From boarding schools to the multicultural classroom: The intercultural politics of education, assimilation, and American Indians

Teacher Education Quarterly, Summer 1999 by Sanchez, John, Stuckey, Mary E

This is no doubt true. Yet scholars of all ethnicities may still use analytic categories derived from non-Indian experience, that describe and analyze Indian experiences in ways that can be destructive of those experiences. Often there is little choice, given the requirements of the academy (Churchill & Jaimes, 1988; Duran & Duran,1995; Jaimes & Noriega,1988). Consequently, some scholars argue that American Indian Studies ought to be thoroughly reformulated, and begin with new premises and new vocabularies, based on the understanding of American Indians,

...not as feathered novelties unique to North America, but as nations of indigenous people sharing certain experiences with the indigenous peoples around the world.... This revelation, in turn, leads unerringly to the adoption of a certain analytical vernacular: colonialism, neocolonialism, decolonialization, settler states, internal colonialism, cultural imperialism, underdevelopment, direct and indirect economies, center-periphery theories, marginalization, self-determination, autonomy, and sovereignty. (Churchill & Jaimes, 1988)

There is some evidence that such a reformulation is occurring (Bird, 1996; Jaimes, 1992), especially as more American Indian scholars are entering the academy. Multicultural elements are becoming incorporated more fully if also contentiously as part of the academic curriculum, and are being increasingly recognized as an important part of how we go about doing research. A series of discussions on "H-Amindian," an internet discussion forum on the study of American Indians, prove useful in highlighting the issues involved.

One of the most difficult issues currently facing scholars is the question of who should speak for members of communities that are generally marginalized. The easy answer, that only members ofthose communities can speak for themselves, is fraught with problems: Does a scholar have to be a member of a specific group to study them? Which members of the group in question get to be authoritative, and who decides? Is it legitimate to deny non-Indians the chance to learn about other cultures? Most scholars are not willing to say that only an Indian can legitimately study American Indian issues, or that only a Cheyenne can study the Cheyenne. Yet there is also consensus that regardless of intentions, tribal connections, and/or experiences, a non-Indian or a non-Cheyenne cannot speak for or as an Indian or a Cheyenne; that there is a level of cultural appropriation that one always risks in writing about cultures that are not one's own, and that these issues must be taken very seriously. One scholar on the list noted that in their view, "Obviously anyone can write history about anything; but there is something wrong when too few voices of the people who made the history in the first place are drowned out by those of the people who aspired to displace them-no matter what the good will on any side" (H-Amindian, 1997).

In addition, scholars writing on H-Amindian expressed concern over a tendency among academics of all ethnicities to write as if there is an Indian perspective, or even one singular tribal perspective; that the tendency to simplify for analysis' sake may lead to greater problems that it overcomes. American Indian communities, like other human communities, have diversity of opinion and of experience; scholarship must also reflect that diversity. But again, the question is how to do that while appreciating the limited nature of source material (especially for historical research), and while wanting to demonstrate respect and concern for the communities involved?