dressing up like native americans for thanksgiving...feels icky to me

[MercyA]

But in lower elementary, do you really teach your kids about genocide and the atrocities? 

 

Yes, I do. I don't go into gory detail, but I want my daughter to know the truth about what this country did to native people. 

 

I have agreed with some of your points, though, JodiSue, and I've agreed with some of the points made by those on the other side of the argument. I really appreciate this discussion, because I haven't made up my mind about this issue yet. Thank you, everyone, for sharing your perspectives.

[Tanaqui]

Not passive aggressive.  Cultural appropriation is an academic idea, not a personal one.  It typically angers those who are not part of the "targeted" groups in any way, for academic and political agendas.

 

Except when they ARE part of the group. I mean, I'm assuming that these people aren't all lying about their ethnicity.

 

So here I am, and I want to do the right thing. I don't want to hurt people. You tell me you know many Native Americans who think the whole thing is ridiculous. But I have right here a list of people who profess to be Native American (and not "one eight genuine Cherokee princess" but tribally enrolled) who say it is offensive. How are we to interpret this conflicting information?

 

You and I could both double down "I'm right! You're wrong! You're a big old poopyhead!" or, alternatively, we could both acknowledge that there is a wide diversity of opinions on this and related subjects among Native Americans. After all, Native Americans are humans, not a hive mind.

 

So, once we've settled on that, how should I take this information? Will this change my moral stance?

 

Probably not. As I said upthread, I generally believe that in issues of this sort, the person who is not invested in a subject should cede to the person who is. This means I generally give more weight to the opinions of people who say "Wow, I'm Native and that really offends me" than those who say "Wow, I'm Native and I think you're being ridiculous to worry about this even a little bit", because people in the former group seem to think this is more important than people in the latter. And I can't think of one reason why my right to dress my kid up as a Native American would be deeply important to me. So if it's not important to me, and it IS important to a significant percentage of Native Americans, then I guess the choice is easy.

 

 

[Tanaqui]

Nobody is "fabricating a new story."  Just how "new" is this story that has been taught in schools for generations?

 

Well, the story that Columbus proved the earth was round when his contemporaries thought it was flat is over 100 years old by now, but that doesn't make it true. When I said "new", I guess I really meant "revisionist" or "fantasy".

 

[SKL]

Even if it is fictionalized, I don't see why that's so terrible.  Most stories kids hear are fictionalized to some degree or other.  It's always been so since the first story ever, and I don't believe any harm comes of it.

 

People have always dressed up to dramatize stories.  The costumes have always been inaccurate.  And always will be.

[Tanaqui]

Even if it is fictionalized, I don't see why that's so terrible.  Most stories kids hear are fictionalized to some degree or other.  It's always been so since the first story ever, and I don't believe any harm comes of it.

Here's the harm: When you tell people the facts, they argue with you. And when you show them your sources, they keep arguing with you, because to believe you means to disbelieve their parents and their favorite teacher.

 

This story isn't merely "fictionalized". It's actually deceitful.

 

People have always dressed up to dramatize stories.  The costumes have always been inaccurate.  And always will be.

 

Not if we push ourselves to a higher standard. You may be satisfied with mediocrity, but why should the rest of us be?

 

Edited November 21, 2015 by Tanaqui

[Katy]

Interesting timing.  I was just reading that John Two-Hawks is a fraud like that Rachael chick that pretended she was black, and isn't Lakota at all. 

 

FTR, I am eligible for tribal citizenship, my DH has pushed me to enroll,  but I haven't for legal reasons.  Sometimes it's better if tribes are not involved in court proceedings, pushing an agenda that is different from your own.

 

Yes, obviously some tribes are more disenfranchised and are more angry about these things than others. But most people don't care.  Most people are too busy raising their families to get emotional about construction paper feathers, and would rather 4 & 5 year olds learn about their contribution to the day being celebrated than they would prefer that they didn't exist.

 

Here's the Cherokee take on Thanksgiving:  http://www.cherokee.org/AboutTheNation/History/Facts/CherokeesandThanksgiving.aspx

[Tanaqui]

Interesting timing.  I was just reading that John Two-Hawks is a fraud like that Rachael chick that pretended she was black, and isn't Lakota at all.

 

That IS interesting. Do you have more information where I can find out about this for myself?

 

would rather 4 & 5 year olds learn about their contribution to the day being celebrated than they would prefer that they didn't exist.

 

That is a false dichotomy. You can do better than that.

 

Here's the Cherokee take on Thanksgiving:  http://www.cherokee....anksgiving.aspx

 

That is also interesting. However, as nobody here seems to have said we should forgo celebrating the holiday entirely, I'm not really sure it's completely relevant. Unless I missed the part where they address the specific issue of playing dress-up. That is possible, I sometimes skim.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Tanaqui

[Spy Car]

As I walk through
This wicked world
Searchin' for light in the darkness of insanity.
I ask myself
Is all hope lost?
Is there only pain and hatred, and misery?

And each time I feel like this inside,
There's one thing I wanna know:
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding? Ohhhh
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding?

 

And as I walked on
Through troubled times
My spirit gets so downhearted sometimes
So where are the strong
And who are the trusted?
And where is the harmony?
Sweet harmony.

'Cause each time I feel it slippin' away, just makes me wanna cry.
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding? Ohhhh
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding?

 

So where are the strong?
And who are the trusted?
And where is the harmony?
Sweet harmony.

'Cause each time I feel it slippin' away, just makes me wanna cry.
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding? Ohhhh
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding? Ohhhh
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding?

 

~Nick Lowe

Edited November 21, 2015 by Spy Car

[katilac]

 

When people used to put on blackface, they didn't think they were being unkind. They thought they were honoring black "negro" culture. They were not bad people. Most of the time they had a good intent. They thought black people didn't mind and had plenty of "yes massa"s to bolster their beliefs.

 

<snip>

 

Not because it represents Native Americans, but because it's a lie that is perpetuated to gloss over the genocide that literally allowed the colonization of the continent, and which affects the lives of those people to this very day.

 

Can you link to any sources about blackface ever being regarded as honoring black culture? Because that is definitely something I have never heard of, and it would be interesting to learn about that. 

 

I don't think it's accurate to say that Thanksgiving programs gloss over genocide, because they are meant to represent one specific event, not the entire history. And it's aimed at very young children - the overwhelming majority of textbooks do, at a minimum,  make it clear that the settlers brought terrible suffering to the natives, both intentional and accidental. 

 

 

Suppose the Jews never got Israel.

 

Can you imagine telling a feel-good story about the holocaust that ended in the Jews living on reservations around Europe, the worst land, with the least water? "Then the Jews decided to give their bakeries and shops to the Germans because life was so hard under the Weimar republic! Wasn't it nice of them to share?"

 

 

Again, this is conflating one event with an entire history. It's a feel-good story about one day, intended for very young children. People can and do tell similar feel-good stories about the holocaust: this person was brave and good and helped Jewish people escape! And the stories meant for young children do gloss over much of the horror.  

 

One could easily say that your post is a bit offensive, because it presents Jewish people as the only victims of the Holocaust. It takes numerous groups and conflates them, as though all victims of the Holocaust were Jewish. 

 

The Wampanoag wore beaded headbands per their website. Even little kids could do some beading. I do think there's value in learning the anthropological aspects of history. What people ate, gender roles, what they wore, why. I don't think the construction paper feather headband really fulfills that.

 

Little kids could do some (very-not-true-to-reality) beading, but very young children think and remember in broad strokes (headbands, not beaded headbands vs non-beaded headbands). Plus, beads are expensive and construction paper is cheap. 

 

 We manage to learn about and honor all kinds of cultures and ethnic groups without dressing in a cheap mockery of their sacred religious clothing. I don't know why Native Americans are different.

 

I don't get this objection. Maybe because I'm Catholic, and the Pope himself thinks that dressing up like the pope is hella cute and funny? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/11897771/Pope-Francis-bursts-out-laughing-as-he-meets-baby-dressed-exactly-like-him.html

 

You can't take something as complex as an entire people- or even a single person- and turn it into a costume without caricaturizing it. Also, did you not see the part where the clothing most people copy when they dress as a Native American is their sacred religious regalia and is never worn as a costume? It would be a bit like a person making some LDS temple garments, wearing them as a costume, and then acting confused when their Mormon friends didn't understand what a big honor it was. 

 

Again, I guess Catholics are quite relaxed about this. People dress up as priests, nuns, and the pope, and it's not considered an affront. In both cases I assume they are wearing costumes, not actual sacred religious regalia.  

 

 

 

Not that most people are very clear on what the colonists at the time wore. But we'll just add it to the list of things people get wrong.

 

 

Hmm, that doesn't look all that far off from the stereotypical costumes to me, particularly for preschoolers. 

 

There is a story worth telling there... at least, I think there is. A story about Puritans who were basically complete idiots when it came to figuring out how to survive, who settled in a new land because they themselves had been victims, who possibly even chose to settle where they knew a plague had recently killed most of the indigenous population to make it easier for them, who survived in part because of the generosity of an indigenous man who showed them kindness even when they didn't deserve it and who helped them keep the peace with the First Peoples around them and showed them how to live in this new place. And then how two traditions - a Puritan tradition of holding thanksgivings when they say thanks to God and a Native tradition of a fall harvest come together.

 

And then, as an important part of the picture, how the Puritans and other groups who followed them years later went on to wage war against the peoples who helped them survive. Basically, they betrayed whatever lessons could have come out of such a meeting and we live with those consequences today.

 

The lie is that the story is presented as a group of people who were uncomplicatedly "good" and a group of people who were "savage." The "good" people invited the "savage" people to share with them, you know, to show how "good" they were. That's the lie. And even when it's not explicitly told that way, that's usually how it's presented, which is deeply wrong.

 

I don't get it - the first part of your post, the story worth telling, is exactly the story I've always heard told. The last part, that I bolded, is not. I have always just seen a very simple play (scene, really) with the Native Americans presented as the good guys who saved the day. 

 

Granted, they do leave out the future warfare and betrayal, but you can only expect kindergartners do memorize so many lines. 

 

Overall, I'm still working out exactly where I stand on this and related topics.

 

I definitely don't think it's always wrong for children to dress up in costumes meant to represent certain times and cultures. Our local Japanese club (which, yes, has a great many Japanese people in it) strongly encourages children to wear and use 'stereotypical' items such as kimonos, fans, and chopsticks. They are aiming for positive exposure, and don't seem too worried that little ones will think all Japanese people wear kimonos while folding origami swans. 

 

I think I'm okay with young children making inaccurate tribal headbands, painting flawed blue Celtic warrior symbols on themselves, and wearing lederhosen during Oktoberfest. 

 

I don't think anyone should use Redskins as a team name. Braves? I'm not sure; is it akin to Pirates or Colonels (a title, so to speak), or not? 

[Ravin]

You can celebrate Thanksgiving without the national myth passion play. Good grief.

[Spy Car]

You can celebrate Thanksgiving without the national myth passion play. Good grief.

 

Do you understand that children's Thanksgiving celebrations have nothing to do with a passion play, yes?

 

Bill

[Ravin]

Do you understand that children's Thanksgiving celebrations have nothing to do with a passion play, yes?

 

Bill

I was likening the whole Pilgrims and Indians play business carried on in elementary school with a passion play. It serves a similar purpose for a different institution. Passion play for religious teaching, Thanksgiving play for national myth teaching.

 

If you want to do a project about Indians around Thanksgiving, do one that might teach them something about actual history. If you really want to make sone thing from construction paper, how about one of those hand trace turkeys?

[Tsuga]

Can you link to any sources about blackface ever being regarded as honoring black culture? Because that is definitely something I have never heard of, and it would be interesting to learn about that. 

 

This should be easy:

 

https://reason.com/archives/2012/10/13/in-defense-of-blackface(from 2012, still defending it)

http://www.vox.com/2014/10/29/7089591/dont-get-whats-wrong-with-blackface-heres-why-its-so-offensive

 

I didn't even have to get historical, that's what's so hilarious. OBVIOUSLY there are still people who think this is totally cool to black people because they are STILL DOING IT and 

 

PEOPLE ARE DEFENDING DOING IT TO NATIVE AMERICANS RIGHT NOW SO HOW COULD THIS EVEN BE CONFUSING EVEN A LITTLE BIT?!?!

 

YOU'RE DOING IT RIGHT NOW!

 

TO ME!

 

​But you don't think people could defend blackface?

 

Holy crap! You're doing it! Just go look in the mirror. Voila, someone defending blackface. Today. Right now. You. You don't need a link, it is happening, this whole thread is about that exact thing.

 

:willy_nilly: (ETA: I need more of these.  :willy_nilly:  :willy_nilly:  :chillpill:  :001_huh: ) Okay. For real. What you are saying is the exact same thing as people say when defending blackface. It's not like... there will be no revelation. i fear if you read those articles you'll just be convinced, because you are convinced that people really like being imitated if you mean well and you yourself have a drop of AA or Indian blood. I really think, based on the logic you're using, you may read those articles and think, "Well they have a great point. I mean white people really do enjoy dressing like blacks because they do reject their whiteness. And that DOES make it okay." No it doesn't but what you are saying about dressing up here makes me think that you share the underlying beliefs about how people want to be treated as those defending blackface. Nobody wants to be a bad person. Everyone wants to be a nice person. Well most people anyway. Just because you want to be a nice person doesn't mean everything you're defending is right.

 

I don't think it's accurate to say that Thanksgiving programs gloss over genocide, because they are meant to represent one specific event, not the entire history. And it's aimed at very young children - the overwhelming majority of textbooks do, at a minimum,  make it clear that the settlers brought terrible suffering to the natives, both intentional and accidental. 

 

First, I did not say that the entire program glosses over genocide--certainly there are a wide variety of programs! I am talking about one specific activity that is repeated in many parts of the country, which is like a Thanksgiving nativity scene except instead of Jesus in the manger it's like Herod is right there and so are the Roman soldiers and they're pretending that the whole kick them out of their homes (sorry for all the Jewish comparisons, what can I say, I'm looking for common ground here and we've all read the Bible right?) and go to Bethlehem to get registered and everyone's gonna get slaughtered is just ignored and suddenly Herod and the Romans are the good guys. Like that. Not just, "Let's not talk about racial registration laws under the Roman Empire or killing all the firstborns," but, "I know, how about we pretend Herod was a nice kind and they were all friends?"

 

I know from my 20 years of the Internet that this is a very long metaphor to follow all in one sentence and that someone will ask me what Jews have to do with Indians since Jews are in the Bible but Indians are only in history books and I will just say right now I'm not going to explain a metaphor, you're just going to have to strain your brain to get the comparison. Persecuted, story avoids persecution but doesn't turn victims into participants in their own genocide, and persecuted, story avoids persecution but DOES turn victims into participants in their own genocide. Which one is okay? Which one is not? HM.

 

People were killed at the specific events. There is no need to dress up for that. Please understand that I am not opposed to Thanksgiving but of dressing up in costume, "redface", and presenting a false story of harmony as part of the story. Thanksgiving is actually my favorite holiday primarily because it's not very commercialized.

 

Again, this is conflating one event with an entire history. It's a feel-good story about one day, intended for very young children. People can and do tell similar feel-good stories about the holocaust: this person was brave and good and helped Jewish people escape! And the stories meant for young children do gloss over much of the horror.  

 

But those stories include the part of about the Jews being in danger, at least a little bit. The Thanksgiving story does not. It includes a lie about the people who were already living on this continent, to say they were active participants in what happened, i.e. not victims of a slaughter but that they freely gave the land to the pilgrims, and that's not true at all, not even remotely metaphorically true.

 

One could easily say that your post is a bit offensive, because it presents Jewish people as the only victims of the Holocaust. It takes numerous groups and conflates them, as though all victims of the Holocaust were Jewish. 

 

I'm not conflating different groups, I'm talking about the Jewish people because I'm talking about the intentional genocide. And really, Katy, I think you're arguing just to argue. Is it really offensive not to mention the Roma and the homosexual population? When making a specific comparison to highlight the seriousness of the genocide?

 

 

Little kids could do some (very-not-true-to-reality) beading, but very young children think and remember in broad strokes (headbands, not beaded headbands vs non-beaded headbands). Plus, beads are expensive and construction paper is cheap. 

 

Why can't you just not dress up like someone in the ethnic costume in which they underwent attempted extermination? Is it like, there is a force of nature making you dress up like someone who may have been a victim of genocide and pretend to be happy about it? How about just not do it? Not, no Thanksgiving, but no dress-up?

 

 

 

I don't get it - the first part of your post, the story worth telling, is exactly the story I've always heard told. The last part, that I bolded, is not. I have always just seen a very simple play (scene, really) with the Native Americans presented as the good guys who saved the day. 

 

They didn't save the day, though. They were attacked. They weren't good guys or bad guys. They were attacked guys and gals who surely did good and bad things, who tried to kill back and sometimes ran. They were real people, not superheroes or mythical creatures.

 

Granted, they do leave out the future warfare and betrayal, but you can only expect kindergartners do memorize so many lines. 

 

Honestly, there are a LOT of things kindergarteners cannot be expected to study, and this is one of many.

 

Overall, I'm still working out exactly where I stand on this and related topics.

 

I definitely don't think it's always wrong for children to dress up in costumes meant to represent certain times and cultures. Our local Japanese club (which, yes, has a great many Japanese people in it) strongly encourages children to wear and use 'stereotypical' items such as kimonos, fans, and chopsticks. They are aiming for positive exposure, and don't seem too worried that little ones will think all Japanese people wear kimonos while folding origami swans. 

 

Yeah, but what if the Japanese kids all dressed up like Chinese kids welcoming them to their shores? Would that be cute? I'm assuming you know about what Imperial Japan did to China.

 

Once again: winners dressing up as themselves: okay. People wearing traditional dress and sharing: okay. Winners dressing up like the losers in the war and pretending the losers really like it: not okay. 

 

I think I'm okay with young children making inaccurate tribal headbands, painting flawed blue Celtic warrior symbols on themselves, and wearing lederhosen during Oktoberfest. 

 

But almost no non-German children do wear lederhosen for Oktoberfest, and same with Celtic symbols. Those are all actual German and Celtic kids just like Indian kids may actually go to powwow. My children are about 12% German and they did wear german outfits to Oktoberfest but they went to a German school and were asked to. We have never worn Celtic stuff precisely because I think it's ridiculous. We're not Celts. End of story. And the Celts and the Irish, by the way, have had their fair share of hard times, which is one major reason I'm sensitive to not just putting on their ceremonial symbols like an accessory. And it does bother Celts--they have told me so. I empathize completely.

 

I don't think anyone should use Redskins as a team name. Braves? I'm not sure; is it akin to Pirates or Colonels (a title, so to speak), or not? 

 

It's like Redskins and honestly, this thread is depressing enough, can we just not go there?

 

 

 

 

Do you understand that children's Thanksgiving celebrations have nothing to do with a passion play, yes?

 

Bill

 

It's an analogy. This is too complex, dealing with moral things, to stay in the realm of sound-bytes, so you're going to have to work with analogy here.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Tsuga

[Tsuga]

I was likening the whole Pilgrims and Indians play business carried on in elementary school with a passion play. It serves a similar purpose for a different institution. Passion play for religious teaching, Thanksgiving play for national myth teaching.

 

If you want to do a project about Indians around Thanksgiving, do one that might teach them something about actual history. If you really want to make sone thing from construction paper, how about one of those hand trace turkeys?

 

My MIL does leaf turkeys! It's amazing.

[sewingmama]

Yes I think it's icky. In Australia white people do not ever dress up as an Aboriginal Person. If an Aboriginal Person is needed then they get a real one. Secondly, if they wanted the children to learn about the culture or their part in history they get an Elder in to teach about it. White people,CAN particiapte in some Aboriginal ceremonies BUT it is at the invitation of Aboriginal people and they don't just paint themselves randomly...they would have to go through the painting ceremony the same as any Aboriginal would and have it done by someone who knows what they are doing and what it symbolises. I have seen white children painted but again...it is always an Aboriginal person who applies the paint....it would never be a teacher just randomly painting them up. That stuff is sacred and meant to be respected.

[Tanaqui]

Do you understand that children's Thanksgiving celebrations have nothing to do with a passion play, yes?

 

Bill

 

Analogies, what are they?

[sewingmama]

Dressing up in a suit to perform any type of religious stuff is, broadly defined, using a costume. If there was a play at a school or a reenactment of something that happened with Mormons, I wouldn't think twice about people wearing something that Mormons normally wear. I am not Mormon, but I go to a church where the pastor wears a robe to preach. If someone were reenacting a scene or idea of, say, a church service in order to show how the pilgrims worshipped (this is done in colonial Williamsuburg, among other places), I would expect someone would dress as a reverend and I would not think twice about it nor be offended that someone is using a ceremonial garment to portray a ceremony which I participate in. In fact, thinking of colonial Williamsburg, there is an entire town dressing up to portray a group of people.

 

Again, by this logic, you can't make movies or reenact anything without "mocking". People who dress up as union or confederate soldiers to do reenactments aren't mocking those people. And no one would say that the particular outfit portrays what the individual man of that time was like, or that he never wore other clothing, or that he was hell bent on killing everyone all the time.

But what if the garment is not considered a costume but a sacred item? For the most part people who imitate Mormons dress as a missionary in suit, white shirt and tie. Mormons do it themselves and dress in Pioneer costumes to re-enact their heritage. If other people do it we are fine with it...and even think the missionary parodies are kinda funny. However, if people were to dress up in our sacred ceremonial clothing that is completely different. Due to the internet it isn't exactly a secret anymore but if you were to ask ANY Mormon if it was ok to wear it as a costume you would always get a horrified NO. If it was worn as a costume I wouldn't say that we were offended as such but we would feel mocked. Taking something that is sacred to any culture or religion and useing it carelessly is mocking and offensive. Just because you don't understand the meaning behind it or believe in it doesn't make it ok....it just makes you look like a fool.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I like Santa :)

 

Bill

 

I dressed up as Santa for Halloween one year (as a kid).

[Dmmetler]

In my case, the thing that bothers me is that the adults are motivating/starting it. My DD went through a phase where she read each American Girl dolls' books in turn, made a bunch of crafts and things for her doll, and tried to put together outfits for herself. Her brown paper bags with beads glued to them version of Kaya's meet outfit and her gluing feathers to a hair comb to try to match the one that Kaya wore as her celebration outfit didn't bother me because it was a 6-7 yr old girl's effort to dress as a fictional character that she liked and admired, who was based on how a child might have lived in a specific place and time. It wasn't anything different than she'd done when dressing up as Molly, or Josephina, or Caroline.

 

But when teachers cut out cardboard headbands and give preschoolers feathers to glue to them and then staple them around little heads, along with paper bag vests, that's not child-driven. It's adult driven.

[Chris in VA]

Thank you for such a good thread.

 

This is what I've concluded, fwiw.

 

I think telling a Thanksgiving story that mentions the 3 day feast in 1621 is ok. I think saying what Farrar did, about the colonist's needing help from the Wampanoag, and about the specific people involved, is good. I think telling even the youngest children the facts about the feast (what foods were served, who came) is fine. I think if you want to dress up, you should dress as the Wampanoag and the colonists, neither of whom would have worn the stereotypical clothing we tend to use as costumes when reenacting the celebration. ( Just an aside--Not all the colonists were Puritans, either.)

I'd like to see a revision of the myth, to make it accurate.  I'd like to see kids being taught about specific people groups, not lumping everyone together--you know, the idea that "Indians all lived in tipis and all Indians dressed in feathered headdresses every day, so we wear these clothes to show what they wore."

 

And ITA with SpyCar that that one feast does show a measure of peace and grace and goodwill between the Wampanoag and the colonists. It didn't last, it wasn't based on a belief that they were equal, and all of that, but for that moment, the behavior on both sides was one of peace.

There was a real feast, with real people, and they ate real foods, and it is historical fact that it happened.

I am ok with telling THAT story.

 

 

[Katy]

 

 

That IS interesting. Do you have more information where I can find out about this for myself?

 

 

 

Have you tried google?  When I google his name and fraud there are over 200,000 results.  The story I read is apparently not online, but basically he's not a member of any tribe.  He used to represent Two-Hawks as a legal name, but when confronted with the fact that there are no Lakota with that name he changed his story and now says Two-Hawks is a stage name.  Apparently the Lakota say his poems are total gibberish and his spiritual teachings, as published, are not correct.

[Spy Car]

I was likening the whole Pilgrims and Indians play business carried on in elementary school with a passion play. It serves a similar purpose for a different institution. Passion play for religious teaching, Thanksgiving play for national myth teaching.

 

 

 

But giving up positive national myths—which Thanksgiving, being a holiday of thanks and brotherhood surely is—would only weaken our shared sense of nationhood. These cultural bonds help join us as a people.

 

 

 

 

If you want to do a project about Indians around Thanksgiving, do one that might teach them something about actual history. If you really want to make sone thing from construction paper, how about one of those hand trace turkeys?

 

That might work..until PETA goes crazy about children celebrating the annual Turkey genocide. 

 

Bill

[MSNative]

But giving up positive national myths—which Thanksgiving, being a holiday of thanks and brotherhood surely is—would only weaken our shared sense of nationhood. These cultural bonds help join us as a people.

 

 

 

That might work..until PETA goes crazy about children celebrating the annual Turkey genocide.

 

Bill

I do believe in miracles. I think I agreed with and (tried to though I may have missed some) liked every single post Bill made. Don't think that has ever happened. ;)

Bill you are giving me hope for a possibly peaceful holiday dinner. Happy Thanksgiving indeed!

[PeacefulChaos]

So I just read through this whole thread, and I'm late on it, but this is what I'm thinking:

 

Dressing up in the construction paper headband and stuff isn't done here anyway, but i'm not a big fan of it when I see it.  That said, it's not something I get up in arms over, either - it's just... meh.

 

But some of the opinions expressed here have me curious - children dressing up in general is not okay?  This is interesting to me.  I've yet to see a history curriculum anywhere that doesn't attempt to do something that relates to what they are studying about, whether it be artwork, cooking Phoenician bread, making a vase, or trying to recreate jewelry from an ancient time period.  Based on what I've seen from a few commenters, that isn't okay.  

I have to admit that I find that strange.  *shrug*  Because while I understand if it is historically inaccurate, I actually find this type of thing to be totally harmless.  

 

In middle school we had a world cultures fair for all the 6th graders, where we chose a country or picked a country out of a hat, and we researched it for a good part of the year.  Then one evening in March we had a huge thing where each group had a booth filled with information and items from their country.  We dressed in historical attire for our country.  We did presentations for the judges (graders, really, as it wasn't a contest) as they walked from booth to booth, and answered questions about our country's history for all the other parents and students in attendance.  We were expected to all walk around and visit other booths.  

It was seriously one of the best experiences I remember of my school years.

 

Obviously, they are very different things - to me, anyway.  But unless I'm misunderstanding some of the comments, to some people they are the same.  

 

It's just interesting.

[Slojo]

Thanksgiving is a holiday that affirms brotherhood, tolerance, and gratitude. It functions as part of our national mythology, and in that role supports the best of American values. That some elements don't represent strict historical truth is of no more relevance than strict accuracy of the stories about Santa (or the other guy) when it comes to the Christmas holiday. These things bring reflection and good cheer.

 

Happy Thanksgiving :D

 

Bill

Except Santa didn't go on to actively participate in the decimation of entire groups of people (at least as far as I know). But I'm not that attached to the idea of Santa either. I can take or leave him.

 

No.  The intention behind something means everything.

 

Imagine if I said that I find it offensive that a large number of you buy Apologia books, after their rant on LDS not being Christians.  You all still do it, and would think it crazy that I would find what you think is a learning opportunity for *your* kids something *I* should insert myself in.

No, nothing means EVERYTHING. Life is a bit more complex than that. Lots of ways to offend without intending to, as several people have given examples. There's that whole saying: "When you know better, you do better." Some folks are asking for folks to "know" a bit more (or demonstrate what they know) and to "do better." That's all. You didn't intend to offend, but you found out that you did? Unless there is some really compelling reason and it's no harm to you, why wouldn't you change your behavior or practice. Out of some weird, "You're not the boss of me" sentiment? 

 

I disagree. I think it is time to stop feeding "the culture of outrage." 

 

Nations are bound together by cultural myths, and Thanksgiving celebrates positive ideals. Not the least of which was the native population aiding the salvation of the colonists. 

 

It is a holiday about gratitude.

 

Bill

Can you break down this "culture of outrage" of which you speak? Should not genocide be considered outrageous? And, interesting that you used "aiding the salvation of colonists." Yeah, you could say that. They eventually paid with their lives. If there is any culture I'm concerned with it the "culture of being under-raged" I guess. Way too much rationalizing why we can't be bothered to be more humane to our fellow human beings in our culture and world for me. But, Happy Thanksgiving, anyway...

 

You've certainly managed to get yourself wound up. Bad things have happened in the world. They should not be forgotten. Ever.

 

But there have been moments of hope, good-will, and thanksgiving as well. The holiday celebrates the latter. Life is unbalanced when we focus only on the horror.

 

Bill

Sure - that's why I just celebrated my daughter's birthday. For balance... It was a nice celebration. The whole family's balanced, now.  I just didn't realize balance required lying. 

 

Perhaps this should be a spin-off topic, but what's the emotional payoff for people who pick up offenses on behalf of groups who aren't offended?

 

Is it just a feeling of superiority?

Actually, we get a toaster out of the deal. But seriously, there are plenty of indigenous people who are offended. I've never been to Oklahoma, so I don't know the individuals of which you speak (and what level of offense or non-offense they have about the issue). I do know that the "I'm not really offended" coming form various groups of people of color is a response that CAN have a range of motivations, some of them complex. For example, I was one of 10 African Americans in my high school graduating class. There were a handful of occasions in which white classmates said something pretty stereotypical about black people -- and you know what, I played off that I wasn't offended. I even convinced myself that I wasn't offended because I didn't want to cause any conflict. And I certainly didn't want to lose friends. But several of those episodes actually weren't great. Including one in which I played off like I wasn't offended at a senior graduation party, but was actually so rattled and motified that I almost got into an accident driving myself home because I was so disturbed and distracted by what had just happened -- it was almost like I had a delayed emotional reaction that I didn't realize until after I had left the party. 

 

So perhaps every single one of the NA you know are not offended -- fine. But, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them just don't want to talk about it within the larger community, have "learned" not to make a big deal of it (but may or may not in their homes and own communities say differently), or - later - change their minds (e.g., they are okay with it when they are young, but with getting older or life changes, they rethink it and see that it was harmful, etc...)

 

Arguing that schools should rethink Thanksgiving plays and dress-up isn't some big emotional joyride. It's really just an argument to consider another side. You are free to take or leave. But, please know that it is a legitimate perspective -- one shared by many NAs. 

 

As the parent of kids with a very different and colorful culture of origin, I can say that my kids and I (on their behalf) and many of their countrymen feel glad when others experiment with the dress and symbols of their birth culture.  The fact that those from other backgrounds are ignorant of what they're talking about is not something to hold against them.  It is nice that they are curious and open-minded and therefore unlikely to remain completely ignorant as they mature.

 

I participate in many multicultural themed activities, as I live in a multicultural city and a multicultural household.  People from other cultures are far more likely to be pleased that others are interested in their culture than to be offended that their interest is expressed clumsily because they are still learning.  Nobody is born knowing everything about every culture, so it's kind of silly to be offended by that.

 

The Native American part of the Thanksgiving story is an introduction that will lead many kids to be interested in learning more about Native Americans.  Kids are naturally open-minded and, in our culture today, have no reason to come at this study with a negative attitude toward Native Americans.  (That was not always the case of course.)

I have no problem with folks "being learners." But, sure, there are better and not-so-great ways to learn about other cultures. You're not opposed to being told that "that's not really accurate" or "if you want to really learn about X, why not try this way because _______ is actually considered offensive." I don't see how anything anyone has said is doing anything other than that. Yes, I am excited for people to learn about my culture, and, yes, I might be gracious with "clumsiness" as we are first getting to know each other, but over time, yes, I might want you to "take the hint" about certain things. And, really, just how much are kids really learning about a culture by donning brown paper bags, etc... And, if the teacher/educator is leading the activity, um yeah, why don't you BE an educator, and demonstrate how an educated person figures out how to engage with another culture, and how to learn about and from another culture without resorting to caricatures, stereotypes, overly fictionalized stories, etc... that's what it means to be educated. I'm good with "clumsy" if that's really the effort that's being made. I'm not good with intellectually lazy and clumsy. 

 

Not passive aggressive.  Cultural appropriation is an academic idea, not a personal one.  It typically angers those who are not part of the "targeted" groups in any way, for academic and political agendas.

 

Simply not wanting to offend people is a wonderful approach to life.  Passionately assuming costumes are evil appropriation equivalent to reminding the conquered they are victims of near-genocide is a completely different thing, especially when started by someone who has nothing whatsoever to do with the offended group.

 

Don't knock it, whole degrees and professions exist just for this purpose.

 

:rofl:

 

Oh no, we wouldn't want to apply academic ideas toward the project of becoming educated. The horrors of asking people to use their intellect to think through an issue. The words "cultural appropriation" are certainly "big words," but folks experience it in everyday interactions all the time. One need not be academic to experience what the OP sensed as "icky" (is that word non-academic enough for you). As a member of an often targeted group, yes, sometimes cultural appropriation feels downright "icky" to me (yep, that whole Taylor Swift thing was problematic). If I use "icky" instead of cultural appropriation, will you respect my opinion more?  And the whole Arctic Mama ROFL at "whole degrees and professions" is "icky" as well (though, you're correct, that's not an example of cultural appropriation... maybe I need a more expansive vocabulary than just "icky" then, but I might have to use some academic words for that).

[SKL]

Since the history of our country (and many if not most others) is full of discrimination, oppression, hate, and violence based on different races / nationalities / religions, and if we're not allowed to teach children about (and/or let them act out) an example of a peaceful collaboration, where is the hope in this country for any inter-group harmony?

 

Telling kids "in this country, it's always been about hating on those different from us," what do you think they will internalize?

 

What is the better way to help kids internalize the ideal of peace and collaboration among different groups?

[Mergath]

Not passive aggressive.  Cultural appropriation is an academic idea, not a personal one.  It typically angers those who are not part of the "targeted" groups in any way, for academic and political agendas.

 

Simply not wanting to offend people is a wonderful approach to life.  Passionately assuming costumes are evil appropriation equivalent to reminding the conquered they are victims of near-genocide is a completely different thing, especially when started by someone who has nothing whatsoever to do with the offended group.

 

Did you miss the link I posted earlier? To my NA friend who is a tribal rights attorney and knew so many people angered by the appropriation of Native imagery that she and other NAs started an entire non-profit to combat it? 

 

Some of us who are not part of the "targeted" groups are angered by this stuff because it is hurtful to our friends who are part of that group. 

 

Here's the FB group for my friend's non-profit. Do they look like they feel honored by this kind of thing?

 

https://www.facebook.com/notyourmascots/?fref=ts

[Mergath]

Since the history of our country (and many if not most others) is full of discrimination, oppression, hate, and violence based on different races / nationalities / religions, and if we're not allowed to teach children about (and/or let them act out) an example of a peaceful collaboration, where is the hope in this country for any inter-group harmony?

 

Telling kids "in this country, it's always been about hating on those different from us," what do you think they will internalize?

 

What is the better way to help kids internalize the ideal of peace and collaboration among different groups?

 

I think there are better ways to learn about peaceful collaboration than putting on a construction paper headdress and pretending to have thanksgiving dinner. I remember doing that as a kid, and I didn't take anything away from it other than thinking that Native Americans and Pilgrims both wore some funny clothes.  There is so much conflict in the world today, and I think it would be far more valuable for kids to get involved trying to find solutions to that than acting out the stereotypes of a centuries-old myth. 

[HomeAgain]

So I just read through this whole thread, and I'm late on it, but this is what I'm thinking:

 

Dressing up in the construction paper headband and stuff isn't done here anyway, but i'm not a big fan of it when I see it.  That said, it's not something I get up in arms over, either - it's just... meh.

 

But some of the opinions expressed here have me curious - children dressing up in general is not okay?  This is interesting to me.  I've yet to see a history curriculum anywhere that doesn't attempt to do something that relates to what they are studying about, whether it be artwork, cooking Phoenician bread, making a vase, or trying to recreate jewelry from an ancient time period.  Based on what I've seen from a few commenters, that isn't okay.  

I have to admit that I find that strange.  *shrug*  Because while I understand if it is historically inaccurate, I actually find this type of thing to be totally harmless.  

 

In middle school we had a world cultures fair for all the 6th graders, where we chose a country or picked a country out of a hat, and we researched it for a good part of the year.  Then one evening in March we had a huge thing where each group had a booth filled with information and items from their country.  We dressed in historical attire for our country.  We did presentations for the judges (graders, really, as it wasn't a contest) as they walked from booth to booth, and answered questions about our country's history for all the other parents and students in attendance.  We were expected to all walk around and visit other booths.  

It was seriously one of the best experiences I remember of my school years.

 

Obviously, they are very different things - to me, anyway.  But unless I'm misunderstanding some of the comments, to some people they are the same.  

 

It's just interesting.

 

Your post got me thinking about the language school I attended.  Several different languages were taught, depending on where in the school you were determined your language.  Anyhow, one day a year, the adult students dressed up, performed dances, plays, etc. showcasing their learned language, with their native instructors help.  It was never intended to disparage the countries, but to honor them and their background.

 

I have a feeling many here would say that is wrong, too, half to pick an argument and half because they really think learning about any culture more than reading about it is wrong and immoral.

 

[Mergath]

But what if the garment is not considered a costume but a sacred item? For the most part people who imitate Mormons dress as a missionary in suit, white shirt and tie. Mormons do it themselves and dress in Pioneer costumes to re-enact their heritage. If other people do it we are fine with it...and even think the missionary parodies are kinda funny. However, if people were to dress up in our sacred ceremonial clothing that is completely different. Due to the internet it isn't exactly a secret anymore but if you were to ask ANY Mormon if it was ok to wear it as a costume you would always get a horrified NO. If it was worn as a costume I wouldn't say that we were offended as such but we would feel mocked. Taking something that is sacred to any culture or religion and useing it carelessly is mocking and offensive. Just because you don't understand the meaning behind it or believe in it doesn't make it ok....it just makes you look like a fool.

 

I made that same argument before. Conveniently, no one responded. I guess it's okay to turn Native American sacred ceremonial clothes into a costume 'cause they look cool or something. 

 

I give up. The people who keep saying they doing get why a culture would be upset about that are being intentionally obtuse at this point.

[Mergath]

So I just read through this whole thread, and I'm late on it, but this is what I'm thinking:

 

Dressing up in the construction paper headband and stuff isn't done here anyway, but i'm not a big fan of it when I see it.  That said, it's not something I get up in arms over, either - it's just... meh.

 

But some of the opinions expressed here have me curious - children dressing up in general is not okay?  This is interesting to me.  I've yet to see a history curriculum anywhere that doesn't attempt to do something that relates to what they are studying about, whether it be artwork, cooking Phoenician bread, making a vase, or trying to recreate jewelry from an ancient time period.  Based on what I've seen from a few commenters, that isn't okay.  

I have to admit that I find that strange.  *shrug*  Because while I understand if it is historically inaccurate, I actually find this type of thing to be totally harmless.  

 

In middle school we had a world cultures fair for all the 6th graders, where we chose a country or picked a country out of a hat, and we researched it for a good part of the year.  Then one evening in March we had a huge thing where each group had a booth filled with information and items from their country.  We dressed in historical attire for our country.  We did presentations for the judges (graders, really, as it wasn't a contest) as they walked from booth to booth, and answered questions about our country's history for all the other parents and students in attendance.  We were expected to all walk around and visit other booths.  

It was seriously one of the best experiences I remember of my school years.

 

Obviously, they are very different things - to me, anyway.  But unless I'm misunderstanding some of the comments, to some people they are the same.  

 

It's just interesting.

 

You can't see the difference between recreating artifacts from an ancient civilization and wearing the sacred ceremonial garments of a culture that exists today as a costume?

[Butter]

 It would be a bit like a person making some LDS temple garments, wearing them as a costume, and then acting confused when their Mormon friends didn't understand what a big honor it was. 

 

I think we'd probably be confused why someone was wearing a costume of underwear.  Because that's what they are... underwear.  Most people when dressing up as a Mormon wear stereotypical suits and missionary nametags or pioneer clothes.

[SKL]

Why would Western Native Americans be offended about how one northeast US group is being portrayed (by 6-year-olds in the northeast)?  Do German people get angry when British kids dress in inaccurate costumes to re-enact the maypole?  Isn't it a generalization to speak as if the history and cultures of both groups are/were the same?

 

Another point.  The outcome of interactions among the groups was not all 100% genocide /devastation; it was mixed.  Many folks on the North American continent are literally "mixed" because there was in fact some level of understanding among at least some of the groups.  (No, it was not all because of abduction and rape.)  So yes, this is a complex topic.  It can be covered objectively by kids old enough to handle it, but not if the teaching reflects the level of outrage proposed in some of the posts above.

[Mergath]

I think we'd probably be confused why someone was wearing a costume of underwear.  Because that's what they are... underwear.  Most people when dressing up as a Mormon wear stereotypical suits and missionary nametags or pioneer clothes.

 

I was trying to draw a parallel between the sacred clothing of different cultures, and that's one most people are familiar with.

[Butter]

I was trying to draw a parallel between the sacred clothing of different cultures, and that's one most people are familiar with.

 

I honestly don't think most Mormons would be outraged (but we'd still be like, "Dude, that's underwear...").  Some would, but as a whole we don't tend to freak out about stuff.  I mean The Book of Mormon Musical is pretty much completely mocking Mormons and the church took out ads in the playbills.

[SKL]

You can't see the difference between recreating artifacts from an ancient civilization and wearing the sacred ceremonial garments of a culture that exists today as a costume?

 

So now a construction paper cutout by a 6yo (or whatever they use) is a sacred ceremonial garment?  Would you be OK with just a piece of dyed cloth around their hair?  Do the fake, ridiculous fall-leaf-colored feathers make it sacred?  Or is it the headband itself?

 

Do we know that sacred ceremonial garments were worn at the actual feast?  If they were, do we know that they looked anything like these things that are made for kids to dress up in on Thanksgiving?

 

FTR, my kids' school used cloth cut from pillowcases and dyed.  No feathers.

 

I think also that people are not considering how much time teachers don't have for "authentic" costumes in b&m schools.  I think they are just trying to have some way of telling the Native Americans from the Pilgrims.

 

It's a good thing they can't do Christmas pageants any more, or I'm sure there would be an outrage over how insulting the costumes of the 3 "wise men" were, not to mention the shepherds and King Herod.

[marbel]

I think there are better ways to learn about peaceful collaboration than putting on a construction paper headdress and pretending to have thanksgiving dinner. I remember doing that as a kid, and I didn't take anything away from it other than thinking that Native Americans and Pilgrims both wore some funny clothes.  There is so much conflict in the world today, and I think it would be far more valuable for kids to get involved trying to find solutions to that than acting out the stereotypes of a centuries-old myth. 

 

Are we still talking about the 6 and under crowd?

 

 

 

[Mergath]

I honestly don't think most Mormons would be outraged (but we'd still be like, "Dude, that's underwear...").  Some would, but as a whole we don't tend to freak out about stuff.  I mean The Book of Mormon Musical is pretty much completely mocking Mormons and the church took out ads in the playbills.

 

But if it was common throughout the country to wear them as a costume and even, say, a quarter of the Mormons you knew found it offensive, wouldn't it make sense to stop? What would be so incredibly valuable about non-Mormons wearing them as a costume that it would outweigh being hurtful to so many people?

[Mergath]

Are we still talking about the 6 and under crowd?

 

 

 

 

If they can understand the history behind the Thanksgiving mythology and act it out, surely they can understand that there is conflict today and think of ideas for how different groups of people might get along. My dd is seven, but I've been discussing simplified versions of current events with her for a couple years now. 

[PeacefulChaos]

You can't see the difference between recreating artifacts from an ancient civilization and wearing the sacred ceremonial garments of a culture that exists today as a costume?

 

I apologize.  I was understanding your posts to be about 'dressing up' in general, not the sacred garments.  

 

I will admit to not being very well versed in what sacred garments are for NA cultures.  

[Mergath]

So now a construction paper cutout by a 6yo (or whatever they use) is a sacred ceremonial garment?  Would you be OK with just a piece of dyed cloth around their hair?  Do the fake, ridiculous fall-leaf-colored feathers make it sacred?  Or is it the headband itself?

 

Do we know that sacred ceremonial garments were worn at the actual feast?  If they were, do we know that they looked anything like these things that are made for kids to dress up in on Thanksgiving?

 

FTR, my kids' school used cloth cut from pillowcases and dyed.  No feathers.

 

I think also that people are not considering how much time teachers don't have for "authentic" costumes in b&m schools.  I think they are just trying to have some way of telling the Native Americans from the Pilgrims.

 

It's a good thing they can't do Christmas pageants any more, or I'm sure there would be an outrage over how insulting the costumes of the 3 "wise men" were, not to mention the shepherds and King Herod.

 

The costumes kids make today when they learn about Native Americans are based on their ceremonial garments, not the stuff they wore/wear every day. They're basing their understanding of how NAs dress on a caricature of something sacred.

 

I imagine people don't get upset about Christmas plays because we don't have a long history of marginalizing, stereotyping, and mocking Middle Eastern shepherds. 

[SKL]

If they can understand the history behind the Thanksgiving mythology and act it out, surely they can understand that there is conflict today and think of ideas for how different groups of people might get along. My dd is seven, but I've been discussing simplified versions of current events with her for a couple years now. 

 

A little kid does not understand how adults do or don't get along.  To understand that, one needs to comprehend the various levels of fear and the appetite for power and scarce resources and ignorance and lots of other things.  That's why we don't ask 6yo children to solve adult problems IRL.  While it's cute to listen to their ideas of how to make the world better, I'm not sure it accomplishes anything.  I think time is better spent showing examples of what has worked, even though these may not be fully representative of harsh realities we hope to change.

[SKL]

I imagine people don't get upset about Christmas plays because we don't have a long history of marginalizing, stereotyping, and mocking Middle Eastern shepherds. 

 

Sure we do.

 

[Mergath]

I apologize.  I was understanding your posts to be about 'dressing up' in general, not the sacred garments.  

 

I will admit to not being very well versed in what sacred garments are for NA cultures.  

 

When kids make feathered headdresses and things like that, it's based on the ceremonial garments worn by different NA tribes. I posted this link earlier. I think it's a good illustration of why we shouldn't encourage kids to turn these clothes into costumes: http://www.tpt.org/powwow/regalia.html

[HomeAgain]

When kids make feathered headdresses and things like that, it's based on the ceremonial garments worn by different NA tribes. I posted this link earlier. I think it's a good illustration of why we shouldn't encourage kids to turn these clothes into costumes: http://www.tpt.org/powwow/regalia.html

 

http://www.bigorrin.org/wampanoag_kids.htm YMMV, but to me, the word "usually" doesn't denote a special occasion.

 

From the site:

The Wampanoags didn't wear long headdresses like the Sioux. Usually they wore a beaded headband with a feather or two in it. A Wampanoag chief might wear a headdress made of feathers pointing straight up from a headband. Wampanoag women had long hair, but a man would often wore his hair in the Mohawk style or shave his head completely except for a scalplock (one long lock of hair on top of his head.) Wampanoag warriors also painted their faces, and sometimes decorated their bodies with tribal tattoos.

 

 

 

 

[Mergath]

http://www.bigorrin.org/wampanoag_kids.htm YMMV, but to me, the word "usually" doesn't denote a special occasion.

 

From the site:

The Wampanoags didn't wear long headdresses like the Sioux. Usually they wore a beaded headband with a feather or two in it. A Wampanoag chief might wear a headdress made of feathers pointing straight up from a headband. Wampanoag women had long hair, but a man would often wore his hair in the Mohawk style or shave his head completely except for a scalplock (one long lock of hair on top of his head.) Wampanoag warriors also painted their faces, and sometimes decorated their bodies with tribal tattoos.

 

 

 

 

 

I get an error message when I try to open your link.

[Mergath]

Btw, if any of you guys want to show your kids some of the authentic cultural practices of modern NAs, this video of a hoop dance is awesome. The music is from a band called "A Tribe Called Red." Highly recommend them.

 

[HomeAgain]

I get an error message when I try to open your link.

 

If you do a search for "Wampanoag" or "Wampanoag for kids", it will bring up information about their history, current tribes, and practices.  Not that the practices of other Native American tribes should be ignored, but it certainly makes more sense to focus on this than a dance from an unknown tribe that has little to nothing to do with Thanksgiving.  To be honest, I find that more students are interested in a comparison with the Powhatan empire this time of year, since they've just finished studying how they were treated by the Jamestown settlers and the uneasy peace treaties there.

[Mergath]

If you do a search for "Wampanoag" or "Wampanoag for kids", it will bring up information about their history, current tribes, and practices.  Not that the practices of other Native American tribes should be ignored, but it certainly makes more sense to focus on this than a dance from an unknown tribe that has little to nothing to do with Thanksgiving.  To be honest, I find that more students are interested in a comparison with the Powhatan empire this time of year, since they've just finished studying how they were treated by the Jamestown settlers and the uneasy peace treaties there.

 

:001_rolleyes:  Yeah, showing kids that many NA tribes still exist today and have held on to their cultural practices couldn't possibly be of any value whatsoever.

 

I'm done.

[SKL]

:001_rolleyes:  Yeah, showing kids that many NA tribes still exist today and have held on to their cultural practices couldn't possibly be of any value whatsoever.

 

I'm done.

 

I think it is a matter of prioritizing what is to be covered in connection with Thanksgiving specifically.  The study of Native Americans doesn't stop at the end of November.

 

Though, if we show Native Americans doing a traditional dance today, that would probably offend people who insist that the only truth is that white people wiped out Native Americans and all their traditions.