Talking Back to Civlization: Indian Voices from the Progressive Era

Hey, just posting some homework. In my opinion, reading the material isn't horribly bad (though they seem pretty liberally biased), though answering what seem to be extremely stupid questions and trying to paraphrase what the author is saying is the most annoying part. Anyways, here's what I have so far:

Analysis of Talking Back to Civilization

Ch. 2

7. Does the existence of the “Middle Five” point out something positive or negative about Indian boarding schools?

Objectively, it depends on your perspective. Technically speaking, the schools were doing their job, and in general, the way things worked is in some way how schools are supposed to work in my experience, such as “Americanizing” people. It also had some general characteristics of schools today such as having to fight to get people to not tease you, passing notes around, et al. Yet there is also a kind of tragic and melancholy tone to it, such as when the author talks about himself in his early childhood in the third person and in a generally negative light. Also, there’s the teachers condemning of their music as “savage” and wanting them to sing “real music.” Their change of social structure, in which those that were generally respected were integrated with those that were seen as vagrants, which goes back to having to fight in order for others to stop teasing you, also seems a little negative and/or tragic. However, while this seems like a tragedy, it’s definitely one I’d like to read more of, and maybe the entire thing.

It also seems like the author believed that he still had his original character, but was simply conforming to the “American” way of life in order to be accepted into society from the Preface.

8. How can Laura Kellogg and Henry Roe Cloud support the idea of Indian education and oppose the government’s education efforts? Are they being hypocritical?

Kellog’s approach is more from a liberal bias, in that she thinks the boarding schools are taking away the Indian’s identity. She demonstrates this by comparing Tecumseh’s pride in his identity to a student at a govt. school who uses their identity as an excuse for “anything they’ve done poorly,” kind of like its some social disability. Personally, I don’t think she’s being hypocritical, though I think she could be a little more empathetic to the students attending the boarding schools. After all, If you’re being socialized in an environment which treats being Indian as a social disability, then that’s going to be what they believe, whether it’s true or not.

As far as Cloud’s, his concerns are on the polar opposite side of the political spectrum, in that his concerns are more about children not getting sufficient education as well as the conflicting values of Indian children and their parents. As far as him being hypocritical, no, for that would contradict what La Flesche said before, in that assimilation doesn’t necessarily change their identity underneath all the “civilized” clothing and Christian beliefs. He was superintendent of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but from him being Christian all his life, it doesn’t appear that he assimilated, but that his parents did and brought him up that way.

Ch. 2 (cont.)

9. Henry Roe Cloud calls for Indians to be model Americans—Christian and self reliant. In what sense is Roe Cloud also calling for a distinctly Indian education?

Basically in the sense that they deny their identity as Indians as long as they are under the authority of the govt. who wants to assimilate them, “but the moment he becomes free he is going to get as far as he can from it…” So, the question pretty much answered itself, although he also believed the Indians should do this if they want to achieve “any degree of success.”

10. How does Arthur Parker expand on the themes developed by Kellogg and Cloud in their critiques of Indian education?

Parker thinks some changes should be made in education, that the “ideal university would be one which had no prescribed course. It would be one where a man or woman with a fundamental training already acquired might come and develop his mind along the line for which he was best fitted by nature. It would mean a real unfolding of self and of native genius. It would be training that would teach students to think for themselves and to find their own way outward, upward and onward.” Basically sounds like an idealist and a liberal.

Ch. 3

11. Is Zitkala Sa really a pagan?

Probably not, as she seems to be identifying herself as such in the as if she’s been called that by other people, and the book itself said that it was basically a polemic against Christianity, or at least the churches who kept dismissing her as a “pagan” or “heathen.”