Laura Proven

4.2
Whose Story is it?
In studying multicultural, specifically Native American, literature
this week, there were many things I learned, as well as many things I
am left wondering about. Some of the arguments made were
reminiscent of things I learned during my undergraduate courses at
MSU about diversity and how it can be reflected in literature, whether
that portrayal is good or bad. I feel like the depth at which I am
thinking about it now goes further than when I first was introduced to
the conversation several years ago.
If I am being truly honest (and revealing my voice in this paper
rather than remaining formal), I dont really know how to organize this
paper. This writing prompt is rather open-ended, and so I am looking at
this assignment as a way to work through my own thinking rather than
a way to present my final findings. I am hoping thats okay. Lets see
where it goes!
The main thing that is still on the forefront of my mind after all
the reading this week is that authenticity is a major theme in
everything that we read about. The textbook, each article, the
debatesalmost everything we read this week refers to the
importance of authenticity and the debate over whether or not people
should be able to write about a group of people if they are not part of
that group. I would like to examine both sides of this argument and
where I stand in my views of each sides belief.
I do feel there is a lot of validity to the people who become
angered by writers who try to portray a culture they are not a part of. I
certainly would not want someone to look at my life from a distance,
and with bias (even if that bias is subconscious), and then attempt to
tell the world who I am and what I am all about. The bias I refer to is
everywhere, even if people dont realize it. One example of this bias is
noted when Bishop quotes Nieto in saying that multicultural literature
includes all cultures, not just marginalized ones (Bishop, 2). Hintz and
Tribunella refer to this as well, when they mention that all people have
ethnicity, and are ethnic, but we only associate this term with people
of color (Hintz and Tribunella, 354). Sometimes you see people on
television (or in real life) refer to someone as being ethnic, and
usually what they mean is that they may have a darker complexion or
exotic features. So even in our seemingly innocent word choice, we
can be prejudiced by associating only certain groups as being unique
from the long-standing norm of being white.
I will use the term multicultural literature in the way that most of
the literary world does, rather than Nietos definition, just for the sake
of simplicity and to avoid confusion, so when I say multicultural
literature, I will refer to the literature that involves protagonists,
conflicts, and stories of marginalized groups. First of all, there is grand
importance for children to have access to multicultural literature. It is

Laura Proven
4.2
critical for self-esteem and the development of racial and personal
identity for children to be able to identify themselves in a book (Reese,
12). There were many examples of adults quoted in this weeks
readings who said that growing up they could not find books in which
they related to any of the characters, and that it was very difficult for
them. However, just as it is important for the books to exist and for
children to be able to see a character that looks like them, the
character must also be accurately portrayed. A poet named Simon
Ortiz did not even believe he was Indian when he was a child because
picture books showed him that Indians lived in teepees, rode ponies,
and hunted buffalo (Reese, 12), and he did not see that in his own life
or his community. This was mirrored by the main character, Sonny, in
Bruchacs Hidden Roots. He associated real Indians with being
dangerous (Bruchac, 9), dead, gone, or run away (32), and he knew
what Indians looked like from the movies (56). Sonny doesnt know
yet that he is Native American, but he doesnt even consider this as
feasible because his concept of what it means to be Indian is so
inaccurately portrayed in the various forms of text that surround him. It
is sad to think that children could deny their own culture (either
intentionally or without knowing) because the way their culture was
depicted was so grossly off base from the reality of their actual life.
With that said, while it is important to have books and films about
people from different cultures, it is necessary to make sure that the
portrayal is as accurate as possible.
This naturally brings up the controversy of authenticity. If the
stories that are out there are inaccurate, who is writing them? Or,
whats more, who should be allowed to write them? Reese mentions
that in 1995, 98.5% of books about Native Americans were written by
non-Native authors (Reese, 5). That is an astounding number! While
there are more authors of color popping up now, and publishing
companies to help support them (which didnt always exist in the past),
it is still pretty incredible to think about Native Americans specifically,
and how almost everything in publication was not told by their own
voices. One thought I had this week, after reading about how many of
them had to go into hiding to avoid the Eugenics movement, is that
perhaps they didnt feel it was safe to have a voice. There were many
things I read this week that indicated that there are many Abenaki
people who are still afraid to reveal their true identity. I cannot
imagine sitting back and watching my people be depicted in degrading
ways and being too afraid to set the story straight. It would be an awful
position to be in. Fortunately, more Native writers are starting to
publish now (Reese, 8), but for centuries, there was nothing authentic
about Native American literature.
The debate as to whether or not there can be a cultural
crossing (Harris, 6) in literature is still ongoing. It seems like the
controversy goes beyond just whether or not the story is accurate or

Laura Proven
4.2
stereotypical, it is about power (Dow). Harris writes that as one
example, people expect black writers to only write about black
experiences, yet white writers can write about anything they want
(Harris, 9). There is, of course, apparent issues with people writing
about things over which they have no ownership or real knowledge of,
but whats more, it seems that most of the offense comes from people
who feel like whites have to stick their nose in everything, and they
just cant let minority groups have anything to themselves without
getting involved. In Dows response to Kanells defense, it mentions
that when Gallagher wrote the piece about the Eugenics movement
(that Kanell claims inspired Darkness Under the Water), she was
careful to focus more on the scientific philosophy, as to not tell a story
that was not hers to tell (Dow). This is something that was appreciated
and respected by those in the community who dont want outsiders to
project thoughts, feelings, and experiences on them.
I would like to take some time to focus on the novels I read this
week before returning to the greater theme of authenticity. There were
some notable differences between Darkness Under the Water, which
was written by a non-Native, and Hidden Roots, written by a Native.
Even as I read Darkness Under the Water, the first of the books this
week, I suspected that Kanell was not Native American herself. I didnt
know for sure, as I am not Native either, and dont have the
background knowledge that an American Indian reader would, but I did
Google her to find out because there were some things that I thought
bordered on stereotypical in the book. Henry LaPorte, for example. One
of my first thoughts about him was that he seemed to fill the dark,
mysterious, close-to-nature archetype that often appears in depiction
of Native American males. I also found myself thinking, when I was
about halfway through the book that Molly seemed to be portrayed as
an average girl in a coming-of-age novel who just happened to be
Abenaki. Interestingly, Seale and Dow made a similar argument,
worded nearly the exact same as my thoughts, in their critique. Of
course, they were able to point out other inaccuracies and things that
were not feasible in the book that I was not, but I found it interesting
that as a critical, yet white reader, I picked up on things that made me
raise my eyebrows about whether or not this story was the best
possible depiction of what it was like to be Native American during the
Eugenics movement.
I also found it interesting to read both Bruchacs novel and his
autobiography, as I could tell where he created a story and characters
with very direct ties to his own life experience. Undoubtedly, I cant
question Bruchacs authority in being a writer about his own culture!
His take on the debate between Kanell and Seale and Dow was very
carefully worded and insightful, though. He agrees that it is very
difficult for someone outside of a culture to write a story about it, but
that it is not impossible. He admitted that he overlooked some things

Laura Proven
4.2
in the manuscript that were inaccurate, but he also mentioned that
every single person is different, regardless of ethnicity. So, it is
impossible to say that Kanells book was offensive to every Native
American on the planet. What may have offended Seale and Dow was
not necessarily offensive to him, and I think this is an important point
to bring up.
Bishop mentions that sometimes when white authors try to write
about non-white characters, the texts become visually black (if we
were focusing on African Americans), and essentially the character
could just as easily be white without changing any ounce of the story
(Harris, 8). I think Seale and Dow come close to accusing Kanell of this
in saying that the book was just a teenage angst novel against the
backdrop of the Eugenics movement (Seale and Dow). However, after
reading so many articles and debates this week, I think the alternative
wrong is the perception that white authors dont have the
appropriate perspective to accurately tell the story if they do try to
make the culture a more integral part of the story. Seale and Dow
accuse Kanell of this too. So it is interesting that in their eyes, she is
guilty of both creating a character that exists in a run of the mill
teenage angst novel, while also botching the realities of being Native
American. I dont know that I agree or disagree with this, because as I
mentioned above, I actually did resonate with a lot of what Dow and
Seale said, however, I think they are somewhat contradictory in saying
what they feel Kanells intent was.
This leads me to my exploration of the other side of the
controversy. In all of the reading this week, there were several
examples of white teachers or writers who have been under scrutiny
for their use or creation of multicultural literature. I know that Dow
says it is about power, but I really am having a hard time believing that
these people made inappropriate choices with malicious intent. At the
risk of sounding like I, too, have white bias, I sometimes feel like
multicultural literature is dangerous territory for whites because people
are very eager to assume the worst in the intentions of white people. I
am hoping this doesnt make me sound completely ignorant because I
do consider all of the points valid that I mentioned above. However,
due to the way our ancestors treated people of color, I think people of
marginalized groups sometimes assume that all whites still hold racist
beliefs, while that isnt always true. I do think that racism exists in all
cultures ABOUT all cultures. It is not fair to say that everyone in every
culture is racist, but then it also is not fair to say that the only people
who are racist are people from the dominant cultures. While I agree
that some of the things white authors choose to write about may not
be their story to tell, I think that very few of them are writing it with the
intent of doing anything except highlighting and honoring differences
among us.

Laura Proven
4.2
One example of the teacher, Ruth Sherman, who read a book
called Nappy Hair, which was written by an African-American author to
celebrate having unique hair (Hintz and Tribunella, 362). The book was
not a controversy when it was written because an author who had
ownership and authority on the subject wrote it, but when a white
teacher shared it with a class of students to promote acceptance, it
became controversial. I dont think this teacher would go out of her
way to humiliate some of the students in her class by using this book, I
think her intentions were truly good. Even Joel Chandler Harriss Uncle
Remus stories could possibly be viewed in the same light. While I dont
know what Harriss intentions were, and while he may have
perpetuated stereotypes and gotten rich off of the stories of
anonymous, voiceless people, even Hintz and Tribunella admit that
had he not collected and published them, the tales might have been
lost to subsequent generations (366). Is it possible that his intent was
malicious? Of course. But it is just as possible that he wanted to bring
awareness and highlight the oral traditions of a people who may not
have had the means to share it themselves at the time.
I think the same can be said for Beth Kanell. I think she
genuinely wanted to create a quality piece of literature about the
Abenaki because she was interested in the subject and was both
appalled and fascinated by the way they were treated in the Eugenics
movement. As I mentioned before, even I saw red flags in the book
that seemed inaccurate or that bordered on stereotypical, and perhaps
if I was Abenaki I would find that more offensive, but I just have a hard
time believing it was on purpose. Bruchac alludes to this in his
summary of the debate. He said that Kanell did do her research, and
he pointed out the problems in her manuscript because she went out
of her way to have him read itshe genuinely wanted his opinion. She
wanted it to be well written and accurate. Bruchac describes Darkness
Under the Water as being an ambitious, but flawed novel (Bruchac),
but gives Kanell credit in that he does not feel she wrote those flaws
intentionally. It goes to show that perhaps there are times where
writing about a culture different from ones own is simply too difficult of
an undertaking, but I also think it shows that whites are usually not
trying to offend or suppress marginalized groups on purpose. I think
many white writers are trying to highlight these cultures and produce
more literature about them to expose young readers, but they might
just be clueless!
This brings me back full circle to the main theme of authenticity.
If a person is clueless, or not knowledgeable about a topic, then he/she
should not write about it, and thats all there is to it. This would be
protocol for writing a non-fiction text, right? If I dont know a thing
about aeronautics (which I dont), then I am really not qualified to write
a textbook about it. The same goes for writing historical fiction, or any
book about a culture that the writer doesnt fully understand. A big

Laura Proven
4.2
thing I have learned this week is the damage and hurt that can come
from depicting a culture inaccurately. Also, why not let the people of
that culture obtain the power of having a voice in the literary world,
and let them tell their own stories instead of speaking for them? These
are all conclusions I have reached in support of insiders writing about
their experiences. I dont know if it is impossible to be an outsider
and write a great, accurate work about a different cultural group, but I
do know that it might be impossible to do it without being very closely
scrutinized. Harris mentions that author Kathryn Lasky wanted to write
a biography about Sarah Breedlove Walker but was told it wouldnt sell
because she was white (Harris, 8). I think if an author wants to do the
research about a topic outside of his/her own culture, then the task
should not be all that different from researching the small, minute
details that goes into researching a time period for a historical fiction
book. It is hard work, but it is possible. I just think people need to be
careful not to assume that white authors are only writing about nonwhite people because they want to dominate them.
In an age where differences and diversity is widely accepted, the
concept of authority in writing multicultural literature becomes even
more important. It is crucial for readers, especially children, to see
people who look like them, experience things they experience, and
believe the things they believe in the books they read. However, each
person is still an individual, regardless of what ethnicity they have. I
am Irish and German, and I would almost guarantee that I look,
experience, and believe very different things from other people who
are also Irish and German. So regardless of who is writing the story,
and whether or not that person is of the same heritage as the
characters in the book, there are always going to be stories that I (or
anyone) can identify with more closely than others.
I think we should reserve a place for writers of marginalized
groups to tell their stories first, but that still doesnt guarantee that
every person who reads it is going to find an exact image of who
he/she is within that story. For example, not every Abenaki person is
going to have the same lifestyle that Sonny did in Bruchacs Hidden
Roots, for example. The purpose of multicultural childrens literature is
to expose children to all kinds of people and lifestyles. As long as the
information is accurate and well researched, maybe it shouldnt matter
so much who is writing the story. Just as marginalized groups do not
want to be generalized and stereotyped, white writers who have the
intent of celebrating diversity do not want to be stereotyped as writing
texts for malicious purposes. All in all, I think that what is really
important in the authenticity controversy is that an author become an
expert in whatever it is he/she is writing about. Whether that is an
expert through life experience or through in-depth research (note: indepththere were still inconsistencies in Kanells book that I do not
agree with), expertise is more important than skin color.

Laura Proven
4.2
People who write about their own culture have the advantage of
drawing on life experiences, like Joseph Bruchac, and so they may be
more qualified and authentic than writers outside of that culture.
However, tying back to non-fiction writers to compare once again, a
person with a Ph.D. in aeronautics might be an author I look at as more
credible than one with a Bachelors Degree in the subject. It doesnt
mean I wont get anything out of the latter, or that that person should
not be allowed to write a book, but it might mean I take it for what it is
and compare that information found in the former. In the same way, a
non-Native writer may choose to research the Abenaki in depth and
write a narrative about them. I may not gain as much knowledge or
truth as a person who lived it, but I still can learn some things about
the culture. Overall, authenticity is important to consider when reading
multicultural literature, and it is a controversy that may not readily be
resolved, both in my own mind and in society, because there are many
layers to the issue.