Literacy Journal Response, Week 2
I read with great interest the article by the Council on Interracial Books for Children, and realized how "gray" and morally ambiguous this whole topic can be.
While I think we can all agree on the types of books that have either outlived their usefulness (e.g., Little Black Sambo) or perhaps were never really that good to begin with (Dick and Jane readers), I think the issue becomes much more muddled when we are dealing with truly important and thoughtful literary works (and no, Gone With The Wind is not a great or even good book).
I think the article gives some good guidelines in to how to recognize and/or evaluate potentially racist characteristics, such as looking for stereotypes, weighing relationships between people, watching for loaded words, etc., it seems to me that the danger is in either oversimplifying the process or in taking the process itself too literally. Consider the example of HUCKLEBERRY FINN, not only one of my favorite novels, but arguably the best American novel of the 19th century (with the possible exception of MOBY DICK, which has its own unique racial problems). The book has been the subject of raging debates for many years, and has been alternately described as virulently racist and presciently anti-racist. Of course, much of this comes down to a question of semantics, namely, how do you define racist? It would be easy to conclude that Twain's work is racist based on the guidelines presented in the Council's article, but how accurate and/or useful is that?
Even a more thoughtful and progressive definition of racism (a view, presented by a dominant group that other groups are in some way inferior) could lead one to label HUCKLEBERRY FINN as racist. But what these definitions and guidelines completely omit and/or ignore are the novel's nuance, subtlety, satire, tone and motivation. If one were to use only such superficial data as characterizations, dialect, language (even though the book is being told from the point of view of a rather ignorant and at times racist adolescent), one would completely miss the much larger social and literary contexts of the book.
So how do we resolve these apparent contradictions? Well, as with all problematic things in life, it has to be carefully taught. Having said that, I am not sure I quite know how to do that at this point in my teaching career. I probably wouldn't teach it below fifth grade, and would have few qualms teaching it in high school, but what to do with those problematic grades of 6 through 9. I think it would be both disastrous and wrong-headed to exclude a book like this from the curriculum, but I am still trying to figure out ways I would teach this novel in middle school.
Posts
10 years ago
Fred, I think you lay out the blurry sides to the debate surrounding racism quite eloquently. Political-correctness and overcompensation make discovering a solution very difficult in terms of trying to teach certain books and novels. Of course, you also have books like Huckleberry Finn which arguably portray both positive and negative aspects of the debate. On top of that, I think another important aspect of the debate stems from implications of an ever growing diversity among citizens in our country. Of course, I assume no one (in this cohort) has any issues with diversity but my point is that with more cultures coming together and living together, clashes between people regarding religion, history, and personal experience have the potential to both divide and help people; and I think racism plays a significant role in what direction is taken.
ReplyDeleteLastly, I think that a large part of this debate comes from a sometimes fairly narrow definition of racism (although an alternately "broad" definition would be equally as hurtful, I believe). For example, last year my boyfriend was in a "racism class" at the Seattle campus that he was struggling to remain in because he couldn't come to terms with what he was being taught. He was one of maybe 10 kids in a class of 100 who were white. I was appalled at what was iterated and reiterated in that class which was that people of color -- by definition, cannot be racist. I thought I was mis-hearing what I was hearing, but I wasn't. Over and over his professor explained how people of color cannot be racist for a number of reasons, none of which I found to be planted in solid evidence rather than deep-seeded opinion. They could be "prejudiced", but not racist. I felt awful not for the white students but because the message that was being sent was that since people of color cannot be racist, they therefore cannot be racist toward other people of color -- which I fully believe is totally false and frankly, an almost evil thing to teach. When students in the class tried to debate the professor on the issue, they were blasted in front of their peers and utterly shut down almost as if they were racist themselves for suggesting that the professor was wrong.
Granted, I am aware that this (hopefully) is NOT a "normal" situation or class, but my fear is that teachings like this not only further muddy the debate about "racial equality" but they're dangerous by nature.
Thanks for the very thoughtful posting, Kirsten. You make some excellent points. I have had some long-standing arguments with people (some in my own family) who insist that it is impossible for blacks to be racist, and in my youth, I used to believe it too, but I no longer do. I think for people who believe that, its impossible for people who have been victims of racism to be racist themselves, but that begs the question as to what happens if another racial group (e.g., Koreans) become victims of blacks. It becomes very troubling and sometimes its hard to have these discussions without ruffling some feathers (like what happened in our class on Tuesday).
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I really enjoyed reading your thoughts, and thank you for sharing.
Kirsten,
ReplyDeleteYour comment reminded me of something I've thought about for years. I remember being in high school (and I'm dating myself here), back when MTV's "The Real World," was in its first season in New York City. The housemates were having an argument about racism and one of the participants wrapped up his argument by saying something like, "All white people are racist because race plus power equals racism."
Even at a high school age, I knew there was something really problematic about this point of view, and as I reflected on it and learned more I began to form the opinion that a lot of the difficult about having appropriate conversations about race and racism stem from using the same labels to discuss different concepts.
The gentleman in the Real World had a silly definition of racism, in my opinion. And because he had a silly definition that defined all white people as racist, he helped prevent that conversation from being productive. I'm sure it made MTV happy, but it bothered me. I think there's a credible case to be made that all or the vast, vast majority of white people benefit--even in small ways--from racism that has become entrenched and institutionalized, but it doesn't then mean that every white person is racist.
So I'd hope that when we enter the types of honest conversations about race that are likely to be productive that we can make attempts to agree at common understandings of the meanings of connotation-laden terms like "racism" or "racist."
Ian