tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27760240.post4355943413124856648..comments2024-03-27T14:08:51.191-05:00Comments on American Indians in Children's Literature (AICL): Concerns about Roanhorse's TRAIL OF LIGHTNING Debbie Reesehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14972409006633565859noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27760240.post-61519843586433281892018-09-17T10:44:59.646-05:002018-09-17T10:44:59.646-05:00Kristi--start by going to the websites of those na...Kristi--start by going to the websites of those nations. Here's the Cherokee Nation's website:<br />http://www.cherokee.org/<br /><br />Because fraud is a significant issue, make sure you're not on a fake site. <br /><br />What any nation or people within it, choose to share varies. There's a link in the post to an article I wrote about that:<br />http://www2.ncte.org/blog/2018/07/peek-inside-july-language-arts/ <br /><br />The National Congress of American Indians has a lot of good information in one of its publications:<br />http://www.ncai.org/resources/ncai_publications/tribal-nations-and-the-united-states-an-introduction <br />Debbie Reesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14972409006633565859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27760240.post-22616512038257502702018-09-16T23:00:45.091-05:002018-09-16T23:00:45.091-05:00Hi!
I read this book and although I had some small...Hi!<br />I read this book and although I had some smaller issues with the writing style I loved the world and we as a book club wished the Navajo world was more flushed out. For myself, this was a beautiful insight into my daughters culture. They are both Cherokee but on their father's side. My oldest is 1/8 and her family name is "Byrd" ... We don't have much information about her heritage because her grandparents are dead and her father is not in her life. My question is why is it so secretive..I mean no offense in any way. I just would love for Children to have more storiesike this that gives them a glimpse into their culture in a fun way. My youngest is Cherokee and Chipawa and we do not know much more than that either other than she really wants to know her Native culture side and I was excited about letting her read this book. Any advice on how my daughters can learn more about their Native culture and religion without offending the Native nation? Thanks!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16125774917567763961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27760240.post-16769166014694918972018-09-06T20:42:17.438-05:002018-09-06T20:42:17.438-05:00Masha, I have not heard anyone use the phrase &quo...Masha, I have not heard anyone use the phrase "false consciousness" in all seriousness ever, and, as I said, I was raised by actual Marxists. Literally not one of the many leftists I have known has ever said that anybody has "false consciousness." You are simply wrong. Nobody believes or says that.<br /><br />"Those theories are atheistic and focus on power dynamics" is vague nonsense. Marx and Engels do not own every concept of power dynamics, nor do they own all of atheism. Further, based on the theories of Marx and Engels, Candace Owens is not a member of an oppressed class, because they defined "class" very narrowly based on a person's relationship to the means of production. Their understanding of race was rudimentary at best.<br /><br />I am not confusing anything regarding Roanhorse. I am saying that no government has ever applied clear standards equally to all persons.<br /><br />--VeronicaUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18255579796886276754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27760240.post-80033954215899676222018-08-31T10:22:55.371-05:002018-08-31T10:22:55.371-05:00Veronica, call me Masha.
All Marxists are Marxia...Veronica, call me Masha. <br /><br />All Marxists are Marxians, but not all Marxians are Marxists. Marxians favor an analysis of politics, sociology, literature, and especially economics based on the theories of Marx and Engels. Those theories are atheistic and focus on power dynamics especially in class. If a person is of an "oppressed" class but does not adopt its dominant views (e.g. Ms. Candace Owens), that person is said to have "false consciousness" instead of a differing take. Marxism is the political program of the Marxians which calls for a dictatorship of the proletariat and common ownership of the means of production. <br /><br />Regarding Roanhorse, you are confusing clear standards and differences in their application. An unwarranted killing of a person is a murder. That's a clear standard. However, there are different degrees of it under the law, depending on context.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27760240.post-15104819456589212372018-08-24T09:51:01.145-05:002018-08-24T09:51:01.145-05:00I'd like to know what you see as the distincti...I'd like to know what you see as the distinction between "Marxian" and "Marxist." As I was raised by Marxists, I use the latter when it seems relevant. You seem to be claiming that any nuanced understanding that takes history and contemporary power dynamics into account is Marxist; if that were the case, it would be the single best argument for Marxism that I can imagine. I am not a Marxist, so obviously I disagree with your assessment.<br /><br />You seem to believe that your desire to create "single clear standards that apply to everyone apart from their identities or belief systems, their cultures or perceptions" is logical and realistic, but nothing could be further than the truth. People do not exist apart from their identities and believe systems, their cultures or perceptions. Reality requires nuanced understanding, not rigid single standards that are unable to account for complexity. Further, holding everyone to one single clear standard has never happened in practice, suggesting that far from being a utilitarian idea, it is in fact an impossible idea.<br /><br />The particular standard you suggest is, in any case, far from clear. It is entirely subjective, and as such, depends on the creator's and implementors' identities, belief systems, cultures, and perceptions. Define "shocking." Define "reasonable person." Your suggestion is no more objective than my analysis. It is simply less nuanced and less willing to acknowledge the factors that it brings into play and its own assumptions.<br /><br />Similarly to the way you assume your terms are clear and objective, you return to this "98.6%" figure as though it holds any reality. It does not. You made it up. You have presented no evidence for it. Yet you make the claim that your idea holds utilitarian value. Surely any utilitarian would require genuine evidence of usefulness, not random numbers pulled out of the air.<br /><br />I do not see any evidence that pretending to have single clear standards have worked best for people in general (as holding everybody to one single clear standard has never happened, in practice). Places where capitalists (as opposed to Marxists) were and are in charge are nothing to write home about, particularly for black people, people of color, Native people, and so on. <br /><br />--Veronica<br /><br />Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18255579796886276754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27760240.post-29682291621817769182018-08-19T10:47:48.522-05:002018-08-19T10:47:48.522-05:00@Veronica, I appreciate your reasoned response, mu...@Veronica, I appreciate your reasoned response, much as I disagree with it The argument I make is actually more deontological than liberal, but yes, it looks to create single clear standards that apply to everyone apart from their identities or belief systems, their cultures or perceptions. The alternative is constantly shifting moral standards in the eye of the beholder, and human history shows how problematic that approach can become. <br /><br />Your argument, in fact, is part of a classically Marxian attempt to define actions as moral depending on the power differential of the people involved. You, for example, would create different moral standards for writing re Native nations than for African-American fraternities in the USA. It is the argument that the Dialectical Materialists made in the 1930s and 1960s, and I actually applaud your honesty when you note that "there are real material concerns in play here that cannot be reduced to a reasonable expectation of privacy." Ironically, my response would be utilitarian. What has generally worked best for people to guide their conduct? I vote for single standards that take care of 98.6% of situations, including the Roanhorse book and its revelations, not flexible standards in the hands of the deciders. We've all seen where that leads, especially in places where the Marxians were and are in charge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27760240.post-79480677399599959192018-08-17T14:04:31.818-05:002018-08-17T14:04:31.818-05:00@Devon Munn: Others have noted similarities in the...@Devon Munn: Others have noted similarities in the two books, but this is not at all a case of plagiarism. I noted in the post that information has been exploited and misrepresented. Misrepresentations lead to misunderstandings and government policies that are destructive to Native communities. I have not heard from anyone with concerns regarding Bruchac's book. <br /><br /><br />Anon/Veronica at 8:22 on Aug 15th: Thank you. Your response to Anon is well-stated. <br /><br />Debbie Reesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14972409006633565859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27760240.post-71131985040158045972018-08-15T20:22:00.156-05:002018-08-15T20:22:00.156-05:00I think that your attempt to establish a single st...I think that your attempt to establish a single standard, Anon, is part of a classical liberal attempt to define actions as immoral without considering the context of the action, and I think that is fundamentally misguided. Privacy concerning Native practices, beliefs, traditions, stories, and other aspects of life is a priority because of the way Native culture has been appropriated and abused by colonizers in the context of justifying historical and ongoing Native genocide by those colonizers. That's what makes that privacy important and its violation immoral. Nora Ephron's roman a clef regarding her marriage to Carl Bernstein just isn't the same thing at all, regardless of any "expectation of privacy" in a marriage. Nor is a business meeting. Nor is a fraternity meeting. There are real, material concerns in play here that cannot be reduced to "a reasonable expectation of privacy."<br /><br />--VeronicaUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18255579796886276754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27760240.post-77435241542703213932018-08-14T18:46:57.801-05:002018-08-14T18:46:57.801-05:00I definitely am excited for this book but i do hav...I definitely am excited for this book but i do have two questions 1. Why should some information you mention should not be shared and 2. Have you read anything by Joseph Bruchac cause this boon sounds kinda similar to a book he wrote called Killer Of Enemies, not accusing anyone of plagiarism they just happen to be kinda similarDevon Munnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07755908946301960943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27760240.post-74321817861564638642018-08-14T07:17:59.887-05:002018-08-14T07:17:59.887-05:00Agreed that NDAs whose violation would result in l...Agreed that NDAs whose violation would result in lawsuits are impractical. Disagree that there cannot be a single standard for writers that applies to all kinds of communications and practices in which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether they take place in a Native nation gathering, a Theta Tau meeting, in a Masonic temple, a business meeting, or in a marital bed. The standard for writes would be that it is immoral to repeat those communications or practices in a book unless there is illegality involved (see: possible Trump-Russia collusion), or the communications or practices are such as would shock the conscience (see: Deloria) of a reasonable person. This standard would not be perfect, but it will take care of 98.6% of cases.<br /><br />How does that sound?<br /><br />I offer this anonymously because the idea, like all ideas, needs to stand on its own apart from my identity. I am the Anon from August 11th.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27760240.post-90452230659983322652018-08-13T08:44:21.604-05:002018-08-13T08:44:21.604-05:00Oops... that last bit in my previous comment (&quo...Oops... that last bit in my previous comment ("I also think that it is") is a stray line that I failed to delete before publishing the comment. Debbie Reesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14972409006633565859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27760240.post-36243106324111634222018-08-13T08:43:30.612-05:002018-08-13T08:43:30.612-05:00Anon on Friday, August 10: Yes, there was a respon...Anon on Friday, August 10: Yes, there was a response from Acoma, to Nabokov's book. he made agreements with them that he subsequently violated. If there is one from the Navajo Nation, I will add it to the post. And yes--everyone will made a personal or professional decision to read and recommend TRAIL OF LIGHTNING. I do think Roanhorse is an excellent writer and as I noted in the post, there are Navajo readers who like her book very much. <br /><br />Anon on August 11: I'm thinking about a general principle, too. I have one, for my work, which is that I respect that which traditional peoples within a nation choose to withhold from the public. One thought is 'how do you know who to ask' (if you're a writer or editor). And given that we know Roanhorse did, in fact, have a reader or readers, I think it is very hard for us to come up with a general principle. Maybe the way forward is that writers be ready for the questions, and be ready to defend what they did. This is all specific to Native content. You pose questions about other groups. Have you seen Philip Deloria's PLAYING INDIAN? It has a lot in it about social groups playing Indian, in secret. I am glad Deloria brought visibility to that kind of privacy because I think it is not ok. I don't think it is possible to create a "overall standard" for every group and the privacy it asks for, by way of non-disclosures (frat and sororities often ask pledges to sign NDNs). <br /><br /><br />I also think that it is Debbie Reesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14972409006633565859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27760240.post-7811792808744430462018-08-11T11:45:35.213-05:002018-08-11T11:45:35.213-05:00I am trying to tease out a general principle from ...I am trying to tease out a general principle from what you are saying here. Are you saying that confidentiality should be maintained whenever secrecy is clearly expected from any group participant, whether the group is religious/spiritual one (e.g. Navajo, Mormon, Masonic, Scientology), political (e.g. CIA, FBI, NSA), or social (e.g. fraternities/sororities including the many ethnic and racially based fraternities like APA and Theta Tau)? If not, what are your overall standards?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27760240.post-66724604052134368432018-08-10T18:19:58.280-05:002018-08-10T18:19:58.280-05:00Question 6: "Are people being sexist because ...Question 6: "Are people being sexist because she's female?"<br />Answer: That's possible, but attributing objections to sexism is also asking us to ignore the serious concerns about the content. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27760240.post-1060830346758766662018-08-10T12:06:59.474-05:002018-08-10T12:06:59.474-05:00It will be interesting to see how the dialogue occ...It will be interesting to see how the dialogue occurs internally with Navajo. I think an important context for any objection is understanding just that - the Navajo Nation. Because Navajo is such a vast, widespread, and diverse community leading to a multitude of opinions, values, reactions, even "traditions" -- in the fine line of distinguishing an authoritative voice it becomes difficult. <br /><br />When reading this, I thought of your posts and the issues surrounding the Pueblo of Acoma and Dr. Peter Nabokov for his republication of sensitive Acoma cultural information. There, a singular, authoritative response was given. Acoma clearly stated that Peter Nabokov was wrong. And there, his transgression was the republication of an Acoma member's divulgence!<br /><br />Here, and maybe it has yet to develop - it seems a bit different. I for one may hold official judgement on Roanhorse's book. I don't think there is any reason to doubt that she worked with Navajo people on some of the content and in those circles it was acceptable. But therein lies the point - Navajo may have the problem of no singular, authoritative response to this issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27760240.post-11186757336308870592018-08-09T15:37:28.354-05:002018-08-09T15:37:28.354-05:00I have read this book and found it a fascinating s...I have read this book and found it a fascinating story with characters I loved, but I did wonder about the creation of a fantasy world in which a way of life/system of beliefs (I'm not sure what is the appropriate way to say what I mean) becomes the "fantasy" element of a story, whether that would have a tendency to relegate a true spirituality into the realm of "fantasy" for readers who already have trouble recognizing the existence of Indigenous peoples.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17808839258521530440noreply@blogger.com