never, in fact, been received. When he presses her, she responds with what is likely impatience, 'It is not a hidden thing that I am saying'" (95).