First, the synopsis:
Joseph Johnson has lost just about everyone he's ever loved. He lost his pa in an accident. He lost his ma and his little sister to sickness. And now, he's lost his pony--fast, fierce, beautiful Sarah, taken away by a man who had no right to take her.
Joseph can sure enough get her back, though. The odds are stacked against him, but he isn't about to give up. He will face down deadly animals, dangerous men, and the fury of nature itself on his quest to be reunited with the only family he has left.
Because Joseph Johnson may have lost just about everything. But he hasn't lost hope. And he hasn't lost the fire in his belly that says he's getting his Sarah back--no matter what.
Not a word, in that synopsis, about Native people, but if you look at the summary in WorldCat, you see this:
In 1890 Washington the only family Joseph Johnson has left is his half-wild Indian pony, Sarah, so when she is sold by a man who has no right to do so, he sets out to get her back--and he plans to let nothing stop him in his quest.See? "Half-wild Indian pony." The story begins in 1890 in a place called Old Mission, Washington. As the synopsis and summary tell us, Some Kind of Courage is about a boy who is going to try to get his horse back.
Here's how we first learn about Joseph's pony (Kindle Locations 302-303):
She’s half Indian pony, so she’s got some spirit, but she ain’t nothing but perfect with me.Later, we'll read of her being a "half wild Indian pony" (Kindle 2043). Indian ponies appear in Westerns all the time. I've never figured out why they're "ponies" rather than "horses" -- and while I understand they had more endurance than other horses, I'm not sure why--in Some Kind of Courage--an Indian pony would have more spirit or be called "wild." That's a small point, though, so I won't go on about it.
Of greater interest to me is that Joseph has been taught, by his now-deceased mother, not to use or think "Chinaman" about Chinese people. That, he remembers, is wrong (Kindle Locations 210-216):
Chinaman. I heard the word in my mind, then my mama’s voice. I’d said it once, the year before, after we’d passed a group of Chinese on the road to Yakima.
I’d been confused. Everyone called them Chinamen. I didn’t know there was another word for ’em.
“It ain’t a curse word, Mama,” I’d argued.
She’d pursed her lips. “Any word can be an ugly word if you say it ugly. And people say that word ugly, Joseph, nearly every time. It sounds hateful and I don’t like it. They’re people just like us, at the end of the day. In the Lord’s eyes, if not in His people’s.”His mother, apparently, has awareness of stereotyping and racism. They're people, she tells Joseph. But she doesn't seem to have applied those ideas to Native peoples. In chapter six, Joseph and Ah-nee hear voices. They turn out to be two Indian children (Kindle Locations 527-531):
It was Indians. Two of ’em. A boy, older and taller than me, his bare arms taut with muscles. And a girl, five or six years old, with her arms around him and a terrified look on her face. The boy’s eyes narrowed. He bared his teeth like a wolf and snarled a word low and mean in his native tongue. A shaft of sunlight through the treetops gleamed on the long knife blade held in his hand as he ducked into a crouch and lunged toward me.Bared his teeth like a wolf? Hmmm...
As we move into chapter seven, we read "the Indian" a bunch of times. When Joseph and the boy scuffle, Joseph thinks that he's in the grip of "an actual, real-life Indian" and he worries that he's going to get scalped. Is it realistic for him to think that way? Sure. Just like it was realistic for him to think "Chinaman" when he saw Chinese people. I wonder why his mother did not pass along any teachings about how to view Native people? Does it seem to you that she couldn't, because it wasn't plausible for her to think that way about Native people, but, that it is plausible she'd think that way about Chinese people? I don't know. That's a research question, for sure!
That Indian boy has a broken ankle. With Joseph and Ah-nee's help, the boy gets back to his family. They are, of course, grateful to Joseph. I like that, as Joseph looks at their camp, he sees kids chasing each other and playing. So often, Native children are absent from stories like this one! That little bit, there, is a big plus!
But, then, we're right back to stereotype land, when three Indian men approach Kindle Locations 603-604):
Their faces were deadly serious as they stood before us, looking like they were carved out of dark stone.The Indian boy, it turns out, is the son of a chief! His name? "Chief George." We get "chief" and "scalp" and "the Indian" (lots of times) and stoicism... and no tribe--much less--a tribal nation.
People like Gemeinhart's story. It was part of the discussions at Heavy Medal (School Library Journal's blog where people engage in mock-Newbery discussions ahead of the actual announcements of who wins that prestigious award). I think it falls heavily into stereotypical depictions of Native people. Because people like it, it will be bought and read and assigned, too, to children in school.
People may defend it because of the way that Gemeinhart deals with "Chinaman." For me, that defense will signal another time in which Native concerns are set aside in favor of what an author has done to elevate someone else. When will that sort of thing end, I wonder?
In short: I do not recommend Dan Gemeinhart's Some Kind of Courage. Published in 2016 by Scholastic, it'll likely do quite well, which is too bad for everyone who will have stereotypical ideas of Native peoples affirmed by Gemeinhart's writing. And of course, completely unacceptable for Native kids who are asked to read it.
2 comments:
Thanks for your thoughtful comments on this, Debbie.
In conversation on depictions of Natives in this book over at Heavy Medal, one commenter remarked that the stereotypical depictions and assumptions are justified, because they are in fitting with the time period. I don't doubt that a white boy in 1890 would have racist attitudes toward Natives (and indeed, I found the novel's relatively more conscious dealings with Chinese people hard to believe).
Do you think there is an appropriate way to depict historical biases and ignorance without recreating those oppressions for contemporary children? Do you think there is a way that Gemeinhart could have fixed this flawed text?
I'm not asking because I think it's your job to do this, but because you have offered some simple and effective solutions for other titles that fall short, and I would love to hear your thoughts. This novel's frame, the perspective of a white boy in 1890, seems to create an extra challenge, and perhaps there is no easy fix?
Ponies vs horses....... that is a reference to the size. A simple Google search can let you know that. Pony is not derogatory, its describing the height. Just like Mustang or Appaloosa would describe a breed of horse. The equestrian world has terms like pony, horse, draft to refer to size.
Indian vs native American....... certainly not the ideal term however during the time period a correct term that was polite. If this story had been set up for something during the 90s, yes that would been objectionable. Or if the term "injun" or "red skin" was used that would have been degrading for that time period.
It was Indians. Two of ’em. A boy, older and taller than me, his bare arms taut with muscles. And a girl, five or six years old, with her arms around him and a terrified look on her face. The boy’s eyes narrowed. He bared his teeth like a wolf and snarled a word low and mean in his native tongue. A shaft of sunlight through the treetops gleamed on the long knife blade held in his hand as he ducked into a crouch and lunged toward me. Bared his teeth like a wolf? Hmmm...
How would you describe someone snarling at you to back off while you protect your little sister? "Bared his teeth like a lion." Well since there were no lions there, that would be odd. "Bared his teeth like a dog." Well thats fine but definitely does not have the same fierceness, pride and wild beauty as a wolf. I thought it was a very clear, positive depiction of someone protecting his family. I don't know if saying "bared his teeth like a dog" would have conveyed the same strength.
I also didn't know that Native Americans have a negative view of the wolf. Instead I thought they are usually depicted together because they convey a spirit that is free. I thought warriors liked to be called as a wolf or having a wolf spirit. It was high praise, meaning you had courage, power, patience and a strong family bond. Has that changed recently?
As we move into chapter seven....
When Joseph and the boy scuffle, Joseph thinks that he's in the grip of "an actual, real-life Indian" and he worries that he's going to get scalped. Is it realistic for him to think that way?
*This* is negative and sterotypical. However a worry for someone is still different than stating this as a fact. He didn't say "oh I heard that Indians do this all the time", instead he was concerned about his safety. You may worry a spider will bite you. Is that saying all spiders bite? No. A worry or a fear is just that, not always based in truth or fact. It is simply your emotional state at that moment.
However in a 200 page book that has many negative references to Whites, Asians ....is one negative reference worth dismissing the entire book? I can certainly understand wanting to do away with prejudices, however balance is needed. Sometimes we can be so ready to see the hurt we don't see the good. I thought it strange that although there were many good references to Native Americans that were either positive or neutral, you only saw a few. Maybe because Native Americans were treated as just "normal people", you may have missed those lines? For sure everyone wants their culture to be spoken of positively, however a win can also be if you are a "regular" person because that means you are being accepted as who you are.
Personally I walked away from the book feeling very positive towards other cultures. I received notice from the golden sower group I am a part of in Nebraska, that this book was offense. They referred back to your review. I thought it was sad that a book that encouraged young men to not be prejudiced was deemed inappropriate. Certainly that is your choice and feelings.
I would also encourage you to consider that Native Americans are *not* the focus of the story. They are just mention in passing. However whenever they are mentioned 99% of the references are positive or else neutral.
Post a Comment