The Cambria freeman. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1867-1938, 1897-03-12
INDIANS HATE ENGLISH.
They Refuse to Speak 1t After
Leaving School
The Rigid Rules against the Use OF Their
Own Tongue Cause Them to De-
spise the White Mans
Language.

For years government instructors
among the Indians have been troubled
10y the fact that he red men, after learn
ing English at the schools as children,
inv Nariably return 10 their own tongues
and seem positively TO hate the white
mans language.
The superintendent of Indian schools.
". y. Hailman. in Il report just made tn
the commissioner of Indian affairs, says
that the Indians were actually taught
10 hate the English tongue. because OF
the rigid rules against the use of any
Indian conversation by pupils. Until
lately the great majority of Indian
teachers have l;tbored under the delu-
sion that they can hasten the acquisi-
tion of the English language on the part
OF the pupils by compulsory measures.
visiting more or less severe penalties
upon the unfortunate children " no ver.
caught in the u>sr of the Indian speech.
The unreasonabieness of such pro
coedings, which are always punished
with more or less serious failure. ap-
pears when il is considered that ar
idiom that is forced upon Il child 10y
means of penalties and other appeals
to fear is necessarily hateful 10 him.
Then, in his own heart, he turns away
from it and uses it only under more or
less pronounced protests. This be
comes quite manifest as soon as the
children are removed from the restraint
IF the school. when. for instance, they
return To their parents for Il visit or
more or less permanently after gradua-
tion. and when. on meeting their
former teachers. they will either re-
fuse to speak English altogether or an
Swer with shame-faced reluctance.
Prof Hailman says: There is no
doubt in my mind that the unreason-
ablenCSS of the offensive warfare made
in the Indian schools against Indian
vcrnacular is largely to blame for the
apparent stubbornness with which
older Indians refuse to learn English
or TO use the little knowledge thereof
which they may possess. If ii is argued
that with liberty TO use the Indian yer
nacular he Indian children viii engage
in conversation, possibly improper,
which the teacher can neither under
stand nor control, the fault lies not
with the child's knowledge and use Of
his own idiom. but with the teachers
Ignorance of the same, and the remedy
viii bc found not in the repreSsive
measures. which must. because of their
uureasouahlcncss. fail of their purpose.
but in the determined effort ON the
teachers part to acquire a knowledge
OF the chilI's idiom.
probably the traditional hostile at
titUde Of certain schools to the Indian
vernacular * responSi BILE for the fact
that in Il number Of instances teacher
and other school employees continue a
the same school. working with the same
tribe of Indians, without acquiring an"
aPprcciable knowledge Of the lauglIaoJ.
spoken ut the homes Of their children.
This ignorance frequently extends t.
the customs. habits of life. au;l the his
t"rirai Development of the tribe II.
quest ion They seem to trcat the In
dams aS outcastS. and the Cutc.me Cf
their work corresponds with this atti-
tUde. Chicago Tribune