Category: Uncategorized

When I was reading Metzger and Kalleher’s “Dearth of Native Voices in YAL,” the first thing I thought of was Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s TED Talk “The Danger of a Single Story.” In this talk, Adichie speaks about how when she was growing up in Africa she loved to read but there were barely any stories available that represented someone like her. She thought all stories had to be about white, blond, Anglo-Saxon protagonists in the developed world.

This is significant because it demonstrates the lack of representation in literature. Adichie felt like her story wasn’t one she could write about because it wasn’t what she had seen in literature. There were so few stories portraying African culture and they were heavily stereotyped. Adichie is advocating for more diverse voices to be represented in the literary world, and Metzger and Kalleher touch upon the same thesis in their article.

The lack of Native American voices in literature is not something I really considered before—something that is pretty ignorant of me and a result of my white privilege—so I am glad I was exposed to this problem in literature. One thing that really resonated with me is the need for underrepresented peoples to have more of an active voice in literature. It reminds me of the movie studios white washing PoC stories because they think the movie won’t make money if there’s not a well-known, money-making (read: white) actor attached to the picture. If historically and socially accurate stories about minority groups are made available to us, people will consume them.

Metzger and Kalleher highlight that not only does there need to be more stories about Native American life, but also, they need to demonstrate the history and the current lives of Native peoples so there are representations of them in the 21^st century. I found this part especially important because when it comes to writing about unrepresented groups, because the stories about them are so limited, they often depict the discrimination and hardships faced by the minority group, as if that is the only part of their identity. It’s something I remember hearing about literature with gay characters: it’s important to have LGBTQ characters, but every plotline doesn’t have to be about their struggle with their sexual orientation or coming out, it can just be about them living their life as someone who happens to be LGBTQ. This is exactly the point the authors are making about Native American characters. Historical portrayals are crucial, but so are ordinary, everyday representations that show Native peoples as complex, multi-faceted individuals.

One thing from the article that didn’t really resonate with me was the continued use of “Indian” when the authors were referring to Native Americans. They initially introduce the word to highlight the negative stereotypes of Native Americans, and I didn’t expect them to use it interchangeably. I’m certainly not going to tone police anyone, especially for a word not used against my culture that they might be using and reclaiming as a stylistic device. However, I’m wondering what the authors’ intentions were when using that word since it’s considered not PC and not something typically used to refer to Native peoples anymore.

When we made our meeting with the archivist at Geneseo, Liz, I was a little nervous because Sean and I were really interested in doing our project on Rainbow Boys, but we were worried that we wouldn’t be able to find enough information. Thankfully, Liz allayed those fears, and gave us a ton of help and resources to turn to. I love meeting with the research librarians at Geneseo because I feel like they have a special gift for finding exactly what I need and I don’t know how they do it. Liz was no different; she had found all the information Sean and I had and then some.

Liz pointed us in the direction of the Webster Herald because it’s not only the town paper, but also the official paper of the Webster Central School District, which is where we initially found the complaint about Rainbow Boys. Unfortunately, because the case is from 2006, the archives aren’t available online in their website archives, so we’ll have to call the local libraries to check. Furthermore, we don’t even know if they did any reporting about the case, but it is still a place to start. Plus, Liz mentioned if we do find an article we might have it on microfilm in the Geneseo library.

Next, Liz mentioned she was similarly not able to find any meeting minutes for the school board, but suggested that we try contacting the school because all the records should be public. She also mentioned that there might’ve been a meeting of the Webster Public Library board that dealt with the issue so we could definitely look there as well, we just have to contact the library. Even if there is no meeting of the library board they might be able to point us in the direction of articles and archives they have on site.

Another source for information was the online databases, like MLA, Eric, and ProQuest that Liz showed us how to use. Through Geneseo we have access to a ton of databases and Liz had already done preliminary searches and turned up a few different things. She showed us to search with the key words rainbow boys, Alex Sanchez, ban, censorship, and challenge. We’re going to be looking through the databases over the next few weeks.

One of the last things Liz pointed us too was this magazine/newspaper that dealt with specifically gay news called Empty Closest. It’s one of the oldest newspapers reporting LGBTQ+ news and it is run by the Gay Alliance. We looked into it with her and found that the website has archives from the 1990s all the to 2015. Once we narrow down the time frame we want to look in we can search the archives for anything about Rainbow Boys or Alex Sanchez.

Meeting with Liz was really interesting and allowed us to basically confirm we’re going to report on Rainbow Boys. There are so many different outlets to look into, I’m looking forward to it. Liz was really interested in the topic and helping us, so we will definitely be reaching out to her in the future.

Starting a course about book censorship really made me think about how many banned books I’ve read in my lifetime. Or rather how many books I’ve read that have been banned. It’s not like I seek out banned books—that’s actually the point; so many books that are considered to be part of a “normal” education are being challenged, and that really surprised me.

As we previously discussed in class, it’s a bit shocking that To Kill a Mockingbird has recently come under fire from censorship groups. In my mind, it’s ingrained as a quintessential part of an education. I remember reading it when I was fourteen and never once thought it was inappropriate for me or my class. Many of the challenges are made because the book contains usage of the “n-word,” but I don’t believe that is a reason to ban it. Numerous movies that depict that time period and earlier time periods similarly feature the “n-word,” but they are not banned. Furthermore, the reason it is used is to realistically represent that time period. The book itself also highlights the long-term implications of slavery that still persist in society in the form of de facto and de jure racism. It’s such a good book for the English curriculum, full of smart commentary on society, that trying to get it banned seems like a loss.

Looking through the list of banned books from 2005, I noticed another well-known “school” book was challenged: Catcher in the Rye. The book was only challenged and it ended up being retained—thankfully—but I was still annoyed to see it challenged. To me, it’s a book that makes students actually want to do the assigned reading. It was one of my favorite books from tenth grade and I think everyone should be exposed to it. I know there are a few “taboo” themes but they’re definitely not overt and not inappropriate for adolescents to read. I believe it’s important for this book to be kept in the curriculum because it’s one of the few books that can really resonate with teens. I’ll admit I’m being a little biased when it comes to these books because I enjoyed them so much, but they’re just so ingrained in the high school English class experience that it shocks me that people would try to remove them.

I was similarly surprised to see traditionally nonacademic books being challenged alongside the classics. Particularly one book from the Georgia Nicholson series by Louise Rennison, something I loved reading when I was in middle school. The challenge was against the second book in the series, On the Bright Side, I’m Now the Girlfriend of a Sex God: Further Confessions of Georgia Nicolson. I thought it was hilarious to see this book being challenged because there’s no sex in the book—only some kissing, and the title is just a representation of the main character’s hilarious personality. I was even more amused when I read that the complaint was that, “an unstable person seeing a girl reading the book might think from the title that the girl is promiscuous and stalk her.” This is a ridiculous reason to ban a book. If this hypothetical person is truly “unstable” what’s stopping them from misinterpreting other book titles and reacting unstably? What I think is most irksome about book challenges, these in particular, is there’s no realistic reason they should be challenged, just overprotective parents who are too trigger happy when it comes to banning anything they feel doesn’t align with their very restrictive values.