CCBC-Net Archives
Re: Little House Informs/Inspires Vietnamese Author
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: J.L. Powers <jlpowers_at_evaporites.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:47:44 -0800
As a professor of literature and writing, and as an African historian, I have now been teaching the humanities for 17 years at the college level. I also write books for young adults, with my 5th book for children or young adults coming out next fall. And I am the mother of a 3 year old. All of these roles contribute to my perspective:
As teachers, librarians, and parents, I don't believe we should remove books from shelves and make them unavailable, or discourage students/our children from reading them, or secretly wince when they choose a particular book. I am not interested in purging libraries of books that contain stereotypical images, propaganda, prejudice, or ideas I find repugnant or that are currently repugnant within society.
RATHER, I believe we can and should teach both young children and older students critical thinking skills. They should all be able to read a book and analyze for bias, identify and examine the world views presented within texts, and analyze and judge the ideas about the world that all books everywhere contain. This is equally true of texts that were published in the past, such as Little House on the Prairie, and of texts that are published today. As teachers and parents, we should encourage discussion of those ideas; we should encourage students to link ideas and images within texts, to make connections between ideas present in texts to historical time periods and/or philosophical/religious/secular/political movements of the past and the present.
This is the way democracy works best. We need a thinking, literate population--a population that can identify and recognize ideas within texts (and I use texts very broadly, including film and art and blogs and political speeches as well as books, among other things) and then respond intelligently. A thinking, literate population is not created because we refuse to expose our kids to ideas that we personally find repugnant or that are, in fact, repugnant. Instead, we encourage critical thought. We expose our kids to those ideas and then we discuss the problems in them or their logical consequences if we take them to be true or the historical consequences if we can trace them. We read these books together and then say, "What ideas does Laura Ingalls Wilder put forth in these books? Which are ideas we can still value? Which are ideas that are clearly problematic and what kind of historical framework can we put on those ideas? Can we demonstrate the way Wilder was a product of her own generation? Can we show the ways she was progressive? Can we show how Wilder was both unthinkingly accepting of the ideas inherent in Manifest Destiny, but then show the myriad of ways that she challenged gender norms of her time? In what ways do narratives present ideas that appear compelling and all-consuming but can we find cracks in the narrative that reveal pertinent truths for today?"
I don't believe we should say, "LHOP is bad because it presents stereotyped images of American Indians" or "LHOP is good because it subverted women's roles" or "LHOP is good because it affirms values I espouse" or "LHOP is bad because it affirms values I abhor" but rather,
"How is LHOP a product of its times, how can we contextualize it historically, and what can we learn from that?"
It is only when we are willing to examine all texts in this way, not as
"good" or "bad" but as a presentation of ideas that should be rigorously examined through an informed lens, that we can move forward individually and as a society. It's problematic to assign texts into "good" or "bad" categories in this way. Instead, we should encourage knowledge and critical thought, we should place texts within historical contexts, and we can all thus learn and grow from the presentation of ideas within texts even when we wish to (or do) categorically judge those ideas.
And by the way, the scary thing in doing this, and this is probably why it isn't done more frequently, is that when we teach kids critical thinking, they are able to discern and expose the logical fallacies in our own positions. It's disconcerting to have that happen, but it's a necessary thing if we hope that our democracy continues to succeed in the future.
This can be done at all ages. It's something I do with my 3 year old, albeit on a 3 year old level, and with picture books. But it isn't something that has to wait until high school or college.
J.L. Powers www.jlpowers.net www.thepiratetree.com www.motherwritermentor.com
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:47:44 -0800
As a professor of literature and writing, and as an African historian, I have now been teaching the humanities for 17 years at the college level. I also write books for young adults, with my 5th book for children or young adults coming out next fall. And I am the mother of a 3 year old. All of these roles contribute to my perspective:
As teachers, librarians, and parents, I don't believe we should remove books from shelves and make them unavailable, or discourage students/our children from reading them, or secretly wince when they choose a particular book. I am not interested in purging libraries of books that contain stereotypical images, propaganda, prejudice, or ideas I find repugnant or that are currently repugnant within society.
RATHER, I believe we can and should teach both young children and older students critical thinking skills. They should all be able to read a book and analyze for bias, identify and examine the world views presented within texts, and analyze and judge the ideas about the world that all books everywhere contain. This is equally true of texts that were published in the past, such as Little House on the Prairie, and of texts that are published today. As teachers and parents, we should encourage discussion of those ideas; we should encourage students to link ideas and images within texts, to make connections between ideas present in texts to historical time periods and/or philosophical/religious/secular/political movements of the past and the present.
This is the way democracy works best. We need a thinking, literate population--a population that can identify and recognize ideas within texts (and I use texts very broadly, including film and art and blogs and political speeches as well as books, among other things) and then respond intelligently. A thinking, literate population is not created because we refuse to expose our kids to ideas that we personally find repugnant or that are, in fact, repugnant. Instead, we encourage critical thought. We expose our kids to those ideas and then we discuss the problems in them or their logical consequences if we take them to be true or the historical consequences if we can trace them. We read these books together and then say, "What ideas does Laura Ingalls Wilder put forth in these books? Which are ideas we can still value? Which are ideas that are clearly problematic and what kind of historical framework can we put on those ideas? Can we demonstrate the way Wilder was a product of her own generation? Can we show the ways she was progressive? Can we show how Wilder was both unthinkingly accepting of the ideas inherent in Manifest Destiny, but then show the myriad of ways that she challenged gender norms of her time? In what ways do narratives present ideas that appear compelling and all-consuming but can we find cracks in the narrative that reveal pertinent truths for today?"
I don't believe we should say, "LHOP is bad because it presents stereotyped images of American Indians" or "LHOP is good because it subverted women's roles" or "LHOP is good because it affirms values I espouse" or "LHOP is bad because it affirms values I abhor" but rather,
"How is LHOP a product of its times, how can we contextualize it historically, and what can we learn from that?"
It is only when we are willing to examine all texts in this way, not as
"good" or "bad" but as a presentation of ideas that should be rigorously examined through an informed lens, that we can move forward individually and as a society. It's problematic to assign texts into "good" or "bad" categories in this way. Instead, we should encourage knowledge and critical thought, we should place texts within historical contexts, and we can all thus learn and grow from the presentation of ideas within texts even when we wish to (or do) categorically judge those ideas.
And by the way, the scary thing in doing this, and this is probably why it isn't done more frequently, is that when we teach kids critical thinking, they are able to discern and expose the logical fallacies in our own positions. It's disconcerting to have that happen, but it's a necessary thing if we hope that our democracy continues to succeed in the future.
This can be done at all ages. It's something I do with my 3 year old, albeit on a 3 year old level, and with picture books. But it isn't something that has to wait until high school or college.
J.L. Powers www.jlpowers.net www.thepiratetree.com www.motherwritermentor.com
---
You are currently subscribed to ccbc-net as: ccbc-archive_at_post.education.wisc.edu.
To post to the list, send message to: ccbc-net_at_lists.wisc.edu
To receive messages in digest format, send a message to...
ccbc-net-request_at_lists.wisc.edu
...and include only this command in the body of the message:
set ccbc-net digest
CCBC-Net Archives
The CCBC-Net archives are available to all CCBC-Net listserv members. The archives are organized by month and year. A list of discussion topics (including month/year) is available at http://www.education.wisc.edu/ccbc/ccbcnet/archives.asp
To access the archives, go to:
http://ccbc.education.wisc.edu/ccbc-net
and enter the following:
username: ccbc-net
password: Look4Posts
Received on Mon 10 Feb 2014 03:48:08 PM CST
