Hello!
The article, "The KKK Fundraising Quilt of Chicora, Michigan" by, Marsha MacDowell, Charlotte Quinney, and Mary Worrall, was definitely an interesting read for me. It gave background information on the Ku Klux Klan and the quilt-making that some of the Klans had done. Before I read the article, I didn't understand as to why Michigan State's Museum would carry such an artifact; especially at a University that greatly promotes diversity. I almost felt uneasy to think that someone would want to display something like that. After reading the article, however, I have a better understanding to quilt-making and the involvement of some members within different Klans.
At the end of the article it says, "In an age where we continue to struggle with local, national, and global issues of tolerance, social justice, and human rights, this artifact can help us understand the roots of fear and intolerance and to serve as a powerful reminder not to perpetuate the mistakes of the past," which I definitely agree with (MacDowell 115). As a future educator to young minds, it's important for children to feel accepted, welcomed, and equal, no matter what their ethnicity, race, culture, religious views, sexuality...etc. For me, it's devastating to see our society still having trouble accepting others with different views and lifestyles, and that some feel the need for segregation and do still discriminate. Especially in a time of war, this is when we should be making ties and building connections among others, to establish trust.
I'm not trying to get into the issue of war right now. I'm just trying to get an understanding as to why others do discriminate and how it happens. The article (written in 2006), mentions that in 2005 that the Klan is still active and that "a number of hate organizations continues to grow" (MacDowell 115). It's a little disturbing for me to read this. I know I may live with a naive mindset, but I would like to think that everyone gets along and respects one another for who they are, and not based on what people see. Yet, I know that's not the true reality of how things are. It starts with the individual making a difference, and having the knowledge, background, and understanding of things that can help promote positive ideas to others.
That's why I now understand why it's important to have such an artifact. It can help "educate present and future generations about a darker aspect of American history" (MacDowell 114). In order for the now and the future to make a difference, we do need to recognize our past and learn from it, rather than ignoring it and pretending like it never happened. History tends to repeat itself, but let's hope this type of repeating doesn't continue on for much longer. Again, it begins with the knowledge of the individual to make a difference.
MacDowell, Marsha, Charlotte Quinney, and Mary Worrall. "The KKK Fundraising Quilt of
Chicora, Michigan." Uncoverings (2006).
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Coretta Scott King Award
The purpose of the Coretta Scott King Award is to encourage artistic expression of African American experiences via literature, graphic arts, and biographical, historical, and social history treatments by African American authors and illustrators. The award was established in May of 1970 to commemorate the life and works of Dr. Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King. Since no African American author or illustrator won the Newberry or Caldecott award before 1970, this award was founded to point parents, teachers, and librarians toward the best Afro-Centric children's literature. The ALA recognizes this award as an association award and it is sponsored by Johnson Publications, World Book Incorporation, Encyclopedia Britannica, and Book Wholesalers Incorporation. Although the award is named after her, Coretta Scott King did not have any involvement in its inception. The two founding libraries chose her as inspiration because of her advocacy and fight for peace and civil rights. Criteria for the award must portray some aspect of the African American experience as well as being written or illustrated by an African American. The work must be written for Preschool-12th graders.
For more information on the criteria and the award please visit: http://www.ala.org/ala/emiert/corettascottkingbookaward/abouttheawarda/cskabout.htm Many books who win the award do not have a seal, ribbon, or any recognition on their cover.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Class Discussion of Insider/Outsider Debate
Hello again.
The other week we had a class discussion about the insider/outsider debate. In my last entry, I couldn't exactly decide which was more important, or who should actually be writing the books. After the discussion, I still feel that both types of authors should write the books. Many people brought up some great points that I would like to address.
Some believed that because insiders are acculturated to that group, then they know more about it than an outsider would. I definitely agree with that. They also have the personal experience which many outsiders may never have. Experience something first-hand always seems more authentic because they were actually there. But then we brought up who exactly is an insider. Can a person live within a certain culture for about 20 years and know that culture as well as someone who's lived within it their whole lives? That was a tricky question to address because of course they weren't born or raised in that specific area, yet they have a much better understanding of that culture for being there that long. But someone who lives in an area for about 2 months and does research, I wouldn't necessarily consider them an insider, only because they don't completely understand the norms and customs of that culture since they aren't really "living" in it.
Next point brought up was if outsiders should write. Someone mentioned that it's better to have some cultures that aren't represented at all in writing by insiders, be at least represented by an outsider. I definitely agree. It's important that children of different ethnicities and cultures be able to see someone like themselves, as well as for others to learn about diverse backgrounds of people. It's better to have representation than no representation, but it's better to make sure that the portrayal of that group is accurate and isn't stereotyping.
Lastly, someone raised the point that authors should at least verify if they are an 'insider' or 'outsider' and if their story actually happened to them or made it up. Some people in class mentioned how the book Memoirs of a Geisha wasn't real, and the man who wrote it, actually used the story from someone else and portrayed it in a way that wasn't accurate. People said that they loved the book and after they found out the truth behind it, they didn't like it as much. The same was for another book about a man who was drug addict, but later told the press his story was fictional and didn't really happen to him.
After hearing these two comments about the books, my initial thought was that if the book made you feel a certain way and made you think about things you may never have thought of, and effected in, then it shouldn't matter the background behind it. Books are supposed to effect people in different ways and to move people, and make people feel something; at least, that's what I feel makes a book good. Yet, after thinking about it, I realized that if I found something to have touched me, and I looked to it for comfort, or for strength, and it turned out to be false or fake, then I, too, would be upset and have a different outlook on it. I suppose it comes down to if the author is being true to their readers, which someone had mentioned in the discussion. If the authors straight up and say that their story is fictional, then I would respect them more, and then take the book as it is; rather than getting upset and disappointed that what they wrote actually didn't happen when they said it did. Authors need to be true to their readers, as well.
The other week we had a class discussion about the insider/outsider debate. In my last entry, I couldn't exactly decide which was more important, or who should actually be writing the books. After the discussion, I still feel that both types of authors should write the books. Many people brought up some great points that I would like to address.
Some believed that because insiders are acculturated to that group, then they know more about it than an outsider would. I definitely agree with that. They also have the personal experience which many outsiders may never have. Experience something first-hand always seems more authentic because they were actually there. But then we brought up who exactly is an insider. Can a person live within a certain culture for about 20 years and know that culture as well as someone who's lived within it their whole lives? That was a tricky question to address because of course they weren't born or raised in that specific area, yet they have a much better understanding of that culture for being there that long. But someone who lives in an area for about 2 months and does research, I wouldn't necessarily consider them an insider, only because they don't completely understand the norms and customs of that culture since they aren't really "living" in it.
Next point brought up was if outsiders should write. Someone mentioned that it's better to have some cultures that aren't represented at all in writing by insiders, be at least represented by an outsider. I definitely agree. It's important that children of different ethnicities and cultures be able to see someone like themselves, as well as for others to learn about diverse backgrounds of people. It's better to have representation than no representation, but it's better to make sure that the portrayal of that group is accurate and isn't stereotyping.
Lastly, someone raised the point that authors should at least verify if they are an 'insider' or 'outsider' and if their story actually happened to them or made it up. Some people in class mentioned how the book Memoirs of a Geisha wasn't real, and the man who wrote it, actually used the story from someone else and portrayed it in a way that wasn't accurate. People said that they loved the book and after they found out the truth behind it, they didn't like it as much. The same was for another book about a man who was drug addict, but later told the press his story was fictional and didn't really happen to him.
After hearing these two comments about the books, my initial thought was that if the book made you feel a certain way and made you think about things you may never have thought of, and effected in, then it shouldn't matter the background behind it. Books are supposed to effect people in different ways and to move people, and make people feel something; at least, that's what I feel makes a book good. Yet, after thinking about it, I realized that if I found something to have touched me, and I looked to it for comfort, or for strength, and it turned out to be false or fake, then I, too, would be upset and have a different outlook on it. I suppose it comes down to if the author is being true to their readers, which someone had mentioned in the discussion. If the authors straight up and say that their story is fictional, then I would respect them more, and then take the book as it is; rather than getting upset and disappointed that what they wrote actually didn't happen when they said it did. Authors need to be true to their readers, as well.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)