CCBC-Net Archives
Historical fiction
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Debbie Reese <d-reese>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:41:49 -0500
All Some of the places we go with this portion of the discussion will be difficult, I think.
In many of the books-of-old, the Native people are portrayed as creatures to be feared. I say creatures because they aren't portrayed as human beings. There are many ways this is conveyed.
Some examples:
The men are "braves" or "warriors" or "Chiefs" and the women are "squaws" and the babies are "papooses." Somehow, I think this removes them from the realm of "like me" to "other" and this prevents the child reader from conceptualizing the Natives as people.
In some books, like the first Little House book, there are suggestions that they are objects who can be owned. Towards the end of the book, when the Native people are leaving, Laura sees a baby and is drawn to the eyes. She wants one - I don't have my copy in front of me - but I think she says
"for a pet." If I'm mistaken, please correct me. Thru and thru society we see instances in which Native images are subject to ownership. This occurs in toys, but also in the form of mascots. I wonder how this got started, and when I think about the Little House episode, I wonder if there aren't some roots in "ownership" that are planted with that episode. (Am I making any sense here? I'm groping for words.) Certainly we can't attribute the issue in its entirety to the Little House books, but it does give me pause since so many read these books as children.
When their are conflicts between the pioneers/soldiers/settlers and the Native people that involve fighting and blood loss, many of the books-of-old have language that sends subtle messages. The soldiers do
"battle" but the Indians "massacre."
In a recently published book I read a year or so ago, the narrator describes the Indians as "gnawing" on bones. When we think of "gnawing" we don't think of humans--we think of animals.
I think I've overloading here, so I'll offer these suggestions as a set of guidelines. Are the Native people in historical fiction portrayed as people? Is a complete story told - that is, is the reader told that the Indians are fighting to protect their own children, their land, their way of life?
Debbie Reese
_________________________________ Debbie Reese, Doctoral Student Dept. of Curriculum and Instruction College of Education, University of Illinois Champaign, IL 61820
Telephone: 217$4?86 Fax: 217$4E72 Email: d-reese at uiuc.edu
Received on Wed 13 Oct 1999 07:41:49 PM CDT
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:41:49 -0500
All Some of the places we go with this portion of the discussion will be difficult, I think.
In many of the books-of-old, the Native people are portrayed as creatures to be feared. I say creatures because they aren't portrayed as human beings. There are many ways this is conveyed.
Some examples:
The men are "braves" or "warriors" or "Chiefs" and the women are "squaws" and the babies are "papooses." Somehow, I think this removes them from the realm of "like me" to "other" and this prevents the child reader from conceptualizing the Natives as people.
In some books, like the first Little House book, there are suggestions that they are objects who can be owned. Towards the end of the book, when the Native people are leaving, Laura sees a baby and is drawn to the eyes. She wants one - I don't have my copy in front of me - but I think she says
"for a pet." If I'm mistaken, please correct me. Thru and thru society we see instances in which Native images are subject to ownership. This occurs in toys, but also in the form of mascots. I wonder how this got started, and when I think about the Little House episode, I wonder if there aren't some roots in "ownership" that are planted with that episode. (Am I making any sense here? I'm groping for words.) Certainly we can't attribute the issue in its entirety to the Little House books, but it does give me pause since so many read these books as children.
When their are conflicts between the pioneers/soldiers/settlers and the Native people that involve fighting and blood loss, many of the books-of-old have language that sends subtle messages. The soldiers do
"battle" but the Indians "massacre."
In a recently published book I read a year or so ago, the narrator describes the Indians as "gnawing" on bones. When we think of "gnawing" we don't think of humans--we think of animals.
I think I've overloading here, so I'll offer these suggestions as a set of guidelines. Are the Native people in historical fiction portrayed as people? Is a complete story told - that is, is the reader told that the Indians are fighting to protect their own children, their land, their way of life?
Debbie Reese
_________________________________ Debbie Reese, Doctoral Student Dept. of Curriculum and Instruction College of Education, University of Illinois Champaign, IL 61820
Telephone: 217$4?86 Fax: 217$4E72 Email: d-reese at uiuc.edu
Received on Wed 13 Oct 1999 07:41:49 PM CDT
