indian schools

Overall, I felt that the article by Kawai et al. provided a much more convincing argument than that of Strand et al. In Strand’s article, he analyzes an image of Indian children and states, “None of the children are smiling, some look downright grumpy, and all look cold. Obviously these children come from different families, different reservations. There is no apparent unity among them besides the fact that they are all Indian.” (p. 4) Despite the use of the word “obviously”, the authors provide no reason or justification for the judgment that the students come from different families. Why does he make this conclusion? In addition, when I first saw this picture, I felt that in the first image, there was a greater sense of unity or community because the children were all huddled in a group together. In the second image, however, there is no sense of cohesion or unity as they are all lined up as individuals.

The analysis of the image in Kawai’s article was much better. The authors used very specific details from the image to demonstrate their point. For example, they cited the fact that one of the Indians in the picture had 5 lines around his head, which demonstrated his exertion to climb the stairs. They also analyzed the spacial elements, explaining that the Indians at the bottom of the stairs climbing to the top (while becoming progressively less Indian) could be interpreted as symbolizing a cultural hierarchy.

In addition, I felt that the evidence of Strand’s article was insufficient to prove the point that they aimed to prove. They cite a list of the 5 personal duties, or rules of the class. They then argue that the teaching of these rules reflect an intention to eradicate Indian culture and replace with White culture. However, the personal duties do not neccessarily reflect this conclusion. For example, some include “Using the law of self control: controlling as much as possible one’s tongue, temper, and thoughts so that he can be proud of them,” and also “Law of self-reliance: To have reference for older and wiser persons who love and care for us, but to choose and act for one’s self.” The interpretation of these rules, and the concrete ways they were implemented in the classroom determines whether they are benevolent or oppressive. However, this information is not given. The authors needed to provide this extra bit of evidence in order to make their argument more sound and convincing.