Following the Insider, Outsider Debate: Where do I Stand Now.

Last night in class, the discussion was focused on the issue of insider voices versus outsider voices when creating works of "multicultural" literature for children. I thought that it was very interesting when the fish bowl activity was through into the mix because I feel that it got more opinions brought to the conversation that I haven't heard before or thought of when I approached this topic. I thought that it was interesting when the critical reviews of "multicultural" literature from those representing "insiders" looked at works representing those groups. It added another element to the discussion and to my personal stance on the issue. When the conversation turned towards how those representing "insiders" were offended once they found that authors representing a group turned out to be a fraud, I wondered "How much do readers assume that an 'insider' is to be trusted as a representative for a group when they author a book that is presented as authentic experience?"
With this question I feel that my opinion on the insider, outsider debate has changed a bit more. At first I felt that as long as an "outsider" proves their research and involvement with the group they are trying to represent through literature, then I had no problem with an outsider being a source of insider information. After the discussion and taking a closer look at the book by Rinoldi and its critical reviews, I feel that it is of the utmost importance that as a teacher trying to choose literature that not just the popular reviews are considered, but the critical ones as well coming from inside voices are looked at. The information that children are presented with can be formative and the quality of that information should be critically viewed whether or not they come from outside or in.
In conclusion, thank you for a thoughtful discussion because the information presented helped me to both broaden will creating more standards in critiquing the quality of "multicultural" literature.

Insider or Outsider? The Debate

When it comes to choosing books in a classroom library that represent a diverse global society, much attention is paid by some critics on the specifics of the authors location within or outside of the group he or she is writing about. Personally, it doesn't matter to me whether or not the author identifies with the group he or she is writing about just as long as he or she can show the time and research they conducted in order to create a work of fiction that some child in my classroom can identify with. Authenticity is important to me in regards to the time and effort that the author put into the culture or group they are trying to represent; when I am addressing a book that I could possibly include in my library I want to know where the author is coming from, if he or she is not an "insider" then I want to see the information that the author collect in order to create the senses in which he or she did.
During our discussion of The Heart of a Chief the question was raised about the "authenticity" of the author (Joseph Bruchac is Native American). For me the importance lay with an explanation from the author about how he or she came to the conclusions and generalizations that he or she did when sculpting the characters in their works. Joseph Bruchac is not a Penacook Native American, but he is a Native American. In the terms of a generalization (as discussed in Cortes) Bruchac has his main character deal with issues that some Native American children do deal with in a contemporary setting, but at the same time, children who are not Native American are able to identify with some of the issues that the character is working through. On this point, Bruchac is an insider, but not authentic in the sense that he is a Penacook Native American--instead Bruchac researched the tribe or at least made himself familiar and then address human issues.
I feel that it is not important for an other to be an insider or outsider as long as he or she is willing to do everything possible to learn about the overall themes and generalizations (as discussed in Cortes) of a group and is then able to create an identifiable character this is both a positive representation of a group and as close to authentic as is possible without being a member of the topic group.