Anne Rockwell's BIG GEORGE: HOW A SHY BOY BECAME PRESIDENT WASHINGTON - Part 2

Yesterday, I posted initial thoughts about Anne Rockwell's picture book biography of George Washington. I'm returning to it today, and will do so again later this week.

In yesterday's post I wrote about the word shared and how Rockwell uses it in two of her books, and I wrote about the persistence with which writers put American Indians in the same sentence as animals.

Today, I want to look at the opening paragraph in the book.

Three hundred years ago, there was no United States of America. Instead, there were thirteen English colonies in North America. 

I'm focusing on that paragraph to show you how bias looks and what it teaches.

Anne Rockwell is a prolific writer. Though I've not studied her picture books for very young children, I can see by perusing the titles, that an early childhood teacher would use many of them.

How might her biography look if the focus was George Washington and his interactions with American Indians? That's not the book she wrote, so, some may deem it unfair to criticize her treatment of American Indians and American Indian history. Her first sentence is

Three hundred years ago, there was no United States of America.  

Rockwell's book was published in 2008. Three hundred years ago puts the story in the year 1708. Rockwell is correct. At that point in time, there was no United States of America. Her next sentence could be "Instead, there were hundreds of Native Nations." But this is her next sentence:

Instead, there were thirteen English colonies in North America.

That sentence is also correct. In 1708, there were thirteen English colonies in North America. But! I'd insert an additional sentence, and, I'd rewrite her sentence so that the paragraph would say "Europeans who had fled Europe had come to North American and were occupying the lands that belonged to the Native Nations. These Europeans set up thirteen English colonies."

You following that? I'll put it here, in clean copy. Here's Rockwell's opening paragraph, followed by my rewrite of her opening paragraph:

Three hundred years ago, there was no United States of America. Instead, there were thirteen English colonies in North America.

Three hundred years ago, there was no United States of America. Instead, there were hundreds of Native Nations. Europeans who had fled Europe had come to North America and were occupying lands that belonged to the Native Nations. These Europeans set up thirteen English colonies.

See the difference? See how she shapes the story with her choice of what to say and how to say it? She's telling this story from her point of view as an American. I'm revising her story from the point of view of an American Indian.  Her statements are factually true. So are mine.

But, she avoids telling her readers that the birth of the United States was complicated. She  keeps some information from her readers, and as we saw yesterday, she presents bears, wolves, and, American Indians as something George wasn't afraid of.

She's creating an image for her readers. In that image, American Indians are animal-like and living in the woods. The Indians she presents are not civilized, living in colonies like the Europeans.

But, her presentation is not true! American Indians were, in fact, highly developed, self-governing societies. They had leaders with whom Washington and the like had diplomatic negotiations with.  She is concealing that information from her readers. Being generous, I can say that she probably does not know she's doing that. It isn't a deliberate decision.

[Personal note: I grow weary and angry at myself for constantly saying "Native people were not primitive." But, that false idea is so well taught in America that it needs to be said again and again and again.]

Presenting Indians as primitive and uncivilized savages lets Rockwell (she's not the only person who does this. Most writers do it.) portray the Europeans as superior to the indigenous peoples, which ultimately works to say that Europeans were right to take Native lands as their own. I said as much when I critiqued Rockwell's book about Thanksgiving. She responded, saying that she never thought that, and that I was twisting her words. You could say that I am "reading between the lines."

Some might say I'm reading too much into what Rockwell says in that opening paragraph. Again, it isn't an isolated case. Most people who write about that period omit or inaccurately portray American Indians.  I think it is wrong to do so. What do you think?

Update, March 9, 6:30 AM: --- In a comment (see comments section), K pointed out that there are still hundreds of Native Nations and said my sentence suggests there are no longer any Native Nations. Regular readers of this site, and, readers with knowledge about American Indians know that there are, in the present day, hundreds of tribes.

Anne Rockwell's BIG GEORGE: HOW A SHY BOY BECAME PRESIDENT WASHINGTON

Several years ago, Anne Rockwell wrote a book called Thanksgiving Day. Reading it as a Native mother and scholar in American Indian Studies, Thanksgiving Day book is a mess. Rockwell seems not to know that a lot of American Indian people call that day "Thankstaking" or "A day of mourning." In that book, one of her characters, playing the part of a Pilgrim, says (bold is mine):

Michiko was thankful that she and all the other Pilgrims were greeted kindly by the Wampanoag people, who shared the land with them.

Last year, that word "shared" appeared in her picture book biography, Big George: How a Shy Boy Became President Washington (published in 2008 by Harcourt). On the opening page, she writes (bold is mine):

Three hundred years ago, there was no United States of America. Instead, there were thirteen English colonies in North America.

In the one called Virginia, a tall boy loved to get on his horse and gallop through the woods alone. He wasn't afraid of bears, or wolves, or the native hunters with bows and arrows who shared those woods.

Sharing is a big part of what we teach children in early childhood classrooms. Hence, the sharing aspect in both of these books work well in those settings.  Course, in those settings we're talking about a toy, or a book, or a special chair. Rockwell is talking about something else completely. The land and woods she's referring to are not the same thing as a toy, or a book, or a special chair.

Note that in the Thanksgiving Day excerpt above, Rockwell says the Pilgrims were greeted "kindly" by the Wampanoag people. In text and illustration of the book, it looks like the Pilgrims and Wampanoags were great friends! Course, by then, the historical record shows, the Wampanoags were familiar with the ways of the Europeans.

In Big George, Rockwell tells her readers that the woods are dangerous... The young George has to be mindful of bears, wolves, and Native hunters with bows and arrows.  Putting Indians-to-be-feared in the same sentence as animals-to-be-feared is a common thing for writers to do. It is, however, a problem, because it equates Indian people with animals. Laura Ingalls Wilder did it, too, in Little House on the Prairie way back in 1935, but Rockwell repeats that error 74 years later. When will that stop?

Let's look at the sentence again...

He wasn't afraid of [...] the native hunters with bows and arrows who shared those woods.

Doesn't make sense, does it? Why should he be afraid of Indians who share the woods with George?

Please see Part 2 of my analysis of Big George.

Anne Rockwell and Marc Aronson

Anne Rockwell and Marc Aronson? You may wonder why the names of these two individuals are the title for today's post...

Yesterday, Anne Rockwell submitted a comment to "Lois Lenski Lecture." Rockwell is the author of a picture book called Thanksgiving Day. As her comment indicates, she doesn't like my critique of her book.

Earlier this morning, I read Marc Aronson's column (dated March 1, 2008) in School Library Journal. It's called "Consider the Source: Selective Memory" and its subtitle is "Biographies for young readers aren't telling the whole story."

In November of 2007, I critiqued Rockwell's feel-good story about Thanksgiving. Her story is a lot like a Hallmark Greeting Card. I know---that sounds harsh---but I think it is a fair characterization. If you want to read my critique, click here.

You can read her entire comment by visiting this post. She said, in part:

"I've never had my(printed and published) words twisted to the degree you did in your blog about my book THANKSGIVING DAY. How you construed a fictional kindergarten child's words "..thankful that the beautiful land of Massachusetts had enough for everyone..." to mean that she was saying this justified white people's taking the land away from American Indians since they didn't know how to manage it. To quote you..."Wow!"

I have never said such a thing in print or out, have never thought such a thing, and can only hope there are readers who will go to the book and read it for what it says, not what you twist it to say."

In my critique, I didn't say that the child that said those words.

That idea is one that Americans--Rockwell included--are socialized to think. Like she says, she never said it, and she never thought it either. That "it" is part of a thing later called Manifest Destiny that justified removal of Native peoples from their homelands. Rockwell's story is romantic. It is uncritical. It is a problem.

Marc Aronson says it well in his column. Here's his last paragraph:

"Rather than examine famous peoples’ lives or historical movements critically, today’s children’s books often leave kids with little more than legends—George Washington and the cherry tree; Thomas Jefferson, the sage of Monticello, minus any mention of Sally Hemings, the young slave with whom current DNA evidence shows he fathered six children; our nation’s “glorious” Westward expansion, told exclusively through images of heroic whites and savage Indians. The point of overturning these and other myths isn’t simply to set the record straight; it’s to point out that our interpretation of history is constantly being challenged, debated, and revised. The only way we can bring that crucial message to young people is if we risk sharing our doubts about the very accounts they were taught in elementary school. If we do that, students may at first feel like they’ve been fooled. But just as in middle-grade and YA novels that turn fairy tales upside down and inside out, young people will have an opportunity to use what they’ve learned as a baseline to develop new, more accurate understandings—which is precisely what we want."

Part of the work this blog is doing is turning fairy tales upside down and inside out. My critique of Rockwell is upsetting to her and others who are not looking critically at the way history is presented to children. I'm glad Rockwell visited the site, and while this sounds uncaring, I'm glad that she's upset. Perhaps her next book will be different.
.
-----------------------------------
UPDATE, MARCH 6, 2010.
I am copying comments to the post (above) directly into the bottom half of the post. Anne Rockwell is amongst the people who submitted comments to the post.

First comment, submitted on March 26, 2008 at 11:09 PM CDT:

How can I not weigh in on this! Balance I think is what the old people talk about. Balancing the bad with the good so that there ia a picture of reality that we can live with, that minorities can live in, that is real. The fairy tales of North America based in mainstream ideology and pragmatism have no room for the children of Indigenous Americans/Canadians. I was considering today that there is little room for survival in such stories for the self esteem of Indigenous Cannadian/American children. And as long as these types of stories are the "bildungs roman" of North American society racism continues to infiltrate the youngest minds with literacy. Anti racism writing and education requires that we speak the unspoken that keeps us bound in the cruel dance of oppression/repression. Its true that developing our critical reasoning is painful. I walk that road everyday with my students. But the insights they achieve in the process are priceless, life-giving and I know that as they go out to teach in the school system and in the institutions of learning and their own lives they will be mindful and deliberate to create spaces for all children to live and thrive. Thank you Marc for your insight and reason-able-ness. Thank you Anne for your honest reaction. Thank you Debbie, for allowing space for mindfulness to thrive for the sake of children, our precious future unto 7 generations

?eh ?eh naa tuu kwiss, Ahousaht First Nation, Nuu-chah-nulth
Marlene Atleo, Education, U of M, Ahousaht

Second comment, submitted on March 27, 2008 at 11:54 AM, CDT

Marlene, thank you for your comment.

Since my original comment on Debbie's blog (which has brought up so much name-calling, thrown gauntlets commanding "DO NO HARM", snide and Irrelevant words, such as "Hallmark, feel-good, etc.) dealt NOT with a reviewer's right to dislike or like a work.

I'll say again that is NOT the issue. I'd like to walk away from the fray, but as long as you've made the first comment that is thouht-provokig or intelligent, I'd like to point out yet again what my comment WAS about, because it brings up the whole question of ethical reviewing of books for children.

My sole objection was to Professor Reese saying my words meant something quite different from what I wrote, different from what was printed on the page--a lie that she uses to bear out her own political agenda.

I write for very young children. They come from all over American, from varying cultural backgrounds, from families of highly variable skill in the English language. So I choose my words carefully. I AM NOT WRITING IN CODE, sending secret messages about "Manifest Destiny" to little children.

To turn my written words into llies on a blog, is wrong, unethical, and completely outside guidelines for reviewers. It even brings up the "fair use" doctrine of the U.S. Copyright Law, to quote and/or misquote so extensively from a published text, and then "translate" that text into Herspeak, or whatever.

I'm depressed to find that this is hard for commentors on her blog, many of whom I assume are teaching students, to understand.

Anne Rockwell

Third comment, submitted on March 27, 2008 at 11:39 PM

I can empathize with you Anne. Its seems easier to write stories for children but its really more difficult. For my teacher education course in Aboriginal education at a major Canadian university in a province with about a 25% of Aboriginal people in the public schools. I use resources that include the Oyate/Amira publication: The Broken Flute which reviews books and provides rationale for the perspectives that are taken in the critique. We can't afford to be naive about children's literature. Children are stolen in a variety of ways and literacy is one of them. We need to develop good critiques that permit us to see through discourses that are not healthful. Normative discourses that seem to reveal actually hide more than they reveal. Pretty scary stuff in my opinion. Today on my classroom wall one of my student's committee members commented on the picture of the residential school girls in their dorm beds and wondered out loud if that wasn't just another form of exploitation. Debbie's claims in the big picture have validity.

Its a validity that is hidden in the normatie mystification of the double speak of Americanese which obscures and erases differences and in its place creates homogeneity that is not life affirming. What is the myth of Thanksgiving really about? Have you researched the sad stories of the settlers? Have you asked yourself why you would want to write a book about it for little children? Depression is probably a first stage. Critical consciousness evolves in a similar form to grief. First there is denial, then anger, then bargaining and etc. but there is no turning back from critical consciousness....no turning back

marlene atleo

Fourth comment, submitted on March 28, 2008, 11:38 PM CDT

I also appreciate Anne's willingness to stay in the conversation. And Marlene, it's so good to have you "weighing in"!

I wonder, Anne, what WOULD you have someone do -- for example, those of us who are parents, aunts/uncles, grandparents of Indigenous North American children? What might an author regard as the optimal way for us to say, "Ouch, wait, there's a problem with your book?" Most authors, having writ, are inaccessible to anyone who might want to have a critical conversation about the book.

For some of us, labeling our "agenda" as purely political just doesn't quite tell the whole story. When it comes to misrepresentations of Indigenous experience, my agenda (for example) actually lives where politics and family coincide. When I think of Native children reading books that elide the experiences of their ancestors, experiences that are directly connected to the current state of things -- I have specific children in mind: their smiles, their vulnerabilities and strengths, their spirited sense of themselves, their presence on my lap when I read aloud.

Melissa Thompson had a very thoughtful and well-researched article in The Lion and the Unicorn in 2001, titled, "A Sea of Good Intentions: Native Americans in Books for Children". In it she does several things, including taking a look at the language of some US Supreme Court decisions and how the images of Native people created and/or expressed by chief justice (o irony!)John Marshall back in the early 1800's STILL LIVE in people's minds today, and are passed along via contemporary books for young people. John Marshall knew his own writing was political.

To write about historical moments is to make political statements, whether or not we do so consciously. Whom does one consult? Whom does one quote? Speak for? Acknowledge? Leave out? I would hope that authors would choose their words with care - but the words we choose can't help but be influenced by the political discourse that has been part of the fabric of our lives from the beginning: Who is present and who is absent? Who has autonomy and who doesn't? Who "deserves" autonomy and who shouldn't have it? (for a strange reading experience, see what Marshall says about that! He was essentially writing legal fiction, that became law.) Who has power over others and who doesn't? Which behaviors are valorized, and which ones are reviled or ignored?

Anne, you are asserting you didn't intentionally say anything in your book about Manifest Destiny etc. -- and that's believable. I used to believe the whole, old Thanksgiving mythology myself: middle class white girl in a whitebread world. But so much of the real story was left out of what i "knew" that I see in retrospect that the stories misinformed me and left me less capable (for a long time) of fully understanding what the roots of the US are really like. I wonder how we're supposed to steer this boat if we don't know everything about it....

Jean Mendoza

Fifth comment, submitted on March 30, 2008, 8:40 PM CDT

Let's go to the original review again. Debbie wrote: "Through Michiko and Kate, we get outrageously simplistic descriptions. Greeted kindly? Shared the land? And not mean people looking for someone to fight with?! Only Jessica's words have some semblance of truth, but they, too, are problematic. Her words carry the weight of the idea that there was plenty of land, and that the Indians weren't using it properly, so it was only fitting that the more industrious Europeans should take and own it..." Rockwell's focus on what the Jessica character said is misleading. Debbie criticized Jessica's words only in part, saying they had "some semblance of truth." She also criticized several other things in the book, some of them relatively minor. Debbie even praised a few things. All in all, I'd say it was a typical review. No way did it violate the copyright laws by quoting from the book. In fact, this is exactly what the fair-use provision is for. Rockwell is wasting her time making veiled threats. Now that Rockwell has responded to Debbie's one-sentence comment on Jessica, it would be interesting to hear her response to the overall point of the critique. Namely: "This seemingly sweet book is really quite loaded. Loaded in its false message of comradery [sic] between the colonists and the Wampanoags. Loaded in its efforts to hide the conflict from the child reader..." As for Jessica's words, they do convey the idea that Massachusetts was unoccupied and that Indians didn't have a claim to the region. What would the girl have thought about Massachusetts 55 years later, after King Philip's War exterminated most of the remaining Indians? "Oops," said a sadder but wiser Jessica, "I guess the beautiful land of Massachusetts didn't have enough good things for everyone after all." You see the point, Ms. Rockwell? History proves that America didn't have enough "good things" for the Indians and the Europeans. At least not in the Europeans' minds. Hence the genocidal policies that led to the destruction of the Indian way of life. So Jessica's claim was false or misleading, and Debbie noted it as such. What would you expect an educator like her to say: that the Pilgrims didn't wipe out the Indians eventually? Why should she, since they did? P.S. For more on our Thanksgiving myths, see Ten Little Pilgrims and Indians. Rob Schmidt