home |
many pasts |
evidence |
www.history |
blackboard |
reference
talking history | syllabi | students | teachers | puzzle | about us
talking history | syllabi | students | teachers | puzzle | about us
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 14:13:10 -0400
Reply-To: American Indians Forum
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: "Noonan, Ellen"
Subject: Opening Statement from Prof. Hoxie
In-Reply-To: <68.e61b428.281f15f8@aol.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Dear Talking History Participants:
It is quite daunting to be sending a message out into cyberspace (a big
place) on so vast a topic as American Indian (or Native American) history.
I am eager to learn what people have on their minds; I hope I can focus the
discussion and provide some help to fellow teachers and researchers. I
thought it might be useful to list a series of topics and themes that have
emerged repeatedly over the past two-plus decades that I have taught courses
on Native Americans. Each topic contains a number of questions and
potential discussion threads, so I leave it to fellow "talkers" to pick up
on the ones that are closest to your concerns.
1. TERMINOLOGY. Easily the most common question I have been asked over
the years is: "Indian or Native American?" Less common but still current is
"Tribe or Nation?" There are people who have sound reasons to use one term
or another exclusively, but my general response is that all of these terms
are acceptable. In my experience Indian people themselves generally prefer
to be identified by community or tribal affiliation. Beyond that, "American
Indian," while a misnomer, is a unique term that refers to the indigenous
people of this continent and their descendants. Over time it has come to
have meaning both for indigenous people and for others. Native American, on
the other hand, is specific and descriptive even though it has a somewhat
bureaucratic resonance in my ear. The Canadians have been more inventive
than folks in the USA; they generally refer to indigenous peoples as "First
Nations," people (the people of the founding nation of Canada) or as
"Amerindians." Both are good terms but neither is familiar to people below
the 49th parallel. Finally "nations" can refer to tribal groups who have
treaty relations with the US and other bodies, while "tribes" are legally
recognized entities within the American legal and political system. I find
"nation" can confuse people, so I generally refer to tribes. I also opt for
"communities" as another way to describe Native groups. Whatever term is
used should be defined carefully for--and discussed with--students.
2. IGNORANCE. Non-Indian students continue to come into high schools and
colleges with almost no accurate information in their heads about Native
American history and culture. The question for teachers, then, is which
events or people are most important to study? If you only have limited time
to present some aspect of American Indian history, what will be your focus
or your theme? Tragedy is one possibility--a catalogue of wrongs and crimes.
Persistence is another--incidents of Native American endurance, invention
and adaptation. It might make more sense to focus on something that is not
directly related to interactions with whites: religious history, family
history, literature or art. Where should our interventions be in this sea
of ignorance?
3. DEFINITIONS OF CULTURE. As we organize and present materials related
to Native American history, what should our operative definition of culture
be? Are Indian communities fixed and bounded, organized around a set of
common values and practices, or are these communities fluid and changeable?
Is there something "Indian" that can be detected in every Native community,
or is the diversity of this cultural tradition so great that the search for
common values is futile? Can both of these possibilities be true?
4. IMAGES. Popular images play such a powerful role in shaping public
(and student) attitudes towards American Indian history that they are
difficult to ignore. What are the sources of these images? Have those
sources changed over time? What is their significance (are they important as
an aspect of the majority culture's history of racial fantasy or are they
significant for Native people themselves)? Related to these questions are
issues arising around us regarding sports mascots, literary stereotypes, and
advertising imagery.
5. CURRENT ISSUES. Front page stories on American Indian topics appear
every week in the U.S. Topics range from water rights to gaming to
literature to tribal government and tribal politics. How do we conceive of
and present modern Native American issues? Are these a subset of a larger
"civil rights" struggle within the U.S. or are these something different? If
something different, what exactly do they represent? There are those who
would argue that the U.S. has experienced its own version of
"decolonization" over the past generation as previously-colonized and
oppressed Indian communities have sought their own version of national
liberation within the nation's borders. This assertion raises its own
questions: how did this "liberation" movement arise? Does it have a
connection to the struggles of the 19th century? As an historian I am
skeptical of the easy links that are often made between one or
another 19th century warrior and today's (usually male) Native American
leader. But those linkages deserve attention and discussion.
6. RANGE AND VARIETY. Most classes and textbooks ignore Alaska and
Canada. How (or should) these North American cases be brought into focus in
our courses? Do they have distinctly different themes? Similarly, few
courses or discussions place Native Americans in a global context. How can
we do that? These comparisons are difficult because the national contexts
for indigenous people have been so different and because those contexts have
shaped Indian people.
7."FIT." Does it matter that Native American history be taught as a part
of US history? If it is to be taught, what are the themes that link the
Indian experience to the experience of non-Indians? What are the means by
which indigenous experiences can illuminate a national history? This
admittedly abstract set of questions may well provide the key to the problem
of how to integrate Native American people into US history courses.
Finally, I hope in our forum we can reflect on the fact that Native
American history in the 21st century must be taught and written in the
shadow of the twentieth century, a century when Indian people acquired
significant political power, revived their tribal governments, and increased
their national population more than fivefold. Unlike a generation ago when
historians looked back to the devastation of the nineteenth century,
teachers and researchers today are faced with the challenge of explaining
the remarkable renaissance in Native culture that has taken place over the
past thirty years. This is a renaissance that has obviously not produced
wealth and prosperity but it has altered the cultural and political climate;
how did it come about? And what does this shift tell us--if anything--about
the USA?
There is a lot to discuss. I have more questions than answers. But I am
looking forward to our conversations.
Frederick E. Hoxie
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 15:59:39 -0400
Reply-To: American Indians Forum
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: "Noonan, Ellen"
Subject: teaching native spirituality
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="MS_Mac_OE_3071577579_750871_MIME_Part"
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3071577579_750871_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
I recently had a short essay rejected by a major US Native Studies
Journal.
In the course of our correspondence over my essay (it had to do with
teaching Native Studies while adhering to precepts of the oral
tradition),
the editor wondered why I would teach students (especially non-Native
students) about the aspects of Indigenous spirituality.
My response was that, as a Native person teaching native Studies, I
should
do nothing else. That is, that our spirituality and world view is what
makes us Tribal --it is what sets us off from the dominant society. and
most importantly (in my view) is that if students don't understand what
and
how we think about our (tribal) place in the world, they will never
understand any of our history or our lifeways, and certainly they will
never
understand how and why the Europeans insisted --and continue to insist--
that we , or else!!
Europeans, neo-Europeans, and other everywhere assume (based
on
their spirituality and worldview) that their way of life is the epitome
of
and they can't understand why anyone would prefer to
adhere
to their ways.
So, if I restrict my teaching to a strict History lesson (or Literature
or
Economics or Sociology) without explaining, as best I can, the
underlying
philosophy of Indigenous people (and, yes, I believe there is a
generalizable philosophy) then I can't understand
why
I'm a teacher. My spirituality and worldview are what compels me to
teach
--keeping that spirituality and worldview out of the classroom would
stand
in direct opposition to everything I am trying to get my students to
understand about Tribal people.
The preceding is a truncated and simplified statement of my teaching
, but it raises a question that I hope this forum will
address:
is it appropriate to expose students to a discussion about Native
spirituality? Or, more pointedly, should non-Native students be exposed
to
such a discussion?
What do you think?
Phil Bellfy
--MS_Mac_OE_3071577579_750871_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
teaching native spirituality
I recently had a short essay rejected by a major US Native Studies =
Journal.
In the course of our correspondence over my essay (it had to do =
with
teaching Native Studies while adhering to precepts of the oral =
tradition),
the editor wondered why I would teach students (especially =
non-Native
students) about the <sensitive> aspects of Indigenous =
spirituality.
My response was that, as a Native person teaching native Studies, I =
should
do nothing else. That is, that our spirituality and world view is =
what
makes us Tribal --it is what sets us off from the dominant society. =
and
most importantly (in my view) is that if students don't understand what =
and
how we think about our (tribal) place in the world, they will never
understand any of our history or our lifeways, and certainly they will =
never
understand how and why the Europeans insisted --and continue to =
insist--
that we <assimilate>, or else!!
Europeans, neo-Europeans, and other <Americans> everywhere assume =
(based on
their spirituality and worldview) that their way of life is the epitome =
of
<civilization> and they can't understand why anyone would prefer =
to adhere
to their <primitive> ways.
So, if I restrict my teaching to a strict History lesson (or Literature =
or
Economics or Sociology) without explaining, as best I can, the =
underlying
philosophy of Indigenous people (and, yes, I believe there is a
generalizable <Indigenous/Tribal> philosophy) then I can't =
understand why
I'm a teacher. My spirituality and worldview are what compels me =
to teach
--keeping that spirituality and worldview out of the classroom would =
stand
in direct opposition to everything I am trying to get my students =
to
understand about Tribal people.
The preceding is a truncated and simplified statement of my =
teaching
<philosophy>, but it raises a question that I hope this forum =
will address:
is it appropriate to expose students to a discussion about Native
spirituality? Or, more pointedly, should non-Native students be =
exposed to
such a discussion?
What do you think?
Phil Bellfy
--MS_Mac_OE_3071577579_750871_MIME_Part--
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 14:05:17 -0600
Reply-To: American Indians Forum
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: Ronnie Peacock
Subject: Re: Opening Statement from Prof. Hoxie
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Prof. Hoxie,
I would actually like to ask a question that crosses several of the areas
you suggested. For my Master's Thesis I am following the trail - listening
to the voice - of Clara True, long an educator and advocate of the Santa
Clara Pueblo Indians. One of the secondary works that started me on this
journey was David Wallace Adams' _Education for Extinction_ published in
1995. His argument, as I understand it, is that the federal government had
an agenda to assimilate out the Indian culture - their "lifeways" - through
public education. Adams suggests that one should look at the teachers to
see if they had the same agenda, but that he would not, and so I decided to
follow the white women and ran smack into Clara. It is my understanding
that Adams essentially offered an argument very similar to that which you
offered in _Final Promise_ published in 1984, that of assimilation and
acculturation so as to eliminate the Indian ways entirely, to "Americanize"
and "civilize" this population of native peoples.
I believe that Clara True did not bring to the West such an agenda, nor did
cohorts like Mary Dissette. While Clara did work primarily with
"Progressive Indians" and she got caught up, in the 1920s, with trying to do
away with the Pueblo dances and the Berdache of the Zuni tribes, for the
most part, her concern for the Pueblos appears to be genuine and not an
attempt to change their ways to white ways. And it is simply amazing that
everywhere I turn, I run into Clara, with her fingers in some other "pie,"
but almost always on behalf of the Pueblos - unless, of course, it has to do
with her personal life in which she always seems to be in substantial debt
to someone.
I am wondering if you still would argue as strongly for that government
agenda of assimilation, and if your experience has indicated that the many
teachers, particularly the eastern white women, traveled west with that same
agenda. It is my hypothesis, presently unsupported by adequate research,
that most of these women - perhaps with the exception of the more radical
moral reformers of the Progressive Era - traveled West with the genuine
intent to do "good", to bring varying levels of education, but not
necessarily to enforce the change to white ways. I suppose, however, that
any move to teach English, to change the appearance of the students by
haircuts and clothing, to teach skills that will earn money in the white
world are all attempts at assimilation, no matter how innocuously or gently
performed, and no matter what the agenda that brings about such actions.
This sounds like I am creating my own circular argument....I would
appreciate your insight on this issue and look forward to this month of
discussion.
Ronnie
(Mrs.) Ronnie Peacock
Dept. of History
University of Northern Colorado
ronniep@qwest.net
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 14:10:42 -0600
Reply-To: American Indians Forum
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: mewelsh
Subject: Re: teaching native spirituality
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>===== Original Message From American Indians Forum
=====
For Phil Bellfly,
The point about teaching tribal spirituality from a "generalized" perspective
is interesting. Please provide more analysis of this, as I am not sure how to
interpret your message (especially the part about an editor rejecting your
article on that basis). Is this part of the "pan-Indianism" that emerged in
the early 20th century as a function of the boarding-school experience? the
Native American Church theology of the same time period? 1960s New Age-ish
uses of Indian spirituality (sometimes criticized for its "wannabe" tone)? Or
is this a nuanced reading of the similarities of belief systems of the many
peoples who populated the area later to become known as the Americas (we
should keep a hemispheric perspective in mind). Finally, how differently
should we teach the stories of people who believe in Asian faiths? Judaism?
other belief systems rooted in tribal/"indigenous" realities, rather than
homogeneous messages that emanate from either the Catholic or Protestant
denominations? What constitutes the core of "indigenous" beliefs of Taoism,
Shintoism, orthodox Judaism, or even the pentecostal perspectives of European
faiths? Navajo pentecostal preachers, for example, use the language and
iconography of the Dine along with the standard techniques of the revivalist,
and a recent book on the Oklahoma Seminole Baptists (Jack M. Schultz, The
Seminole Baptist Churches of Oklahoma, 1999), is subtitled: "Maintaining a
Traditional Community" (even though the most "traditional" part seems to be
use of the language of the Muscogulgee in the hybrid of Baptist and tribal
ritual). Thanks for taking the time to address this.
Michael Welsh
History Department
University of Northern Colorado
>I recently had a short essay rejected by a major US Native Studies
>Journal.
>In the course of our correspondence over my essay (it had to do with
>teaching Native Studies while adhering to precepts of the oral
>tradition),
>the editor wondered why I would teach students (especially non-Native
>students) about the aspects of Indigenous spirituality.
>
>My response was that, as a Native person teaching native Studies, I
>should
>do nothing else. That is, that our spirituality and world view is what
>makes us Tribal --it is what sets us off from the dominant society. and
>most importantly (in my view) is that if students don't understand what
>and
>how we think about our (tribal) place in the world, they will never
>understand any of our history or our lifeways, and certainly they will
>never
>understand how and why the Europeans insisted --and continue to insist--
>that we , or else!!
>
>Europeans, neo-Europeans, and other everywhere assume (based
>on
>their spirituality and worldview) that their way of life is the epitome
>of
> and they can't understand why anyone would prefer to
>adhere
>to their ways.
>
>So, if I restrict my teaching to a strict History lesson (or Literature
>or
>Economics or Sociology) without explaining, as best I can, the
>underlying
>philosophy of Indigenous people (and, yes, I believe there is a
>generalizable philosophy) then I can't understand
>why
>I'm a teacher. My spirituality and worldview are what compels me to
>teach
>--keeping that spirituality and worldview out of the classroom would
>stand
>in direct opposition to everything I am trying to get my students to
>understand about Tribal people.
>
>The preceding is a truncated and simplified statement of my teaching
>, but it raises a question that I hope this forum will
>address:
>is it appropriate to expose students to a discussion about Native
>spirituality? Or, more pointedly, should non-Native students be exposed
>to
>such a discussion?
>
>What do you think?
>
>Phil Bellfy
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 16:13:22 -0400
Reply-To: American Indians Forum
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: Jeanette Stephens-El
Subject: Re: teaching native spirituality
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
By all means. In fact, by any means necessary!
From my perspective, as a Native/African-American, the discussion =
regarding Native spirituality should be in school curriculums and in =
particular they should not be excluded from religious and/or philosophical =
courses of study at the college and university level.
Our sense of spirituality is what sets us apart and let's be real. We are =
a-part in that context because our understanding of what is sacred is =
different. What is sacriligious to us is different. What is natural is =
different. What is beauty is different. I believe that if the old ones =
say it is time for our spiritual lifestyle to be shared, then it must be =
shared in whatever way the old ones say it should be done. And they ARE =
telling us that it is time.
Raining Deer.
Jeanette Stephens-El
________________________________
ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
NOTICE: This is a CONFIDENTIAL message and some or all of the information =
may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not an intended recipient, please =
note that any distribution or copying of this message is strictly =
prohibited and notify the sender promptly by return e-mail if received in =
error.
>>> ENoonan@GC.CUNY.EDU 05/01/01 03:59PM >>>
I recently had a short essay rejected by a major US Native Studies
Journal.
In the course of our correspondence over my essay (it had to do with
teaching Native Studies while adhering to precepts of the oral
tradition),
the editor wondered why I would teach students (especially non-Native
students) about the aspects of Indigenous spirituality.
My response was that, as a Native person teaching native Studies, I
should
do nothing else. That is, that our spirituality and world view is what
makes us Tribal --it is what sets us off from the dominant society. and
most importantly (in my view) is that if students don't understand what
and
how we think about our (tribal) place in the world, they will never
understand any of our history or our lifeways, and certainly they will
never
understand how and why the Europeans insisted --and continue to insist--
that we , or else!!
Europeans, neo-Europeans, and other everywhere assume (based
on
their spirituality and worldview) that their way of life is the epitome
of
and they can't understand why anyone would prefer to
adhere
to their ways.
So, if I restrict my teaching to a strict History lesson (or Literature
or
Economics or Sociology) without explaining, as best I can, the
underlying
philosophy of Indigenous people (and, yes, I believe there is a
generalizable philosophy) then I can't understand
why
I'm a teacher. My spirituality and worldview are what compels me to
teach
--keeping that spirituality and worldview out of the classroom would
stand
in direct opposition to everything I am trying to get my students to
understand about Tribal people.
The preceding is a truncated and simplified statement of my teaching
, but it raises a question that I hope this forum will
address:
is it appropriate to expose students to a discussion about Native
spirituality? Or, more pointedly, should non-Native students be exposed
to
such a discussion?
What do you think?
Phil Bellfy
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 14:14:11 -0700
Reply-To: American Indians Forum
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: SH
Subject: Re: teaching native spirituality
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
The Western importance of separating church and state education
has given us a certain vocabulary for discussing spiritual
issues in humanities classrooms.
Spirituality is a less loaded term than religion for Westerners,
but none the less does make people hesitant to include it
curriculum. Other broader terms that earlier postings have
used, can include in their definitions spirituality, but without
the same reaction: worldview, ontology, way(s) of being
As for myself, I hesitate to incorporate an overriding ontology
of American Indians into introductory curriculum mainly because,
that curriculum is the first time AI history is brought to the
students. In these courses, whether high-school or
undergraduate, I find there is a greater need to emphasis the
vast difference of native peoples and ontologies across the
northern hemisphere rather than their sameness.
If a topic being covered in the class is specific to a region or
tribal nation, of course incorporating that regional or tribally
specific worldview is integral to gaining any understanding of
the events being discussed.
Another reason I have found to avoid using the term
'spirituality' when entering into the discussion of worldview is
the reaction of many students. It has been my experience than
many students are over eager to learn about AI spiritual
practices. There is an assumption on their part that the
spiritual knowledge is 'theirs' for the taking and judging. In
my mind, AI spiritual knowledge is the privelege only of tribal
members. This is a point many students seem to miss, and one I
have found can side-track for days or weeks an introductory
class.
History is better taught specifically rather than generally.
Thanks,
Susie Husted
Librarian, Educator and Philosophy student
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 14:37:42 -0700
Reply-To: American Indians Forum
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: SH
Subject: Definitions of Culture
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Prof. Hoxie wrote:
3. DEFINITIONS OF CULTURE. As we organize and present
> materials related
> to Native American history, what should our operative
> definition of culture
> be? Are Indian communities fixed and bounded, organized around
> a set of
> common values and practices, or are these communities fluid
> and changeable?
^*^*^*^*^*^*
I would be interested in pursuing a discussion of the definition
of culture. My questions starts from the assumption that
culture is fluid and changeable and that it is always bound to
the land that it is lived on. One of the problems of educating
students about native peoples is that many- most- come to the
classroom with a static definition and image of native people;
an image they are reluctant to let go of.
It is this reluctance that I would like to address. I believe
it exists because many non-native Americans understand their own
identity as linked to American Indians. I am not saying that
Americans consider themselves 'like' AIs, but instead I am
saying that their historical identity is not complete without
their (often incorrect or skewed) views, definitions, and images
of AIs.
It is the following assertion that I'd would like some feedback
on: For non-native American students to be able to form a
cultural identity of themselves that truly reflects their
history, they will need to address their misunderstandings of
AIs and AI history. It is within this context of addressing
culture, that I believe AI history and issues may be able to
integrate (not assimilate) itself wholly into American history
curriculum rather than being relegated to a chapter or
specialized course.
Has anyone addressed the issues of AMERICAN culturally identity
in the classroom as a segue or context for discussing AMERICAN
INDIAN cultural identity?
Thanks,
Susie Husted
Librarian, Educator and Philosophy student
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 17:27:43 -0400
Reply-To: American Indians Forum
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: David Hanson
Subject: Re: Opening Statement from Prof. Hoxie
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Very interesting (Ronnie Peacock's comments about Clara True). I regret
the timing of this forum. Currently I am in the middle of grading papers
and final exams, so I must resist the temptation to engage in the
discussion at this time. Hopefully you'll hear from me later.
Dave Hanson
Professor of History
Virginia Western Community College
At 02:05 PM 5/1/01 -0600, you wrote:
>Prof. Hoxie,
>I would actually like to ask a question that crosses several of the areas
>you suggested. For my Master's Thesis I am following the trail - listening
>to the voice - of Clara True, long an educator and advocate of the Santa
>Clara Pueblo Indians. One of the secondary works that started me on this
>journey was David Wallace Adams' _Education for Extinction_ published in
>1995. His argument, as I understand it, is that the federal government had
>an agenda to assimilate out the Indian culture - their "lifeways" - through
>public education. Adams suggests that one should look at the teachers to
>see if they had the same agenda, but that he would not, and so I decided to
>follow the white women and ran smack into Clara. It is my understanding
>that Adams essentially offered an argument very similar to that which you
>offered in _Final Promise_ published in 1984, that of assimilation and
>acculturation so as to eliminate the Indian ways entirely, to "Americanize"
>and "civilize" this population of native peoples.
>
>I believe that Clara True did not bring to the West such an agenda, nor did
>cohorts like Mary Dissette. While Clara did work primarily with
>"Progressive Indians" and she got caught up, in the 1920s, with trying to do
>away with the Pueblo dances and the Berdache of the Zuni tribes, for the
>most part, her concern for the Pueblos appears to be genuine and not an
>attempt to change their ways to white ways. And it is simply amazing that
>everywhere I turn, I run into Clara, with her fingers in some other "pie,"
>but almost always on behalf of the Pueblos - unless, of course, it has to do
>with her personal life in which she always seems to be in substantial debt
>to someone.
>
>I am wondering if you still would argue as strongly for that government
>agenda of assimilation, and if your experience has indicated that the many
>teachers, particularly the eastern white women, traveled west with that same
>agenda. It is my hypothesis, presently unsupported by adequate research,
>that most of these women - perhaps with the exception of the more radical
>moral reformers of the Progressive Era - traveled West with the genuine
>intent to do "good", to bring varying levels of education, but not
>necessarily to enforce the change to white ways. I suppose, however, that
>any move to teach English, to change the appearance of the students by
>haircuts and clothing, to teach skills that will earn money in the white
>world are all attempts at assimilation, no matter how innocuously or gently
>performed, and no matter what the agenda that brings about such actions.
>
>This sounds like I am creating my own circular argument....I would
>appreciate your insight on this issue and look forward to this month of
>discussion.
>Ronnie
>
>(Mrs.) Ronnie Peacock
>Dept. of History
>University of Northern Colorado
>ronniep@qwest.net
>
>This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at
http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
>
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 17:47:57 -0700
Reply-To: American Indians Forum
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: Leif Fearn
Subject: Re: teaching native spirituality
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="============_-1223358018==_ma============"
--============_-1223358018==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Mr. Bellfy:
I recall years ago when I had the opportunity to join several
native friends in the kiva at Second Mesa for what became, at about
2:30 AM, a celebration of spirit(s) I had heard about but had never
seen, and that I never have seen since. I understood little of it at
the time, but I came to understand a little of it later in
conversation with my Hopi friends, one of whom was one of the
dancers. Trying to understand several thousand years of spiritual
development in about twelve hours is akin to trying to understand
western Christian philosophy in a similar amount of time. But I
learned a great deal in those twelve hours, and, like the influence
of the Navajo Yeh celebration of which I was an observer two years
before, I came away with a much more inclusive sense of peoples
together than I had going in. Did I understand? No, these kinds of
things don't render into an educator's neat sense of concept. So my
neat sense of concept had to change, and it did, and I have been able
to see the absurdity of just about all of what passes for education
about native peoples in my schoolized world as a result.
Of course, teach authentic visions of native spirituality.
Don't expect that everyone will understand, and don't become
despondent when people, both native and nonnative, fail the vision
test. The sense of spirit is complex. People grow in the complexity.
Leif Fearn
SDSU
>I recently had a short essay rejected by a major US Native Studies Journal.
>In the course of our correspondence over my essay (it had to do with
>teaching Native Studies while adhering to precepts of the oral tradition),
>the editor wondered why I would teach students (especially non-Native
>students) about the aspects of Indigenous spirituality.
>
>My response was that, as a Native person teaching native Studies, I should
>do nothing else. That is, that our spirituality and world view is what
>makes us Tribal --it is what sets us off from the dominant society. and
>most importantly (in my view) is that if students don't understand what and
>how we think about our (tribal) place in the world, they will never
>understand any of our history or our lifeways, and certainly they will never
>understand how and why the Europeans insisted --and continue to insist--
>that we , or else!!
>
>Europeans, neo-Europeans, and other everywhere assume (based on
>their spirituality and worldview) that their way of life is the epitome of
> and they can't understand why anyone would prefer to adhere
>to their ways.
>
>So, if I restrict my teaching to a strict History lesson (or Literature or
>Economics or Sociology) without explaining, as best I can, the underlying
>philosophy of Indigenous people (and, yes, I believe there is a
>generalizable philosophy) then I can't understand why
>I'm a teacher. My spirituality and worldview are what compels me to teach
>--keeping that spirituality and worldview out of the classroom would stand
>in direct opposition to everything I am trying to get my students to
>understand about Tribal people.
>
>The preceding is a truncated and simplified statement of my teaching
>, but it raises a question that I hope this forum will address:
>is it appropriate to expose students to a discussion about Native
>spirituality? Or, more pointedly, should non-Native students be exposed to
>such a discussion?
>
>What do you think?
>
>Phil Bellfy
Leif Fearn
San Diego State University
School of Teacher Education
Phone: 594-1366
FAX: 596-7828
lfearn@mail.sdsu.edu
--============_-1223358018==_ma============
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
Mr. Bellfy:
I recall years ago when I had the opportunity to join several native
friends in the kiva at Second Mesa for what became, at about 2:30 AM, a
celebration of spirit(s) I had heard about but had never seen, and that
I never have seen since. I understood little of it at the time, but I
came to understand a little of it later in conversation with my Hopi
friends, one of whom was one of the dancers. Trying to understand
several thousand years of spiritual development in about twelve hours
is akin to trying to understand western Christian philosophy in a
similar amount of time. But I learned a great deal in those twelve
hours, and, like the influence of the Navajo Yeh celebration of which I
was an observer two years before, I came away with a much more
inclusive sense of peoples together than I had going in. Did I
understand? No, these kinds of things don't render into an educator's
neat sense of concept. So my neat sense of concept had to change, and
it did, and I have been able to see the absurdity of just about all of
what passes for education about native peoples in my schoolized world
as a result.
Of course, teach authentic visions of native spirituality. Don't
expect that everyone will understand, and don't become despondent when
people, both native and nonnative, fail the vision test. The sense of
spirit is complex. People grow in the complexity.
Leif Fearn
SDSU
I recently had a short essay rejected by a major US
Native Studies Journal.
In the course of our correspondence over my essay (it had to do with
teaching Native Studies while adhering to precepts of the oral
tradition),
the editor wondered why I would teach students (especially non-Native
students) about the < aspects of Indigenous spirituality.
My response was that, as a Native person teaching native Studies, I
should
do nothing else. That is, that our spirituality and world view is
what
makes us Tribal --it is what sets us off from the dominant society.
and
most importantly (in my view) is that if students don't understand what
and
how we think about our (tribal) place in the world, they will never
understand any of our history or our lifeways, and certainly they will
never
understand how and why the Europeans insisted --and continue to
insist--
that we <, or else!!
Europeans, neo-Europeans, and other < everywhere assume
(based on
their spirituality and worldview) that their way of life is the epitome
of
< and they can't understand why anyone would prefer to
adhere
to their < ways.
So, if I restrict my teaching to a strict History lesson (or Literature
or
Economics or Sociology) without explaining, as best I can, the
underlying
philosophy of Indigenous people (and, yes, I believe there is a
generalizable < philosophy) then I can't understand
why
I'm a teacher. My spirituality and worldview are what compels me to
teach
--keeping that spirituality and worldview out of the classroom would
stand
in direct opposition to everything I am trying to get my students to
understand about Tribal people.
The preceding is a truncated and simplified statement of my teaching
<, but it raises a question that I hope this forum will
address:
is it appropriate to expose students to a discussion about Native
spirituality? Or, more pointedly, should non-Native students be
exposed to
such a discussion?
What do you think?
Phil Bellfy
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: Walter Johnson
Subject: Re: teaching native spirituality
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Phil; i'm of potawatomi/ho-chunk descent, enrolled at S.F.S.U. in California.
My minor is in Native Indian Studies, Major in American Studies. One of the
most interesting feelings that is out there is fear. If you don't know
anything about it you have fear of not knowing what "IT" is. Human nature.
O.k., you dispell that feeling with age and a lot of courage/strength and
often ignorance.
When people don't know the truth they tend to fill in all the blanks with
mis-information or they make up the truth to suit their own needs, un-just
and fair, neverthe less it happens. I often heard , " what are those indians
doing over there?", " Do you understand what they're saying?", "why is he
burning that sage?"
and if they don't know , they fill in the blanks, I have often given
presentations on certain forms of a spiritual practice to help dis-seminate
the knowledge contained therein and have found that white people are hesitant
in asking questions. Where as people of color are more forth right and
inquizative.
Spirituality, I explain is not just once a week or on retreats from
work,....but a way of life for us, every breath, movement and action.
In order to understand the whole, you have to understand the simple.
If Native Spirituality is to be taught, It should be through Indian Eyes, to
give the proper perspective.
Don't you think so ?
OGI
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 10:43:17 -0400
Reply-To: American Indians Forum
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: Jack Betterly
Subject: The Evolution of Traditions.
In-Reply-To:
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
I was raised a Congregationalist Protestant Christian in a rural church
in Pennsylvania, by dear parents of great faith. I now call myself Buddhist,
whatever that means. I have mixed broadly with American Indians. I have been
a guest on all of the Iroquois reservations in New York on a sabbatical. I
was a guest of an Arapaho family camped out in the Wind River Basin in
Wyoming for the week of the Sun Dance festival. I have had an exchange to
Rock Point School in the Navajo nation. I am 65.
Spiritual traditions evolve or die. A Jew can not live as did a shepherd
in the Galilee in 500 BCE, nor see the same world view. My parent's
Christianity was not that of Saint Paul, and had absorbed Darwinism,
Democracy. Mozart and Martin Luther King. They called themselves Christian,
but they knew they meant Christian Update version 564.6. Certainly the same
might be said of my Buddhism.
I do not see the purpose of a history teacher as being the preservation
of any particular worldview - spiritual, political or economic. We teach
many of them so that students may draw from them to create, as they must,
their own particular version of their own particular tradition.
To me, if history teaches anything at all, it teaches the inevitability
of change. If you lock any child into a single vision, it is like encasing
their young bodies in concrete or steel. If they can not grow, change,
become their own being, they will die.
I taught about every faith I thought I had time for. I tried very hard
to give none preference, and I warned my students that I would be
unsuccessful and to guard against my biases. I wanted them to feel that the
evolution of their own faith was crucially important. A Cherokee loved and
raised by Cherokees will start with one wonderful heritage; a Navajo raised
by Navajos, another; a Talmudic Jew by Talmudic Jews, another. Those who
remain there will wither. Those who seek to grow will not.
If we all learn from each other, that growth will happen. If it does,
our vision will differ from that of our grandfathers - but our faith will
not. I could not be the Buddhist I am today had it not been for the visions
given me by my Christian parents, my Amerindian friends, and my Asian
teachers.
--
"In wide America, in this sprawling map of dizzily drawn borders, we find no
common culture, nor should we expect to. Time has been at work, dilatorily,
for a few hundred years in this nation, not even long enough for us to agree
on a speed limit, let alone a culture."
- America, New Mexico
by Robert Leonard Reid.
Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1998
p. 181
Jack Betterly
Emma Willard School, Emeritus
Troy, NY 12180-5294 E-mail: jbetterl@yahoo.com
New Web Site:
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 10:05:59 -0500
Reply-To: American Indians Forum
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: Susan Witt
Subject: Re: teaching native spirituality
In-Reply-To: <8FA4DA62F212D4119AD3009027CCB4EC2BA9DA@www.nres.uiuc.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi,
Some interesting discussions here. On the one hand, seems like it is taking
the focus off of history, but then there are some strong connections between
history and the present, that should probably be brought out in the teaching
of history.
In response to OGI's comment:
>>>>Spirituality, I explain is not just once a week or on retreats from
work,....but a way of life for us, every breath, movement and action.
In order to understand the whole, you have to understand the simple.
If Native Spirituality is to be taught, It should be through Indian Eyes, to
give the proper perspective.
Don't you think so ? OGI<<<<<<
My question is, what do you think this means for a white teacher who is
trying to integrate multiples cultures into an overall history class?
Should the teacher get a guest speaker for every culture s/he wants to
represent? If this isn't practical, should the teacher just not talk about
those areas?
Susan
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 14:23:46 -0400
Reply-To: American Indians Forum
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: Barb Tracy
Subject: Re: Definitions of Culture
Susie,
I teach Native American Literature and would like to respond to two points
in your posting:
First:
>I would be interested in pursuing a discussion of the definition
>of culture. My questions starts from the assumption that
>culture is fluid and changeable and that it is always bound to
>the land that it is lived on.
I'm not sure that I undertand your definition, especially when we
are talking about Native Americans, many of whom have had their land base
taken away. Do you mean a feeling of conection to the land or an actual
land base. Secondly, doesn't culture also include concepts of time,
language, social structure, values, assumptions, shared experience?
Second:
>It is the following assertion that I'd would like some feedback
>on: For non-native American students to be able to form a
>cultural identity of themselves that truly reflects their
>history, they will need to address their misunderstandings of
>AIs and AI history. It is within this context of addressing
>culture, that I believe AI history and issues may be able to
>integrate (not assimilate) itself wholly into American history
>curriculum rather than being relegated to a chapter or
>specialized course.
>
>Has anyone addressed the issues of AMERICAN culturally identity
>in the classroom as a segue or context for discussing AMERICAN
>INDIAN cultural identity?
>
My non-native students often believe that culture is something that _others_
have. So how do we teach respect and appreciation of all cultures if the
student doesn't respect or even recognize his/her own? So I start there.
We define culture, examine some indigenous cultures and then I ask them to
examine elements of culture in their own families or communities. They
typcially spend some time with community and family members collecting and
examining histories, geography, stories, values, traditions, etc and then
come back excited to share what they learned, then we go back to indigenous
cultures and the discussion takes on a very different tone than in the
begining.
Barb Tracy
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 11:52:48 -0700
Reply-To: American Indians Forum
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: Chris Hannibal-Paci
Subject: Re: Opening Statement from Prof. Hoxie
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hello all,
I am an instructor at the University of Northern British Columbia, teaching primarily in the First Nations Studies Program of the College of Arts,
Social and Health Sciences.
I joined the Talking History forum to enter into discussions about the vast topic of Native American history. My interest goes back to my Ph.d., an
interdisciplinary program from the University of Manitoba (History, Natural Resources Institute and Zoology). I have had the great opportunity to learn
from many Native and Canadian teachers. One teacher, Dr Jennifer Brown co-edited a book with Elizabeth Vibert (Reading Beyond Words: Contexts for Native
History, Broadview Press, 1996). I bring up the book because it does a nice job at discussing issues of voice and representation, as well as insisting
that we become more aware of both specific and larger global forces at work when researching and studying Native History.
I agree with Professor Hoxie that in Canada the issue of terminology comes up often, especially in class. My personal preference is to begin with
pan-Indian terminology and to break that down to specific names. Of course the distinctions are not only academic but reflect the nature of the question
being asked and answered. For example, I started this email using the term Native History. UNBC is located in the city of Prince George, British
Columbia. Anthropologists have a classification system of culture areas. Using the culture area designation I am writing to you from Carrier territory
of the Interior Plateau. The Carrier have most recently asserted, socially and politically, their self-identity as Dakelth (and sometimes Yinka Dene).
The Prince George campus is located specifically on Lheldi T'enneh traditional territory. LT First Nation is one Dakelth (Carrier) community not
affiliated with the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, a Council that represents the majority of Carrier and Sekani communities in the area. I was in
Saskatchewan lately, at the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College. The terminology they use there is Indian and Indian Studies is taught along with
other courses and programs of studies, endorsed by the five Indian Nations of Saskatchewan. One point I have not made till now is that the Indian Act,
an act of the Canadian parliament has a large control over the governance, social life, education, and so on of Aboriginal communities in Canada, in
particular over the lives of status Indians (not to mention Inuit and Metis).
As for ignorance the question "where should our interventions be in this sea of ignorance" is an excellent one indeed. I think it is unwise to think
that the problem is insurmountable. We can either participate in the ignorance by not knowing our history or we can whitewash history to tell only one
story about what has passed. I like what Jill Lepore says in The Name of War and wonder how others read her.
I think I will stop here and see what sort of discussions are going on. Hope to hear from others around some of these questions/issues.
Chris Hannibal-Paci, Ph.D.
Instructor, UNBC, FNST
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 12:59:54 -0700
Reply-To: American Indians Forum
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: SH
Subject: Re: Definitions of Culture/Barb Tracy
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Thanks for the reply Barb.
I agree with your starting point, and have found too that it is
important for non-native students to enter into a discussion
about their own culture before investigating others.
I was not trying to be exclusionary in my defintion of culture,
of all the ways in which culture manifests itself, such as
"concepts of language, social structure, values, assumptions" as
you mentioned. Rather I was trying to state the assumptions
about what culture is that I bring to my discussion of it.
Sorry if I did not do so clearly enough.
Prof. Hoxie in his opening statement addressed the definition of
culture as one which can be seen as static or seen as something
fluid. I am of the latter camp. I believe culture is fluid.
As for the land connection, I should have made myself clearer.
I do not mean to bring in the often stereotypical use of
connection to the land and closeness to the land that is
associated with Native peoples, but rather I am making an
assertion that a culture is shaped by its landscape. The ways
in which a culture is manifested, through its social structure,
values, and language, is affected by the land on which it is
practiced. Because of the historic change of traditional land
bases for Native peoples, their cultures have changed and are
affected by the new landscape.
I find this point important when teaching non-Native students
about their own culture because so often they identify
themselves with a culture which is based no where near their
home. When in reality the greatest influence on the way they
live their culture is the landscape in their backyard. IOW,
there is an American culture, but it is very different depending
on where you live. Getting this point across, makes a good
segue I've found to addressing the difference in American Indian
cultures across the continent.
I hope that's a little clearer.
Susie Husted
Librarian, Educator and Philosophy student
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 16:56:46 -0400
Reply-To: American Indians Forum
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: Carl Benn
Subject: Re: Opening Statement from Prof. Hoxie
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hello everyone
I would like to comment briefly on the issue of what terminology to use and
see what people think.
First, as a Canadian, I find that 'Native-American' sounds exclusionary. As
well, it suggests that the First Nations do not have an identity different
from 'Irish-Americans,' 'Italian-Americans,' etc., which is unfortunate. The
word 'Amerindian' seems to have gone out of fashion, probably deservedly,
and words like 'aboriginal' and 'native' seem limiting and problematic, like
'white' and 'black' are.
So, I created a kind of hierarchy in writing about First Nations that
attempts to have an equality in form between native and other designations.
At base, I use the non-capitalized words 'native' 'aboriginal' 'indigenous'
alongside 'white' and 'black' to signify their limitations as
conceptualizations, given, for example, the intermixing of peoples in the
historic Great Lakes region, where my studies are concentrated.
Above that level, at the tribal/national level, I capitalize, so that
'Mohawk,' for example, gets the same play as, say, 'English.' (I use 'tribe'
and 'nation' interchangeably, as seems to have been normal in the 18th- and
19th- century eras in which I work.
Above that, words such as 'Iroquois' 'Iroquoian etc. are capitalized and
seen as equivalent to concepts such as 'British' and 'Scandinavian
And, at the top of my little hierarchy, I used 'First Nations' as an
equivalency in status to words such as 'Europeans.'
I haven't worked out yet what I want to do about English-language vs First
Nations names for people, although I currently use the name that most people
will know. So, for example, writing in Canada, the word 'Mohawk' is better
known than the indigenous name, but 'Akwesasne' is better known than the
Euroamerican name.
What do people think?
Cheers.
Carl Benn
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 18:11:56 -0700
Reply-To: American Indians Forum
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: Leif Fearn
Subject: Re: Definitions of Culture
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Thank you Barb Tracy. I don't know why it is, but you're correct
about the cultural perspective of "mainstream" students, those
students who do not identify themselves as being "of color." That
they move about with the notion of culture being what other peoples
have, and at the same time have the reputation of functioning rather
effectively, seems to call into question the necessity of explicit or
conscious cultural awareness. That aside, to begin with that
cultural sadness is correct if everyone is to identify with cultural
idiosyncrasies.
Leif Fearn
SDSU
>Susie,
>I teach Native American Literature and would like to respond to two points
>in your posting:
>
>First:
> >I would be interested in pursuing a discussion of the definition
> >of culture. My questions starts from the assumption that
> >culture is fluid and changeable and that it is always bound to
> >the land that it is lived on.
>
>I'm not sure that I undertand your definition, especially when we
>are talking about Native Americans, many of whom have had their land base
>taken away. Do you mean a feeling of conection to the land or an actual
>land base. Secondly, doesn't culture also include concepts of time,
>language, social structure, values, assumptions, shared experience?
>
>Second:
> >It is the following assertion that I'd would like some feedback
> >on: For non-native American students to be able to form a
> >cultural identity of themselves that truly reflects their
> >history, they will need to address their misunderstandings of
> >AIs and AI history. It is within this context of addressing
> >culture, that I believe AI history and issues may be able to
> >integrate (not assimilate) itself wholly into American history
> >curriculum rather than being relegated to a chapter or
> >specialized course.
> >
> >Has anyone addressed the issues of AMERICAN culturally identity
> >in the classroom as a segue or context for discussing AMERICAN
> >INDIAN cultural identity?
> >
>
>My non-native students often believe that culture is something that _others_
>have. So how do we teach respect and appreciation of all cultures if the
>student doesn't respect or even recognize his/her own? So I start there.
>We define culture, examine some indigenous cultures and then I ask them to
>examine elements of culture in their own families or communities. They
>typcially spend some time with community and family members collecting and
>examining histories, geography, stories, values, traditions, etc and then
>come back excited to share what they learned, then we go back to indigenous
>cultures and the discussion takes on a very different tone than in the
>begining.
>
>Barb Tracy
>
>This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web
>site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for
>teaching U.S. History.
Leif Fearn
San Diego State University
School of Teacher Education
Phone: 594-1366
FAX: 596-7828
lfearn@mail.sdsu.edu
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 18:17:01 -0700
Reply-To: American Indians Forum
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: Leif Fearn
Subject: Re: Opening Statement from Prof. Hoxie
In-Reply-To: <000a01c0d34a$67b17e60$0101a8c0@bennc>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
I think our collective need to name people is tedious. But Indian
people don't seem to mind much, or at least they don't make much of
it. That's probably because they're fully involved with distributing
food, building roads, and trying to find their way out from under
that "plight" nonIndians ascribe to them.
Leif Fearn
SDSU
>Hello everyone
>
>I would like to comment briefly on the issue of what terminology to use and
>see what people think.
>
>First, as a Canadian, I find that 'Native-American' sounds exclusionary. As
>well, it suggests that the First Nations do not have an identity different
>from 'Irish-Americans,' 'Italian-Americans,' etc., which is unfortunate. The
>word 'Amerindian' seems to have gone out of fashion, probably deservedly,
>and words like 'aboriginal' and 'native' seem limiting and problematic, like
>'white' and 'black' are.
>
>So, I created a kind of hierarchy in writing about First Nations that
>attempts to have an equality in form between native and other designations.
>
>At base, I use the non-capitalized words 'native' 'aboriginal' 'indigenous'
>alongside 'white' and 'black' to signify their limitations as
>conceptualizations, given, for example, the intermixing of peoples in the
>historic Great Lakes region, where my studies are concentrated.
>
>Above that level, at the tribal/national level, I capitalize, so that
>'Mohawk,' for example, gets the same play as, say, 'English.' (I use 'tribe'
>and 'nation' interchangeably, as seems to have been normal in the 18th- and
>19th- century eras in which I work.
>
>Above that, words such as 'Iroquois' 'Iroquoian etc. are capitalized and
>seen as equivalent to concepts such as 'British' and 'Scandinavian
>
>And, at the top of my little hierarchy, I used 'First Nations' as an
>equivalency in status to words such as 'Europeans.'
>
>I haven't worked out yet what I want to do about English-language vs First
>Nations names for people, although I currently use the name that most people
>will know. So, for example, writing in Canada, the word 'Mohawk' is better
>known than the indigenous name, but 'Akwesasne' is better known than the
>Euroamerican name.
>
>What do people think?
>
>Cheers.
>
>Carl Benn
>
>This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web
>site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for
>teaching U.S. History.
Leif Fearn
San Diego State University
School of Teacher Education
Phone: 594-1366
FAX: 596-7828
lfearn@mail.sdsu.edu
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 17:12:41 -0500
Reply-To: American Indians Forum
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: blangdon@SCC.CC.NE.US
Subject: Re: Definitions of Culture/Barb Tracy
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
SH @ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU> on 05/02/2001 02:59:54
PM
Please respond to American Indians Forum
Sent by: American Indians Forum
To: AMERICANINDIANSFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
cc:
Subject: Re: Definitions of Culture/Barb Tracy
Susie,
Thanks for explaining this. It makes a lot of sense, and I like
how you tie in the change of landscape with changing culture.
I also discuss land as part of culture. Teaching here in Nebraska
I have to chuckle when my white students who grew up on farms
say that they don't have culture. It doesn't take them long to figure
out that they do and that it is partly shaped by the land. In the
assignment I mentioned earlier about investigating their own culture,
I do ask them about how their family has moved from one place to another.
I think I will add to that a question about how the change in landscape
affected the family and then bring that into discussion of how removal
affected tribes.
Thanks! This was really helpful.
Barb
As for the land connection, I should have made myself clearer.
I do not mean to bring in the often stereotypical use of
connection to the land and closeness to the land that is
associated with Native peoples, but rather I am making an
assertion that a culture is shaped by its landscape. The ways
in which a culture is manifested, through its social structure,
values, and language, is affected by the land on which it is
practiced. Because of the historic change of traditional land
bases for Native peoples, their cultures have changed and are
affected by the new landscape.
I find this point important when teaching non-Native students
about their own culture because so often they identify
themselves with a culture which is based no where near their
home. When in reality the greatest influence on the way they
live their culture is the landscape in their backyard. IOW,
there is an American culture, but it is very different depending
on where you live. Getting this point across, makes a good
segue I've found to addressing the difference in American Indian
cultures across the continent.
I hope that's a little clearer.
Susie Husted
Librarian, Educator and Philosophy student
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at
http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 17:25:21 -0700
Reply-To: American Indians Forum
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: Abear
Subject: Re: Opening Statement from Prof. Hoxie
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002F_01C0D32C.DDA87380"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_002F_01C0D32C.DDA87380
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Han Professor Hoxie, others here in this forum,
I am a simple person, and I am here to listen and learn from all of you.
Am I college educated? Yes. Cum Laude honors, majoring in Psychology and
English Literature (and yes, my grammer can be attrocious), with two minors. Am
I a First Nations individual? Yep, am this. Sicangu Lakota Oyate, Mato Oyate.
I see lots of terms, defining, redefining, explanations, justifications.
I am not "Sioux." I am Sicangu, Lakota Oyate. Is pretty simple. My culture is
hundreds of thousands of years old. Is not land based. My culture is my
language, my ceremonies,the history of my people, my oral traditions and
histories, my tiwahe, my tiospaye, the Lakol Oyate. Some will say " Lakota are
Plains People," and this is true...now.....but long time ago, we were woodland
people in Great Lakes area...not called Canada or USA.... we were pushed out of
this area to west and adapted, roamed, traveled.
So my question to many of you, just curious mind you. Those of you who
teach First Nation concepts/theories/histories/etc..... how what is your
heritage? Are you First Nations, Euro, what? Professor Hoxie, I agree, and my
uncle would agree....education is critical. I hope the forest is not lost for
the trees tho...smile.
Respectfully,
Mitakuye Oyasin,
Lexi Eagle Bear
"Guard your tongue in youth, and you may
grow old enough to nurture a thought that
may be of benefit to your People"--Lakota
"Better to die on one's feet than live on one's knees."
------=_NextPart_000_002F_01C0D32C.DDA87380
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Han Professor Hoxie, others =
here in this=20
forum,
I am =
a simple=20
person, and I am here to listen and learn from all of you. Am I =
college=20
educated? Yes. Cum Laude honors, majoring in Psychology and =
English=20
Literature (and yes, my grammer can be attrocious), with two =
minors. Am I=20
a First Nations individual? Yep, am this. Sicangu Lakota Oyate, =
Mato=20
Oyate.
I =
see lots of=20
terms, defining, redefining, explanations, justifications. I am =
not=20
"Sioux." I am Sicangu, Lakota Oyate. Is pretty=20
simple. My culture is hundreds of thousands of years old. Is not =
land=20
based. My culture is my language, my ceremonies,the history of my=20
people, my oral traditions and histories, my tiwahe, my tiospaye, =
the=20
Lakol Oyate. Some will say " Lakota are Plains People," =
and this=20
is true...now.....but long time ago, we were woodland people in Great =
Lakes=20
area...not called Canada or USA.... we were pushed out of this area to =
west and=20
adapted, roamed, traveled.
So =
my question=20
to many of you, just curious mind you. Those of you who teach =
First Nation=20
concepts/theories/histories/etc..... how what is your heritage? =
Are you=20
First Nations, Euro, what? Professor Hoxie, I agree, and my =
uncle=20
would agree....education is critical. I hope the forest is not =
lost for=20
the trees tho...smile.
=
=20
Respectfully,
&n=
bsp; =20
Mitakuye=20
Oyasin,
&n=
bsp; &nb=
sp; =20
Lexi Eagle Bear
"Guard your tongue in youth, and you may =
grow old=20
enough to nurture a thought that
may be of benefit to your=20
People"--Lakota =
"Better=20
to die on one's feet than live on one's=20
knees."
------=_NextPart_000_002F_01C0D32C.DDA87380--
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 20:07:07 -0500
Reply-To: American Indians Forum
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: Michael Werner
Subject: Range and Variety
In-Reply-To: <200105020354.f423sh126678@midway.uchicago.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
A few brief thoughts re the "Range and Variety" thread. As we think about how
to include AI cultures of Alaska and Canada, we might also want to look south
toward Mexico and, to a lesser extent, the Caribbean and Central America. As I
see it, there are a number of important reasons for doing so. First, we cannot
appreciate the history of many tribes in the present-day US without addressing
their connections with peoples, land, and resources in what is today Mexico.
Second, a more "southward" perspective also can give an important long-duree
and comparative cast to our discussion of the relationship between "Indians"
and "whites" in the southwestern and southeastern US. Third, if these
connections generally are unrecognized by most of our students, my experience
has been that they are very much on the minds of many Mexican/Mexican-
American/Chicano students. Fourth, migrants from indigenous communities in
Mexico and Central America are an increasing presence in many parts of the US
(e.g., the Mixteco community on the west coast). Finally, this perspective
might encourage students to think about US ethnic identities--and particularly
AI identity--in new ways.
What are your thoughts on this?
Michael Werner
Doctoral Student
Department of History
University of Chicago
msw5@midway.uchicago.edu
5432 S. Kimbark Ave., #1F
Chicago, IL 60615-5218
(773)288-6977
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 00:21:26 -0400
Reply-To: American Indians Forum
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: Eileen Walsh
Subject: Re: teaching native spirituality
I am teaching a history course on Indians of North
America. I'll write in another thread of this
forum about the range of the course. What draws me
to this discussion of spirituality issues is that I
have been having a very difficult time with one
student in the class this semester. Without
identifying him too closely, I will say that he is
Indian, and considers himself a minister of the
Lord (his term). The problem is that he insists
that there is a commonality among all Indians, over
all time--and not just in an abstract sense. He
constantly refers to "we" and "us" and "our
religion" without clarifying who that refers to--
and when I or students ask, the response is
"Indians." He is willing to generalize that all
Indians know certain things, all Indians have
always believed certain things, all Indians aspire
to certain things--in other words, he denies
diversity among or within groups of Indians over
time and in different places.
It seems important to him; this isn't about him
wanting to give me a hard time (though it is the
most challenging sitution I can recall in 17 years
of teaching). I think it is about his own
identity, and therefore it is very important to
him. However, it is historically inaccurate and I
cannot let it go. Without ridiculing him, I have
tried to present evidence to the contrary. We are
using Nancy Shoemaker's new anthology, American
Indians, which does a good job of showing a variety
of perspectives over time. I'm not sure he's
reading it, having dismissed me as an opponent.
I was prepared to deal with this problem from non-
native students, but that has not been the problem.
It's an interesting reversal of my teacherly
expectations! What is most interesting is that
other Indian students have taken him on about that,
as have some White students. Nobody wants to get
into a big fight, though--northern Minnesotans
don't seem to do that, whatever their ethnic
heritage. Kindof a stoic cultural landscape. I
wondered what you folks think of this situation?
Oh, and I like Jack Betterly's quote in another
thread--seems appropriate here, too:
"In wide America, in this sprawling map of dizzily
drawn borders, we find no common culture, nor
should we expect to. Time has been at work,
dilatorily, for a few hundred years in this nation,
not even long enough for us to agree on a speed
limit, let alone a culture."
- America, New Mexico
by Robert Leonard Reid.
Tucson: University of Arizona Press p.181
Eileen Walsh
History Department
Bemidji State University
Bemidji MN 56601
http://cal.bemidji.msus.edu/history/faculty/
walsh.html
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 00:50:29 -0400
Reply-To: American Indians Forum
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: Eileen Walsh
Subject: Re: Opening Statement (Range & Variety)
It is delightful to have colleagues to talk with
about these matters. I am the only historian at my
university who teaches American Indian history, and
I was restricted to developing only a one-semester
course, despite the fact that the campus is in a
border town near 3 Ojibwe reservations. Recognizing
that this would have to be some survey (!), I
decided not to focus tightly but rather to provide
a good overview, trusting that long lives and
popular culture will add to whatever students begin
in this course. So it caught my eye when Professor
Hoxie wrote:
"6. RANGE AND VARIETY. Most classes and textbooks
ignore Alaska and Canada. How (or should) these
North American cases be brought into focus in our
courses? Do they have distinctly different themes?
Similarly, few courses or discussions place Native
Americans in a global context. How can we do that?
These comparisons are difficult because the
national contexts for indigenous people have been
so different and because those contexts have shaped
Indian people."
My course is titled, "Indians of North America." I
decided that current national boundaries are
important in the experiences of American Indians,
but are not always the primary identifier in
historical context. That point was reinforced on
the first day of class when a student was
introduced as being from Canada. I smiled and made
some remark about welcoming a foreigner into the
class, but he said, "I'm not foreign. I'm Ojibwe."
I had to admit he had a point. He also graciously
admitted that he does have dual citizenship.
Our first reading material was Anne Cameron's
Daughters of Copper Woman, which encompasses a huge
amount of time, from creation stories to the 1980s,
and is set in today's British Columbia. I did not
use a book on northern Mexico, thinking we would
use articles and chapters. We used Nancy
Shoemaker's new anthology, American Indians, in
part because of its wide coverage and in part
because of its nice match of 2 primary documents
with each scholarly essay. That has worked well,
as primary documents so often do (especially the
photographs). Students chose to read either Winona
LaDuke's historical novel, Last Standing Woman, or
Kent Nerburn's historical novel, Neither Wolf Nor
Dog. The idea was to teach the book they read to
the half of class that read the other book, placing
it in historical context for them. It works great.
I lectured to provide the narrative connecting all
these things, though we lost a lot of time this
semester to arguing with one student who consumed a
lot of attention (see thread on spirituality for my
story on that!).
I'm afraid I did ignore Alaska. Poor Hawaii didn't
stand a chance of getting in (of course it is not
North American, but it is US-ian....)
Some students expected to learn lists of tribes,
languages, locations, etc. I recommended they head
over to Anthropology, because I wasn't going to
spend 16 weeks doing memorization. I am much more
interested in teaching the complexity of American
Indian experiences, before encounter, before
conquest, before today.
So what do you think?
Eileen Walsh
History Department
Bemidji State University
Bemidji MN 56601
http://cal.bemidji.msus.edu/history/faculty/
walsh.html
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 01:20:56 -0400
Reply-To: American Indians Forum
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: Denise Jarvis
Subject: Re: teaching native spirituality
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Hello,
I would think the question is , why wouldn't they want students Indian and
non-Indian alike to be taught about spirituality when it is so much a part
of Indian culture and life?
>From: "Noonan, Ellen"
>Reply-To: American Indians Forum
>
>To: AMERICANINDIANSFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
>Subject: teaching native spirituality
>Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 15:59:39 -0400
>
>I recently had a short essay rejected by a major US Native Studies
>Journal.
>In the course of our correspondence over my essay (it had to do with
>teaching Native Studies while adhering to precepts of the oral
>tradition),
>the editor wondered why I would teach students (especially non-Native
>students) about the aspects of Indigenous spirituality.
>
>My response was that, as a Native person teaching native Studies, I
>should
>do nothing else. That is, that our spirituality and world view is what
>makes us Tribal --it is what sets us off from the dominant society. and
>most importantly (in my view) is that if students don't understand what
>and
>how we think about our (tribal) place in the world, they will never
>understand any of our history or our lifeways, and certainly they will
>never
>understand how and why the Europeans insisted --and continue to insist--
>that we , or else!!
>
>Europeans, neo-Europeans, and other everywhere assume (based
>on
>their spirituality and worldview) that their way of life is the epitome
>of
> and they can't understand why anyone would prefer to
>adhere
>to their ways.
>
>So, if I restrict my teaching to a strict History lesson (or Literature
>or
>Economics or Sociology) without explaining, as best I can, the
>underlying
>philosophy of Indigenous people (and, yes, I believe there is a
>generalizable philosophy) then I can't understand
>why
>I'm a teacher. My spirituality and worldview are what compels me to
>teach
>--keeping that spirituality and worldview out of the classroom would
>stand
>in direct opposition to everything I am trying to get my students to
>understand about Tribal people.
>
>The preceding is a truncated and simplified statement of my teaching
>, but it raises a question that I hope this forum will
>address:
>is it appropriate to expose students to a discussion about Native
>spirituality? Or, more pointedly, should non-Native students be exposed
>to
>such a discussion?
>
>What do you think?
>
>Phil Bellfy
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 10:06:32 EDT
Reply-To: American Indians Forum
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: Vicki Lockard
Subject: Re: Opening Statement from Prof. Hoxie
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="part1_79.1426000a.2822bfe8_boundary"
--part1_79.1426000a.2822bfe8_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Greetings,
First off, let me say that I am not a professional educator. However, I
do educate. I am the editor of a biweekly online ezine that strives to teach
the truths about our people. We operate with the belief that it's important
to teach the correct history and to let others know that we are ALIVE. I
also work with American Indians, Alaskan Natives and First Nations Peoples on
a daily basis. So, my thoughts come from a Native perspective.
I would like to address every question that was asked, but will begin
with the question about terminology. Again, this comes straight from the
people.
In the U.S., the preferred method is to address a person by the tribal
affiliation. Such as...Dakota, Choctaw, etc. If that is not known, American
Indian is the second choice. American Indians often refer to themselves as
"Indians." Most do not object to being acknowledged as Natives.
Alaskan Natives wish to be addressed by their affiliation, also...ex.
Aluet. And, if that is not known, Alaskan Natives should be used.
Finally, in my experience, Canadian First Nations also prefer their band
names to be used. Ex. Inuit, Cree, etc. Aboriginals and/or First Nations
Peoples are also acceptable.
It can be very confusing.
I look forward to these discussions, and hope that I can add some
insight, too.
Pidamaya yedo,
Vicki Lockard
editor "Canku Ota" (Many Paths)
http://www.turtletrack.org
--part1_79.1426000a.2822bfe8_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Greetings,
First off, let me say that I am not a professional educator. However, I
do educate. I am the editor of a biweekly online ezine that strives to teach
the truths about our people. We operate with the belief that it's important
to teach the correct history and to let others know that we are ALIVE. I
also work with American Indians, Alaskan Natives and First Nations Peoples on
a daily basis. So, my thoughts come from a Native perspective.
I would like to address every question that was asked, but will begin
with the question about terminology. Again, this comes straight from the
people.
In the U.S., the preferred method is to address a person by the tribal
affiliation. Such as...Dakota, Choctaw, etc. If that is not known, American
Indian is the second choice. American Indians often refer to themselves as
"Indians." Most do not object to being acknowledged as Natives.
Alaskan Natives wish to be addressed by their affiliation, also...ex.
Aluet. And, if that is not known, Alaskan Natives should be used.
Finally, in my experience, Canadian First Nations also prefer their band
names to be used. Ex. Inuit, Cree, etc. Aboriginals and/or First Nations
Peoples are also acceptable.
It can be very confusing.
I look forward to these discussions, and hope that I can add some
insight, too.
Pidamaya yedo,
Vicki Lockard
editor "Canku Ota" (Many Paths)
http://www.turtletrack.org
--part1_79.1426000a.2822bfe8_boundary--
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 09:56:59 -0400
Reply-To: American Indians Forum
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: Joseph Starrs
Subject: Re: Definitions of Culture
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
To all
I hope this is not too much of a departure from the discussion. I would
like to throw out the importance of language and culture. How possible is
it to retain or recapture a sense of culture without the original language?
I grew up on the Navajo Reservation ( I am Anglo or "Bilagana" as the
Navajos say) and my friends who spoke their native language had a much
deeper grasp ( I believe) of the Navajo Way. In teaching Native Studies, I
would think a rudimentary understanding (at minimum) of the language would
be critical.
Joe in DC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leif Fearn [SMTP:lfearn@MAIL.SDSU.EDU]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 9:12 PM
> To: AMERICANINDIANSFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU
> Subject: Re: Definitions of Culture
>
> Thank you Barb Tracy. I don't know why it is, but you're correct
> about the cultural perspective of "mainstream" students, those
> students who do not identify themselves as being "of color." That
> they move about with the notion of culture being what other peoples
> have, and at the same time have the reputation of functioning rather
> effectively, seems to call into question the necessity of explicit or
> conscious cultural awareness. That aside, to begin with that
> cultural sadness is correct if everyone is to identify with cultural
> idiosyncrasies.
>
> Leif Fearn
> SDSU
>
>
> >Susie,
> >I teach Native American Literature and would like to respond to two
> points
> >in your posting:
> >
> >First:
> > >I would be interested in pursuing a discussion of the definition
> > >of culture. My questions starts from the assumption that
> > >culture is fluid and changeable and that it is always bound to
> > >the land that it is lived on.
> >
> >I'm not sure that I undertand your definition, especially when we
> >are talking about Native Americans, many of whom have had their land base
> >taken away. Do you mean a feeling of conection to the land or an actual
> >land base. Secondly, doesn't culture also include concepts of time,
> >language, social structure, values, assumptions, shared experience?
> >
> >Second:
> > >It is the following assertion that I'd would like some feedback
> > >on: For non-native American students to be able to form a
> > >cultural identity of themselves that truly reflects their
> > >history, they will need to address their misunderstandings of
> > >AIs and AI history. It is within this context of addressing
> > >culture, that I believe AI history and issues may be able to
> > >integrate (not assimilate) itself wholly into American history
> > >curriculum rather than being relegated to a chapter or
> > >specialized course.
> > >
> > >Has anyone addressed the issues of AMERICAN culturally identity
> > >in the classroom as a segue or context for discussing AMERICAN
> > >INDIAN cultural identity?
> > >
> >
> >My non-native students often believe that culture is something that
> _others_
> >have. So how do we teach respect and appreciation of all cultures if the
> >student doesn't respect or even recognize his/her own? So I start there.
> >We define culture, examine some indigenous cultures and then I ask them
> to
> >examine elements of culture in their own families or communities. They
> >typcially spend some time with community and family members collecting
> and
> >examining histories, geography, stories, values, traditions, etc and then
> >come back excited to share what they learned, then we go back to
> indigenous
> >cultures and the discussion takes on a very different tone than in the
> >begining.
> >
> >Barb Tracy
> >
> >This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web
> >site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for
> >teaching U.S. History.
>
> Leif Fearn
> San Diego State University
> School of Teacher Education
> Phone: 594-1366
> FAX: 596-7828
> lfearn@mail.sdsu.edu
>
> This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at
> http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S.
> History.
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 11:55:47 -0400
Reply-To: American Indians Forum
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: David Hanson
Subject: Re: Opening Statement from Prof. Hoxie
In-Reply-To: <79.1426000a.2822bfe8@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html";
boundary="=====================_4054800==_.ALT"
--=====================_4054800==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I have a friend named Uses Arrow who is a Lakota. I have not seem him for
some
time now, but as I recall, this squares with what he once told me. In essence
he said, I'm a Lakota, but most people would not know that or what it means to
be a Lakota. If they want to know, I will explain it to them. Otherwise they
can call me an Indian, or a Native American, or a man. That is not
important.
Treating me with the same courtesy and respect as anyone else, that is the
important thing.
I teach college-level U.S. history survey courses and we have about 400 years
to cover, so we really can't get down to the level of depth and detail that
has
been discussed so far in this forum. I think I'm doing well if I can get
students to understand that the greatest threat to settlers going to Oregon
and
California in the 1840s was the natural elements, not hostile Indians.
Even if
I understood all the nuances of Indian nationality, culture and
spirituality, I
could not dwell on it our we would never get from Christopher Columbus to
Jimmy
Carter. Of course, it is different for those of you who teach specialized
courses concentrating on American Indians.
For those of us who teach U.S. history, it is important to treat all topics as
fairly and accurately as possible. Most of us see the past and present
through
the filters of our own cultural experience and values. This is reflected in
our teaching. My own experience is that of a middle-class,
eastern/midwestern,
male WASP, and I cannot escape that fact. This does not mean that I cannot
teach about the African-American, female, or Indian experience in our nation's
history. But it does limit my ability to understand and relate to students
certain concepts. So I try to draw upon the words of other people, e.g., the
former slave narratives ("Remembering Slavery") and other oral history.
Any recommendations for good Indian oral history publications?
Back to grading final exams....
Dave Hanson
Professor of History
Virginia Western
--=====================_4054800==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
I have a friend named Uses Arrow who is a Lakota. I have not seem
him for some time now, but as I recall, this squares with what he once
told me. In essence he said, I'm a Lakota, but most people would
not know that or what it means to be a Lakota. If they want to
know, I will explain it to them. Otherwise they can call me an
Indian, or a Native American, or a man. That is not
important. Treating me with the same courtesy and respect as anyone
else, that is the important thing.
I teach college-level U.S. history survey courses and we have about
400 years to cover, so we really can't get down to the level of depth and
detail that has been discussed so far in this forum. I think I'm
doing well if I can get students to understand that the greatest threat
to settlers going to Oregon and California in the 1840s was the natural
elements, not hostile Indians. Even if I understood all the nuances
of Indian nationality, culture and spirituality, I could not dwell on it
our we would never get from Christopher Columbus to Jimmy Carter.
Of course, it is different for those of you who teach specialized courses
concentrating on American Indians.
For those of us who teach U.S. history, it is important to treat all
topics as fairly and accurately as possible. Most of us see the
past and present through the filters of our own cultural experience and
values. This is reflected in our teaching. My own experience
is that of a middle-class, eastern/midwestern, male WASP, and I cannot
escape that fact. This does not mean that I cannot teach about the
African-American, female, or Indian experience in our nation's
history. But it does limit my ability to understand and relate to
students certain concepts. So I try to draw upon the words of other
people, e.g., the former slave narratives ("Remembering
Slavery") and other oral history.
Any recommendations for good Indian oral history publications?
Back to grading final exams....
Dave Hanson
Professor of History
Virginia Western
--=====================_4054800==_.ALT--
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 09:07:37 -0700
Reply-To: American Indians Forum
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: SH
Subject: Re: Definitions of Culture/Barb T. and Joseph S.
In-Reply-To: <998FDA97A658D3118AA600609419F21CA0DF78@MAIL>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I have two responses, one to Barb Tracy's comments and the other
to Joseph Starrs.
First, Barb. I'm glad I was able to be clearer. I find these
types of discussions easier in person where gesture and
expression can help define what is not so easily put into words.
I would love to hear suggestions, yours or others, of reading
material to supplement a curriculum/lecture about the definition
of culture. Another forum participant reminded me of an
excellent text which I have used often, Philip Deloria's
_Playing Indian_, but I loved to know of others. Books,
chapters, articles. Thanks!
Joseph:
I would say yes and no to your questions. Language is
important and I don't believe a departure from the discussion of
history. I studied Japanese in college, and I learned more
ABOUT Japanese culture through the structure of the language
than if I had taken a history course. Language can teach us
many things, but I also believe that there has been wonderful
contributions from NA authors in English-language literature
permeated with a native voice. By changing or making the
language their own, they have made it a NA voice and given
insight into NA worldviews.
I don't think it is realistic, although it would be nice, to
expect undergraduate institutions and high schools to teach NA
languages as a prerequisite to NA studies. I think what is most
important for any student in an NA class to remember is that the
study of another culture is never done from a 'nowhere'
standpoint.
Another forum participant, Leif Fearn, made a comment earlier
about that that highlights to me the danger of a people who
consider themselves as coming from 'nowhere' culturally. He
stated that the fact that they "have the reputation of
functioning rather effectively [as a culture], seems to call
into question the necessity of explicit or conscious cultural
awareness." I apologize to Mr. Fearn if in excerpting his
comments I have changed his intended meaning. I hope I haven't
because I think it makes a great point. Non-native students so
often approach the study of history; whether through traditional
social studies classrooms, anthropology, ethnology, archaeology
or some other discipline; with two underlying assumptions that
are often never articulated and thus taint their studies.
One we have already mentioned: that because the students do not
see themselves as having a culture, they are unaware of the
assumptions that their culture brings to the table already when
talking/studying others.
And two, which I read from Mr. Fearn's comments, if the students
do not consider themselves as having a culture, yet at the same
time view themselves functioning effectively, they will carry
the belief to the table that those people who DO have an
explicit cultural identity are less likely to be successful in
the larger global or national community.
With this in mind, language IS a wonderful medium for
understanding a culture, and could be used through phrases,
linguistics, literature that uses both a native language and
English in its text, without having to enter into an immersion
program. But I don't think it will help if the students are not
first aware of how their own culture affects their perspective
on others.
Any comments, thoughts? I'd love some feedback.
Susie Husted
Librarian, Educator and Philosophy student
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
This forum is sponsored by History Matters--please visit our Web site at http://historymatters.gmu.edu for more resources for teaching U.S. History.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 11:38:21 -0400
Reply-To: American Indians Forum
Sender: American Indians Forum
From: yankeebird
Subject: Re: teaching native spirituality
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01B3_01C0D3C5.8E0E6520"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_01B3_01C0D3C5.8E0E6520
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
teaching native spiritualityThis is curious. We teach Students the =
philosophical and world view of the ancient Greeks and Romans so why are =
Indigeous philosophies and worldview off limits?
Adesimba Bashir
ASHP
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Noonan, Ellen=20
To: AMERICANINDIANSFORUM@ASHP.LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU=20
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 3:59 PM
Subject: teaching native spirituality
I recently had a short essay rejected by a major US Native Studies =
Journal.
In the course of our correspondence over my essay (it had to do with
teaching Native Studies while adhering to precepts of the oral =
tradition),
the editor wondered why I would teach students (especially non-Native
students) about the aspects of Indigenous spirituality.
My response was that, as a Native person teaching native Studies, I =
should
do nothing else. That is, that our spirituality and world view is =
what
makes us Tribal --it is what sets us off from the dominant society. =
and
most importantly (in my view) is that if students don't understand =
what and
how we think about our (tribal) place in the world, they will never
understand any of our history or our lifeways, and certainly they will =
never
understand how and why the Europeans insisted --and continue to =
insist--
that we , or else!!
Europeans, neo-Europeans, and other everywhere assume =
(based on
their spirituality and worldview) that their way of life is the =
epitome of
and they can't understand why anyone would prefer to =
adhere
to their ways.
So, if I restrict my teaching to a strict History lesson (or =
Literature or
Economics or Sociology) without explaining, as best I can, the =
underlying
philosophy of Indigenous people (and, yes, I believe there is a
generalizable philosophy) then I can't understand =
why
I'm a teacher. My spirituality and worldview are what compels me to =
teach
--keeping that spirituality and worldview out of the classroom would =
stand
in direct opposition to everything I am trying to get my students to
understand about Tribal people.
The preceding is a truncated and simplified statement of my teaching
, but it raises a question that I hope this forum will =
address:
is it appropriate to expose students to a discussion about Native
spirituality? Or, more pointedly, should non-Native students be =
exposed to
such a discussion?
What do you think?
Phil Bellfy
------=_NextPart_000_01B3_01C0D3C5.8E0E6520
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
teaching native spirituality
This is curious. We teach Students the=20
philosophical and world view of the ancient Greeks and Romans so why are =
Indigeous philosophies and worldview off limits?
Adesimba Bashir
ASHP
----- Original Message -----
From:=20
Noonan,=20
Ellen