Showing posts with label bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bias. Show all posts

Sunday, September 20, 2015

A student's question about bias (AICL uses Deborah Wiles' REVOLUTION to look at bias)

A few weeks ago, I was at Georgia State's College of Education to talk with professors and students about Native peoples, how we're taught in the curriculum, choosing children's books, etc. A few days ago, a student wrote to me with a question about biased content and how a teacher could address it.

She had a specific example in which she imagined a fourth grade class being taught about specific Native Nations. She imagined a student asking the teacher why Native Americans were moved to reservations. She wondered how the teacher might respond in an unbiased manner.

Let's look, first, at the word "bias." It means prejudice in favor or against a thing, person, or group, compared with another, in a way that is unfair or partial to one of the groups.

A couple of weeks ago, I noted that I was reading Deborah Wiles's Revolution. There's a passage in it that is a good example of bias. On page 263, Sunny (the protagonist) is at a movie theater and is approaching Mr. Martini, the man who takes tickets:
Mr. Martini is standing under the buffalo carving, which is my favorite of all the carvings on the lobby wall that depict the history of Greenwood, although Daddy says there would not have been buffalo east of the Mississippi River, which is where the Delta is. There would have been Indians, though--the Choctaw and Chickasaw including Choctaw Chief Greenwood Leflore, who was here first and signed the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek way before the Civil War. That's when most of the Indians moved to Oklahoma. Miss Coffee, my fourth-grade teacher, would be proud of me for remembering.
I want to focus on two passages from that paragraph.

First is the idea that Indians were "here first." It may seem innocent enough, but scholars in Native Studies see language that says Native peoples were here "first" as a way to undermine our sovereignty. If we were simply here first, followed by __ and then by __, one can say that everyone--Native peoples, too--are immigrants to this continent.

Second is "the Indians moved to Oklahoma." Written as such, it sounds like they--on their own--decided to move. Of course, they had not chosen to move. They were forcibly removed. Although Miss Coffee told Sunny about the Dancing Rabbit Treaty, I wonder if her bias in favor of White landowners and against Choctaws is evident by Sunny's takeaway: that Indians "moved" to Oklahoma. If Wiles had, in the backstory for this part of the book, a character who is Choctaw, that character could have corrected Miss Coffee. That paragraph I quoted above could then end with Sunny saying "but Joey, who is Choctaw, told Miss Coffee that his people didn't move. They were REmoved."

A plus in that paragraph is this: Sunny says "most" of the Indians moved. In that "most" she is correct. The descendants of Choctaws who refused to be removed were federally recognized as the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians in 1945.  And, Sunny's dad is wrong about buffaloes. They were, in fact, east of the Mississippi. Were they in the Delta? I don't know.

Let's return to the question posed by the Georgia State student. Let's say that the curriculum the teacher is using has the words "moved" in it and let's assume the teacher knows that the Choctaw's were forcibly removed. She could teach her students about bias right then and there, using moved/removed as an example of bias and she could provide students with information from the Choctaw Nation's website. It has a detailed account of removal. A teacher using Wiles's book could pause the reading on page 263 to correct what Sunny learned from Miss Coffee.

The point is that teachers can address bias in materials. This is, of course, teaching children to read critically--and reading critically is a vital skill.

Thanks, student at Georgia State, for your follow up questions! I hope this is helpful.

Monday, May 02, 2011

FAIL: Codename for Osama bin Laden? "Geronimo"

[Note: I am adding links to Native responses at the bottom of this page. If you know of others, please let me know by email or in a comment. See, especially, the statement by the Apache Nation Chairman and the one from descendent Harlyn Geronimo submitted to the U.S. Senate Commission on Indian Affairs.]

_______________________
MONDAY, MAY 2nd, 2011
FAIL: Codename for Osama bin Laden? "Geronimo"
by Debbie Reese

A few hours ago news media began reporting that the codename for Osama bin Laden was "Geronimo."

Who came up with that name? Did anyone say "hey wait a minute, let's give this some thought before going ahead with that name..."

Or did everyone say "YEAH. GOOD IDEA! Geronimo was a blood thirsty killer, and so is bin Laden, so, that is a PERFECT name for this operation!"

It is easy to understand why people would think it was a good choice. SOME people, that is...  As you might guess, I think it is a poor choice.

My daughter pointed out how insulting it is to Native men and women serving in the Armed Forces. She's right. It is an affront.

We (people who work with children's books) are, whether we acknowledge it or not, partially responsible for an American citizenry that would think using "Geronimo" for this operation a good idea. Instead of pointing out that "bloodthirsty Indians" in children's books are a biased portrayal driven by a particular agenda, too many of us defend those biased portrayals...  Like the Indians in Matchlock Gun:

See? The not-quite-human "savages" chasing the fair and innocent woman/mother? See the tomahawk in her shoulder? America, and people who write children's books, have been casting and framing Indians as "terrorists" for literally hundreds of years. It is wrong, but it goes on, unchecked, because of the work it does. From framing colonizers as justified in taking land, to drawing on that "savage other" to frame current war efforts.

It is wrong. It is wrong. It is wrong.
______________________________
Update, May 3rd, 2011:  I addressed the equating of Geronimo with terrorism in 2009. The Foreign Policy Research Institute hosts free workshops for history teachers. They did one called "What Students Need to Know about Americas Wars." One speaker drew parallels between Apaches and terrorists.

Update, 12:15 EST, May 3rd, 2011: Reactions from Native people:
"What is It with the U.S. Military and Indians?" --- Indigenous Law Professors
Osama bin Laden: code-named Geronimo" --- Ben Carnes, Choctaw activist and writer

Update, 2:40 EST, May 3rd, 2011:
Bin Laden Code-name "Geronimo is a Bomb in Indian Country." Indian Country Today (Native newspaper)

Update, 7:15 EST, May 3rd, 2011:
Geronimo Again? The Indian Wars Continue Ad Nauseam. Columnist Steven T. Newcomb in Indian Country Today

Update, 7:40 PM EST, May 3rd, 2011:
Codename: 'Geronimo' for Osama Bin Laden Mission Angers Some Native Americans. in "The Note" at ABC News.

Update, 8:00 PM EST, May 3rd, 2011:
IndianCountry TV: Journalist Mark Trahant (Shoshone-Bannock) comments on military uses of Native names (personal and tribal)

Update, 8:28 PM EST, May 3rd, 2011:
Senate official: Wrong to link bin Laden, Geronimo

Update, 8:57 PM EST, May 3rd, 2011:
From the NY Times, Leon Panetta's minute-by-minute account:
Panetta: "We have a visual on Geronimo."

Update: 9:41 PM EST, May 3rd, 2011:
Onondaga Nation leaders blast 'Geronimo' codename for Bin Laden at website for Syracuse Post-Standard.

Update: 1:33 AM EST, May 4th, 2011:
Geronimo? Really? Essay by Scott Andrews, professor, American/American Indian Studies, Cal State Northridge

Update: 7:36 AM EST, May 4th, 2011:
National Congress of American Indians Statement on Use of "Geronimo" as Name for Osama bin Laden Operation

Update: 7:49 AM EST, May 4th, 2011:
American Indians object to 'Geronimo' as codeword for bin Laden raid in Washington Post Lifestyle includes quotes from former Marine Tom Holm (he's Creek/Cherokee) and professor in American Indian Studies at the University of Arizona, and from Suzan Shown Harjo, (Hodulgee Muscogee and Cheyenne) president of the Morning Star Institute. (Why did the Post run this in the Lifestyle section?!!)

Update: 8:15 AM EST, May 4th, 2011:
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to address use of 'Geronimo' as codename at hearing. Indianz.Com (a Native news source)

Update: 3:11 PM EST, May 4th, 2011:
Native American Journalist Association Statement on Geronimo published at Indian Country Today
Osama Bin Laden is No Geronimo by Debbie Reese, published at the Wall Street Journal

Update: 3:40 PM EST, Mar 4th, 2011:
Indian Country Responds to Geronimo, bin Laden Connection Statements Excerpts and statements from Native organizations and Tribal leaders

Update: 5:07 PM EST, May 4th, 2011:
Statement by Jeff Houser, Chairman of the Apache Nation 

Update: 6:45 PM EST, May 4th, 2011:
Video: Interview includes James Riding In, Pawnee, Professor in American Indian Studies, Arizona State University

Update, 9:24 AM EST, May 5th, 2011:
Code name: Geronimo? by Ernestine Chasing Hawk in Native American Times includes responses from Native veterans Tim Giago and Lloyd Goings

Update: 9:36 AM EST, May 5th, 2011:
Geronimo's family reacts to codename Geronimo KOAT News, Albuquerque (video does not include Geronimo's family response)

Update: 10:47 AM EST, May 5th, 2011:
pdf of Letter from Arizona State Representative Albert Hale to President Obama, posted at Turtle Talk

Update: 10:11 AM EST, May 6th, 2011:
Statement from the National Museum of the American Indian 

Update: 12:10 PM EST, May 6th, 2011:
Winona LaDuke, on Democracy Now.

Update: 12:22 PM EST, May 6th, 2011:
Statement from Harlyn Geronimo, on behalf of himself and other surviving lineal descendents of Geronimo, available at Indian Country Today

Update, 12:27 PM EST, May 6th, 2011:
Interview with Jeff Houser, Chair of Fort Sill Apache Tribe, published in Indian Country Today

Update, 12:40 PM EST, May 6th, 2011:
Excerpts from statement made by Chair of the Navajo Nation, published in Navajo Times

Update, 4:53 PM, CST, May 10, 2011:
NPR Interview with Tim Johnson of the National Museum of the American Indian

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Stereotyping, Bias, and American Indians

What are you doing at 11:00 AM on April 13th? Set aside an hour to attend a free, online conversation called "How do we change a stereotype?"

The session part of the Smithsonian Institution's Problem Solving with Smithsonian Experts series. The host for "How do we change a stereotype?" will be Paul Chaat Smith. I've written about him several times here on American Indians in Children's Literature. (See Paul Chaat Smith on Brother Eagle Sister Sky and The Education of Little Tree. And buy a copy of his book, Everything You Know about Indians is Wrong.)

The promo for the session is: 
The American Indian Experience: From the Margins to the Center
The Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) opened its doors in Washington in 2004. The goal? Nothing less than to change how we see the lives of Native peoples. NMAI curator Paul Chaat Smith leads a discussion on hard lessons and brilliant mistakes from the front lines of Washington’s most controversial museum.
Hard lessons? Brilliant mistakes? Most educators have been learned some hard lessons, and, we've made some brilliant mistakes, too! And why is it "Washington's most controversial museum"? I wonder what we will learn from Smith? I registered for the session and encourage you to do so, too. Go to "How do we change a stereotype" for details. The registration link is bottom right of the page.

As you think about your teaching---how, when, and why---you include American Indians, take a look at Julia Good Fox's blog post, "Texas is Not Alone: Moving Past U.S. Dis-education about Tribal Nations."  For those of you who follow Education news, you know she's referring to the textbook fiasco in Texas. Good Fox talks about her work with public school teachers. She is Pawnee.

Monday, March 08, 2010

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.

Sunday, March 07, 2010

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.