When culture is considered as a linear progress, it creates the division of “cultivated”/“civilized” and “inferior.” In the midst of colonialism, American government planned to assimilate Indians so that they can also be civilized. The yearbook “The Pheonix Redskin” and the poem “Who Wants to be a Prairie Dog?” also imply that what human beings should achieve in the end is “civilization.” Hence, American government may have thought their actions were good, or that even if they knew something was wrong, they might have justified their actions by thinking that they are helping the Indians to be civilized like them. Education reflected the society. Hence, I agree with Strand, Baxer, Reker, and Louis that “classroom is a microcosm of this larger project of cultural colonialism” (p. 1).
What did the children learn? On the premise that learning is a reconstruction of the society/culture, if the “classroom is a microcosm of this larger project of cultural colonialism,” students may have learned colonialist thinking. However, the American government shifted their view of culture (from culture as a singular process to culture as something that should be thought of in “the cultural context of each respective culture”). I wonder how the shift occurred.
1 comment:
I wasn't very sure what pluralistic framing of Indian culture means exactly.. But I was thinking of the cause of the shift might be to satisfy opposing groups who saw the negative effects of Indian's assimilation into White American culture. All the readings we had for this topic do not really mention the attitude of the Indians. All mentioned, the Indians kinda went along with these educational policies (coz it was also forced, even though it wasn't actually forceful.) But I haven't looked at if there were any negative effects of these policies on the Indians which consequently could disbenefit American's policy for Indian's assimilation into American's society...
Post a Comment