[CALIBK12] CALIBK12 Digest, Vol 12, Issue 36

[Debbie Reese]

Good morning,

The intensity of Joanne's reply to my questions about ARROW TO THE
SUN is familiar. I don't mean familiar personally, but familiar to the study
of children's books, specifically, those about "other." When people objected
to LITTLE BLACK SAMBO, there was a lot of backlash. It was a favorite
book, but gradually, society came to recognize and agree with the problems
in that book. It is relatively hard to get that book now, though it is still
being published. And, there has been positive change in books about
African Americans, Latino/a Americans, and Asian Americans. By that,
I mean that there are more writers from those groups being published
today than ever before, AND, the problematic ones are not as readily
available. Note: they are not gone... you can still find FIVE CHINESE
BROTHERS and, there are problematic books that carry bias in them
about Latino/a people... A good example of the latter is Eve Bunting's
A DAYS WORK. (My colleague, Jean Mendoza, did a fine analysis of
that book in an article we wrote that is available here:
http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v3n2/mendoza.html

It is much harder for us, as a society, to let go of stereotypical and biased
imagery/stories of American Indians, and, the ways that US history is
told, using specific kinds of images/stories about American Indians.

I think there's a fear there... a fear that we may be called racist 
if we disagree
with (for example) my critique of the Indians in LITTLE HOUSE ON THE
PRAIRIE.  Or, if we feel that mascots are honorable.

I personally don't think it helpful to characterize lack of knowing 
as "racist."
Moreover, I don't believe that is the case. Not knowing or understanding
is distinctively different from outright racist acts.

McDermott wrote ARROW in the 70s. I can be kind and say that it was
a period when we had less awareness and insight and understanding into
the telling of Native story. I don't think he did this deliberately. But I'd
guess he knows better now, and I think it would be awesome if he could
revisit that book, making it absolutely clear that it is a work of fiction.
That means taking out "Pueblo" in the subtitle, and, it means taking
it out of the LOC info, too.

I have some specific comments to make, below.

>I would keep it in the 398.2s or move it to your picture book section. It is
>not in the religious section and should not be as it is not an authentic
>retelling of the story. "Folk Tales" are passed down for generations by word
>of mouth, possibly changing slightly with each teller. When an author puts
>the story to words, they may add or subtract from what they heard or
>researched to enhance the story for the CURRENT generation of
>listeners/readers and they may adapt it to the culture of the new readers.
>Authors and artists use "artistic license" ? they are NOT bound to retell
>the tale FAITHFULLY unless they specifically say they are doing so.

Yes, storytellers do change stories as they retell them. But when they're
changing details, or adding content to a story that comes from a specific
group, then it seems to me that the story can no longer be identified as
such. They are not, as Jan notes, bound to tell it exactly as they found it,
but can we view this as an ethical or moral question? Native tribes/nations
are, increasingly, articulating resolutions and policies for the use of their
stories. These are matters of respect. Yes, we can call out Freedom of
Expression and be fine, but what about respect?

>Please
>don't allow Debbie Reese to DICTATE to you what to put on or remove from
>your shelves. Evaluate her comments and make your own decision. Arrow to the
>Sun is an award winner and was highly reviewed and appeared on recommended
>lists. Here are some of the review and award sources:

I'm providing information so that people can make their own decisions. I am
not dictating. I don't have that power! Nor would I want it. If you 
move or remove
a book, you ought to be able to articulate why you do that.

>I have been following Debbie's posts for a while now, and if you go back
>into the Child Lit listserve archives you will find that she emphatically
>states that most Native Americans DO NOT share the authentic, secret legends
>with others (non-Indians) because they do not want their sacred stories and
>cultural traditions cheapened by having whites merchandise them and make
>money from them. Fair enough.

I don't recall saying that most Native Americans do not share authentic
secret legends. I'm careful in what I say (you learn to do that in 
PhD training).
I would not say "most" because I have no way to support that word "most"
with data. It is interesting, though, Jan, to hear you present my words. I
choose my words carefully, and don't think I would have said "cheapened"
or "whites."  More likely, I would have said "misrepresented" or 
"appropriation"
by "non-Natives." (For the record, I'm tribally enrolled at Nambe Pueblo,
in New Mexico. My husband is white, from Pennsylvania, and my grandfather
was white, from Texas. I do not and will not condemn or speak ill of "whites"
in a broad-stroke fashion.)


>But if they don't want to share the authentic
>stories, there's no way an author or publisher can be sure the stories are
>printed with authenticity and accuracy. But again, if they (Native
>Americans) recognize these traditional stories as sacred, and want them
>recorded accurately, THEY THEMSELVES must do the telling and recording and
>tell the publisher that they are to be cataloged in the religion section. Or
>if they prefer, in the folk tales section. The problem is, they don't. There
>are very few Native American writers writing for the general American
>population.

That "few" isn't for lack of trying. Publishers want books that will sell.
Unfortunately for all of us, that means romantic, set-in-the-past, and,
stereotypical. What all children and adults need is books about Native
peoples in the present day, but I know several Native authors whose
books were rejected because they their stories were present day, with
characters of the present day, who are teachers, lawyers. And, one
author submitted a story about a child of mixed heritage, and it, too
was rejected.

>And again, they consider many of the stories sacred, so we have
>a Catch-22 situation here ? Debbie and Oyate (an organization) can list
>errors and complain and urge library folk to pull books from the shelves,
>but they are not encouraging enough Native writers to fill the gaps with
>accurate information about Native Peoples, again, because they are
>culturally sacred stories and they don't want whites publishing their
>sacred/secret culture or making money off it. I know what I've written is
>very redundant, but that's EXACTLY my point! It is an endless circle. It
>allows Debbie and Oyate to hold sway (power/authority) over those who listen
>to them but without being truly accountable in providing "the real thing."

If you read my blog, or any of my writing, you will know that I do both.
I critique problematic texts, but I also write about wonderful books. And,
I strive to find books out of the mainstream, that don't get picked up by
major presses. There's some wonderful books published in Canada, by
small First Nations presses.

>This is my observation and opinion, anyway, based on Debbie's own posts. I
>understand that to Debbie and her people, these stories BELONG to THEIR
>peoples, not to (the rest of) us. I honor her right to critique books, etc.
>for accuracy/authenticity and to relay that information to the general
>public. But what Debbie fails to comprehend is that the stories and lore of
>"the Wild West" as well as those from the other groups of Native Americans
>are now part and parcel of our SHARED American heritage.
>If they want to
>see it portrayed accurately, they will have to share it authentically, and
>(sadly) risk the possibility that some people will be less than respectful.
>
>
>
>I think the main thing to remember is: DON'T use folk tales from ANY culture
>to teach "facts" from, AND folk/fairy tales have many variations and are
>subject to the current author/illustrator's "artistic license." Don't expect
>the book to ACCURATELY reflect every aspect of the culture it represents
>unless the author has specifically stated that they have done the research
>and had it vetted/edited by people who are qualified to do so.

A word about vetting. Scholastic asked Genevieve Bell, a woman who
did her dissertation on Carlisle Indian Industrial School, to vet Ann Rinaldi's
manuscript for MY HEART IS ON THE GROUND. Bell gave a great deal
of critical feedback, but Rinaldi didn't use it. Same with Lynn Reid Banks.
She hired Marge Bruchac to vet one of her INDIAN IN THE CUPBOARD
books, then rejected Marge's feedback but still thanked Marge in her
acknowledgements!

Thank you all, for engaging in this discussion. I've learned a great deal.

Debbie