My Stand on the Insider/ Outsider Debate

After the first or second week of this class, my stand was still weary on this debate on whether or not a person should be allowed to write a book if they are not of the specific race, culture, sexual orientation, economic status, age, gender etc. However; after reading this week's articles, I believe anyone is able to write about any of the selected subgroups (I am writing subgroups to emphasize the different forms of multiculturalism and a way to decrease me having to write each other form out each time I address it; I decided to simply state subgroups- I am in no way trying to look down on any of groups above)above; however, the person has to present the facts and not their own opinion or own perception of the specific culture subgroup. A major misconception of multiculturalism is to dismiss any person who perceives to be the 'norm.' I believe this perception of multiculturalism is not only segregating cultures from one another, but is also taking on the assumption that white, middle-class Americans know nothing of struggle and suffering. Nonetheless, I believe multicultural literature should highlight those cultures or races who have been underrepresented in books.

As a multicultural author, it is apparent for he/she to present his/ her reader with a true perception of the specific race, culture, sexual orientation, economic status, age, gender etc. he/she will be addressing in the literature. Becoming a scholar of that specific subgroup by researching on his/her own as well as discussing the culture or race with people of that specific race or culture could make it is easier for the author to not only prevent stereotyping but discriminating as well. While yes some may think it can be more beneficial to be an insider writer as he/ she is usually already pretty familiar and knowledgeable of their specific race, culture, sexual orientation, economic status, age, gender etc. it can be also beneficial for an outsider to illustrate that specific culture to help remove biases the insider author may have. Overall, I believe anyone, whether he/ she is an insider or an outsider, are able to write about culture because it is proving to the world that multicultural literature is not just exploring your own culture, but of others as well.

Questions:
* There have been books where insider authors create stereotypes of their specific culture (i.e. the first book we read last week). What does that say about this whole insider/ outsider debate?
* Is it possible for outsider authors to write more compelling and realistic views of the written culture than insiders do?
* Are we creating more segregation by not perceiving outsider authors as affective assets in multicultural literature?

Reaction to movie

It is becoming apparent to me how affective this class is going to be towards my understanding of multiculturalism and why it is so important for me to be knowledgeable of it as a future educator. Before reading THE HEART OF A CHIEF, the readings from last week, and especially before watching the movie last week, it never dawned on me how little our nation respects the Native American culture. I had been aware of the feuds to get rid of Indian based mascots such as the Eastern Michigan Hurons, the Cleveland Indians, the Central Chippewas. However, I never really ever thought about about the Illinois Illini and I never knew that there mascot was Chief Illini. I guess I never took much interest in University of Illinois teams. This movie brought up a lot of arguments that made me quite concerned about the nation we are living in and that the youth of America are growing up in.

The movie presenting me with the idea that Indians in no way should be disrespected in such a manner. Being that they were the first people to live in American, you would think there would be a little more appreciation for them and their culture. The woman in the movie made me see what these caricatured perceptions of Indians are teaching the youth of America. I remember learning about Indians in elementary, middle, and high school and I thought I had been presented with a lot of information regarding them and there a few tribes still in existent. Nonetheless, I did not realize just how many. I also did not know the history of Chief Illini and how he originated into the University of Illinois' culture. It really upsets me though how the university in no way cares about how disrespectful their perception of Indians are, because they believe they are being respectful with their depiction. The woman in the movie stated that she would rather have the university be silly and and mock her culture then try to perceive their depiction of Indians is accurate.

Lastly, after class, I decided to call and talk to one of my parents about my reaction towards the documentary. My dad answered the phone and as I began discussing what we had watched in class, my dad seemed to get really annoyed. He doesn't understand why it is such a big deal for Indians to be mascots. He made an interesting point that it's the people who are taking the mascot symbols literally who are getting angry. I was surprised how much I was fighting for my dad to understand where I was coming from. In the end, the only argument that seemed to not be rebutted was the idea that these mascots are creating misconceptions of Indians for children and that is not fair to the Indian culture.

Overall, this movie was beneficial to me because it is making me aware of many of the arguments people have towards the whole Indian mascot controversy as well as how to depict a realistic image of Indians to help my future students see the difference.