From: Eliza T. Dresang <edresang>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 10:01:35 -0400

WHERE WE DISAGREE (MAYBE)

I hope that if you, by chance, come upon this post before you find my other one on WHERE WE DISAGREE you will be sure to read it. The two posts are really one, but I split them because the first one got too long.

This one is, of course, much more difficult to write -- much more difficult to summarize. I welcome, as always, your additions to or corrections of
"what I think I hear."

Basically I "hear" the disagreement on issues that, indeed, are a part of the evaluation of books by and about American Indians -- but perhaps even more fundamentally the debate is on something we cannot solve on CCBC-net which is (1) what is historical truth? and (2) how do we present historical truth as we understand it to children? The latter question is legitimate in a discussion of evaluation of literature if one accepts "reader reaction" as one aspect of this discussion. It would be surprisingly if we did not disagree on these questions which relate to "where we stand" and "what we understand" at any given moment.

These questions have arisen in relation to a comparison of the book we have
"up for discussion," The Birchbark House by Louise Erdrich with a book (or series of books) by Laura Ingalls Wilder also set in the 19th century
(although not at the same time) -- and in roughly the same geographic area.

The reason I have put "maybe" in the title of this post is that I am not so sure that we do disagree as much as it might seem on the surface about
"what is historical truth?" The disagreement, I think, lies more in question #2 "how do we present historical truth to children." Throughout the posts that have been made I find a common agreement that there is harsh language in the Wilder books in the description of Indians and that the attitudes of the settlers are biased and stereotypic. (documented in detail by Maia in exact quotes from the series of Wilder books) This is one piece of historical truth (even though it is set in fiction).

I doubt if many of us would or could disagree with Marc Aronson either when he points to the examples of Native peoples who were in not "coexisting with nature in a delicate balance," etc. Or that we need to look at individuals of all kinds in literature. That is a way to discover the truth.

The more difficult question is "how do we present the truth to children as we understand it?" Here we do not agree. Beverly Slapin says, " We protect our children from that which is hurtful" (giving examples from other non-literary walks of life). Perry Nodelman says "Better readers might well be hurt by hurtful books. They should be. But in the very fact of their hurting they will understand how those books like about the world, dismiss the lies, and encourage other readers to see past them also."

Not all readers agree, even, that hurtful books are harmful to readers. Susan Daughtery reminds us that " I was in fourth grade when I read the entire series several times. I did not feel that Indians were savages, wild, like wolves, or anything else negative after reading the books. I knew that they were human like me." Jeffrey Canton shares that he "I didn't grow up seeing myself as a victim of racial hatred because most images of Jews I saw were of helpless men , women, and children who went either to the gas chambers or managed to hang on to a thread of life in a death camp." Linda Sue Park, although she suffered humiliation as an Asian-American child, says "I am trying hard to view the Wilder Little House books in that particular light but have not been altogether successful." Beverly Slapin counters this argument by saying "many children are so shamed and humiliated in class that . . .they'll try to hide the fact that they're Indian, from the class, from the teacher, even from themselves." All of these comments are true, even if contradictory.

So where does this leave us? I think that perhaps we don't even disagree on this point about which we there seems to be a such a divergence of opinion. The reason we don't is because we can agree on another "historical truth." This is documented annually by CCBC Choices and in Through Indian Eyes and through virtually every textbook on literature for youth -- this is the truth: almost all books for youth as long as there have been books for youth have presented the "other" point of view about Native peoples -- the stereotypic call view of the "wild savage, the person to be feared" or, in fact, something we have not discussed here, as the "noble savage."

Debbie Reese expresses this when she says " And yes, there is good and bad in any person and their cultural history. But, at least with Native Americans, what we've had is either all bad, or all good--both stereotypical depictions that don't show us the individual with a range of emotion, attitude, or behavior. Paula Gunn Allen, Lakota/Pueblo scholar and author, has written somewhere that it is important that children be able to conceptualize a Native American as someone who would actually put disposable diapers on his/her baby. That seemingly simple statement says a lot! In most books, the Indian is either the savage to be feared, or else is the hero to be placed on a pedestal, or "in a glass case" (to use the phrase from the US govt Meriam Report dated 1928).

Jeffrey Canton says "I completely agree that we need to balance these sorely misguided books . .. " Monica Edinger urges us to consider primary sources (not necessarily unbiased themselves) to teach children to think -rather than to rely on historical fiction. Beverly Slapin says "But let's make no mistake-it will take 500 books like to undo what has been done, and continues to be done, to Indian children in the classroom."

Perhaps this later statement is the point: when we present "truth to children" we need to think what "truth" they already know and what truth they need to understand. It is unlikely that many non-Native children have much of an idea of "whole truth" about Natives -- and it is true also for many Native children because the "truth" is not available to them in their learning materials and classrooms. In order to make the truth clear, it seems that classrooms and teachers need to emphasize what they do not
"know" about Native peoples, i.e., anything that goes beyond the stereotypic views; and to teach them to think critically as Monica Edinger suggests about everything they read, see, and hear -- be it fiction OR primary sources, i.e, how Laura Ingalls Wilder could come to write such stereotypical and in some cases hurtful statements.

How this is to be accomplished is possibly not an area on which we can agree -- we can only present our ideas and points of views, knowing that the bottom line is the same for us: to teach children as complete a truth as we can, to help them to think critically and with sensitivity, and to realize that if the hurt is too great children (or adults) cannot "hear" or
"learn." We have to learn to be honest and to know that "fact," too. We need to remember all that as adults and teach it to ourselves, as well.

Thank you for the candor and honestly of your messages -- and the time and thought put into each and every one of them. Some have hurt, but perhaps as Perry Nodelman says, hurting is a painful truth that to be wise we need to know.

I will post one more message to "get us started" on the next section of this discussion.

Eliza





_________________________________________________________ Eliza T. Dresang, Associate Professor School of Information Studies/ Florida State University
                             Tallahassee, Florida 32306!00 e-mail: edresang at mailer.fsu.edu Phone: 850 644 5877 (w) FAX: 850 644 9763 (w)
Received on Sat 16 Oct 1999 09:01:35 AM CDT