As a provider of automotive dealership solutions, we are always looking for new and innovative ways to help our dealership customers run successful, efficient operations. Our dedicated representatives follow the auto industry closely to keep up on the latest news, trends, and initiatives so that we can continue to be valued consultative partners for our customers.
Many dealerships across the nation have upgraded their facilities to comply with manufacturer image programs, modernize their appearance, and offer their customers greater service and experience. With those core initiatives in mind, we at American have developed the Modular Automotive Display System to provide a dynamic, cost-effective solution for displaying automotive goods within the dealership.
These display units have been designed to fit each dealership’s individual needs and availability of space. Comprised of two styles, the Focal Module and Secondary Module, these modular display systems can be assembled in varying configurations to create an inviting retail environment. The modules can be branded with the manufacturer logo, dealership logo, or both to strengthen your branding efforts. The LED edge lit shelves can be set to match nearly any brand color. These modular displays can be used for logoed apparel, drinkware, automotive goods, collectibles and aftermarket accessories.
To learn more about the Modular Automotive Display System, contact your ASB representative. To find your local representative, click here. To receive regular updates from American Automotive, click here.
High-performance, energy efficient solution for local, collector and major roadways; also suitable for highway access ramps and some area lighting applications.
The Autobahn ATBS cobrahead uses breakthrough LEDs and precision-engineered optics to provide exceptional illumination while also saving energy. Plus, it works seamlessly with the Acuity Brands ROAM® system to maximize energy and maintenance savings through enhanced monitoring and control functions.
I received an inquiry about Jean Craighead George's The Buffalo Are Back (Dutton, 2010) and will share my observations and analysis as I turn each page of the not-paginated picture book. The paintings are by Wendell Minor. I've included some of the illustrations.
In this analysis, I am focusing primarily on the Native imagery/representations in the book. My descriptions and summary text are in regular font; my comments are in italics. Note: In the analysis I use the word "gutter," which is the term used to describe the space where the pages are bound together. Pages to the left and to the right meet together, in the gutter.
I hope this analysis helps parents, teachers, librarians, book reviewers, writers, illustrators, and editors see books from the vantage point of a Native educator who is interested in books that accurately portray American Indians and Indigenous Nations and peoples around the globe.
On the left side of the cover is a buffalo head in profile. To its right is a buffalo calf. They're in some tall grass. Perched atop one of the tall blades of grass is a lark. All are looking to the right. This orientation invites us to open the book.
The calf is standing, alone, in the center of the page. Beneath it are two prairie dogs standing upright as prairie dogs often do.
Right of gutter: Jean Craighead George dedicates the book "To Cyd and Carol Ann, who praise the diversity of the earth and the return of the buffalo. Minor dedicates it "To Jean, in celebration of her fifty years of writing wonderful books that teach children the wonders of nature." The page includes a profile of the calf's head.
In a time long ago, an orange buffalo calf was born. [...] On that day in the mid-1800s seventy-five million buffalo roamed in North America. In little more than fifty years, there would be almost none.
Craighead George tells us that the book is set in 1850 or thereabouts. She tells us there were millions of buffalo, but that there would soon be almost none. She poses a 'what happened' question and answers her question with "...a story of the American Indians, the buffalo, and the grass." As I read her answer to that question, I think to myself "What? No mention of Americans or the U.S. government who were largely responsible for that dramatic change?"
Left of gutter: The page is titled "The American Indians." In the first paragraph, Craighead George says that on the day the calf was born, the air was smoky because "The Indians who lived on the plains were setting the grasses ablaze, as they had for thousands of years." I like that she said they had been there for thousands of years. I would have liked her to specify a tribal nation instead of saying "Indians." For example, she could have said "The Plains Indians were setting the grasses ablaze..." and that would have been ok, but, it would have been better if she had said "Northern Plains" or "Southern Plains" or even better if she'd specified a tribe.
Right of gutter: Minor depicts the prairie on fire. The Indians Craighead George refers to are shown in the distance, some with a hand raised. In that hand is a flame. One Indian is on horseback. In the background is a structure that I take to be a grass lodge like those used by the Wichitas (Southern Plains tribe). Minor's illustration of the grass lodge tells me that he's depicting the southern plains. The illustration, in this case, is tribally specific, but not the accompanying text.
Left of gutter (see illustration to the right): A hunter, who I learn from the facing page, is a "white fur hunter." He is looking out over a herd of buffalo (the illustration spills over to the right side of the gutter).
In the mid 1800s, change came to the plains. First it was white fur hunters. They stacked the beautiful buffalo hides in pointed canoes and sold them east for profit. Then the American explorers came, who shot many animals for fun. Buffalo made good targets for the hunters because they are big and often stand still.
In fact, change came to the plains much earlier than the mid 1800s. Anthony Hendry of the Hudson's Bay Company, for example, was there in the 1750s.
I wonder why Craighead George uses "white" to describe fur traders and "American" to describe explorers?
Lewis and Clark--explorers--set out on their expedition in 1804, which is before the period Craighead George is referring to (mid 1800s). Her timeline is wrong. Change came long before the mid 1800s.
In The People: A History of Native America by Edmunds, Hoxie, and Salisbury (published in 2007 by Houghton Mifflin, p. 198), the authors state that during the 1780s, the Three Affiliated Tribes (Mandans, Hidatsas, and Arikara's)--they're Plains tribes--were devastated by smallpox. Their population went from 16,000 to 6,100. And in 1837, a steamboat of the American Fur Company that had several passengers aboard who had smallpox landed at a Mandan village. Another epidemic ensued, and the Three Affiliated Tribes population declined again, to 2,300.
According to information on the website of the Three Affiliated Tribes, in 1825, the U.S. government negotiated treaties with the Teton, Yankton, and Yanktonai Dakota as well as the Cheyenne, Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara, treaties through which the tribes agreed not to trade with anyone but American citizens.
In short, the history is far more complicated than Craighead George suggests with her "In the mid-1800s, change came to the plains."
But it was settlers from the East and the American government that killed almost all of the buffalo herds. After the Civil War, the government bought huge tracts of land from the Indians. They forced many Indians to go to reservations and sold the land to settlers. Families from Europe and the East Coast rushed west to settle the rich black prairie land.
In her second sentence, Craighead George says the government bought huge tracts of land from the Indians after the Civil War. The Civil War took place from 1861 to 1865. I wonder if she's talking about the Dawes Act of 1887? Through that act, Native Nations lost land, but not due to the government buying the land from them. Rather, it was a legal move by the U.S. government to break up the integrity and community values/orientation of the tribes as Nations by allotting individuals plots of land that they would own. Such ownership, the hope was, would assimilate them into becoming white American citizens. The "surplus" land would be sold to settlers.
And "forced to go to reservations" is not quite right either---at least not at that time period. Native Nations were forcibly moved from their homelands in the East and South to what was then-called Indian Territory, but that happened in the early 1800s, not after the Civil War. Returning again to the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation website, there is information about the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie, which says that through the treaty, several tribes established boundaries for what became their reservations. That was in 1851, before the Civil War. Maybe that's what Craighead George is thinking about.
This all might seem a bit picky to, perhaps, a mainstream reader, but it definitely matters to, say, someone in a tribal nation whose history includes close relationships with buffaloes.
Craighead George's repeated use of "Indians" is confusing to me, a Pueblo Indian woman, trying to understand what she's talking about. When she uses the word "Indians," is she talking about specific individuals or does her "Indians" refer to Native Nations? And, her last sentence in the paragraph says "Families from Europe and the East Coast...." ---- She doesn't use "families" to talk about Indian people in her book. As such, she unintentionally affirms a pervasive representation of "Indian" meaning Indian men who are too-often shown without wives, children, mothers, fathers, families, etc.
Left of gutter: The illustration is an Indian man in profile (shown here on right). He's facing towards the facing page, on which are shown tipis and a staff on which there is a buffalo skull. One half of the skull has red dots; the other half has blue dots. There are two feathers affixed to the pole, above the skull.
Here's the kicker: Unlike the white fur hunter on the previous page, this Indian man is see-through. You can see through his torso to the prairie grasses behind him. Why did Minor do that?
Because his name is included in the text on the facing page, I think this illustration is supposed to be Sitting Bull.
Right of gutter: Remember, the words on the previous page said that families from the East Coast were rushing in to settle on the prairie. The text on this page reads:
But there was trouble on the plains. The government broke its treaties with the Indians. So the Indians fought back and won several battles against the United States Army. Then the government saw another way to defeat the Indians. Soldiers and settlers were encouraged to shoot every buffalo they saw, or drive whole herds over cliffs. Without the buffalo for food, shelter, and clothing, the Indians could not survive on the plains.
Yes, there was trouble. I like that she uses "battles" and that she doesn't use "massacre" or "uprising." It was, in fact, war. But I wish she had said "The United States government broke its treaties with the Native Nations (or Native governments)." That small change would be far more accurate. Elizabeth Cook-Lynn has an insightful article in which she talks about words and what they mean, with respect to the wars between Native Nations and the the United States. It is called "The Lewis and Clark Story, the Captive Narrative, and the Pitfalls of Indian History." It is in Wicazo Sa Review, Volume 19.1. If you'd like a copy send me an email and I'll send it to you.
In Our Hearts Fell to the Ground: Plains Indian Views of how the West was Lost, Colin G. Calloway writes that the U.S. Army and professional hide hunters (sportsmen) worked together to kill buffalo. At this point, I'm not sure where Craighead George will go with her "Indians could not survive" sentence.
Said the great Sioux Chief Sitting Bull, who defeated General George A. Custer at the battle of Little Big Horn: "A cold wind blew across the prairie when the last buffalo fell--a death-wind for my people."
Finally! Craighead George names a specific tribal nation but I wish she had been even more specific, using "Hunkpapa Lakota" instead of "Sioux".... Seeing Sioux, though, makes me wonder if all along, the tribal nation she's thinking of when she says "Indians" is the Lakota/Dakota/Nakota (Sioux). If so, then I think I am right in guessing that it is Sitting Bull that Minor portrayed earlier in the book, but again, why did he present him as a see-through image? It reminds me of the illustrations in Susan Jeffers' Brother Eagle Sister Sky (see discussion of that book in "Pitfalls and Possibilities," an article Jean Mendoza and I did a few years ago).
With the death of the buffalo, the Indian Wars were over. The settlers faced a new fight--the battle of the grasses. Over the eons the prairie grasses had adapted to the Great Plains' frequent droughts by growing tough roots to hold in moisture. These roots were wide and deep and held the rich soil in place. The buffalo's sharp hooves, and the Indians' prairie firs, had helped keep the grasses healthy. But the new settlers did not understand the importance of the grass.
From there Craighead George moves on to talk about ranchers, cowboys, settlers, farmers, steel plows, steam tractors, wheat, corn, soybeans...
Left of the gutter: Craighead George begins by talking about crops that flourish and railroads that take the harvest to market. She says "Now not one orange buffalo wobbled to its feet." She says the larks are gone, prairie dogs are silent, and that "Without the buffalo, without the grasses, and without the Indians to care for them, the prairie was in danger." She goes on to talk about drought and grasshoppers. On the right is a very cool painting of farmers using switches to beat the grasshoppers. Her phrase, "without the Indians" gives me pause. What happened to them? Her last mention of them is that without the buffalo, the Indians "could not survive." On this page she says "without the Indians" --- Does she mean to tell us that they did not survive?
A terrific Minor illustration spans the two pages, showing dust clouds billowing and a barren land, made that way by farmers. The text explains that buffalo hooves played a role in the health of the land.
In just over fifty years, it [the "great plow up"] had destroyed the buffalo, the protective prairie grasses, and the Indians who had cared for both."
Does she really meant to say that the "great plow up" destroyed the Indians? And what does "destroyed" Indians mean? What does a child (the audience for her book) understand by what she says?
Left of the gutter: The page is titled "The Prairie Comeback." The page is about President Roosevelt and that he wanted to save the buffalo. He sent scouts out to look for them. The scouts found nothing. Then, a naturalist named W. T. Hornaday, "looked and looked and would not give up." Following a tip from "a Crow Indian" Hornaday found three hundred buffalo in a meadow in Montana. A small illustration inset on the page shows a man on a horse looking down a hill at a herd of buffalo.
With her reference to "a Crow Indian" Craighead George tells us that she knows that not all the Indians were destroyed. As a writer, I think she could have been more clear in earlier pages. I think the man on the horse is Hornaday.
There had been seventy-five million buffalo on the plains. Now there were three hundred left in the wild. People who understood the land, led by Hornaday, knew the buffalo had to be saved. The president helped.
Roosevelt established the National Bison Range in Montana and made it illegal to shoot buffalo. Over the years, more land was set aside in western states for the great grazing herds, which were beginning to grow.
Curious to know more about the Hornaday and comeback of the buffalo, I checked out a couple of books. None of the ones I got are on the list of sources on the last page of the The Buffalo Are Back. The note above the three books listed says they are among the sources used by the artist. I wonder if Craighead George used them, too? If not, what did she use?
One of the books I got is The Extermination of the Buffalo, by William T. Hornaday. It is a fascinating book. Reading it, I see that there is a lot more to Hornaday than Craighead George included on the ninth and tenth double-page spreads. In her text, he sounds like a heroic figure. Reading his own words, though, I see that he, himself, actively hunted buffalo. I didn't find, in his own book, anything that says he found "three hundred buffalo in a meadow in Montana" as Craighead George says on the previous page of her book.
In 1886, Hornaday was the "chief taxidermist of the National Museum." He determined that the museum did not have an acceptable buffalo "specimen" in its holdings, and he was afraid that the remaining buffaloes would be killed before the museum was able to get one. So, an expedition was put together, and on May 6th, off they went to the northwest, looking for buffaloes. Sometime after May 20 they found a calf. Ten days after finding the calf, they found two bulls. They killed one and the other got away. The one they killed was in "unkept and 'seedy' appearance. They decided that the "skin was not in condition to mount" so took "only the skeleton, entire, and the skin of the head and neck." They decided to stop looking until August when the buffaloes would be finished with the shedding of their hair. They returned to Washington with several hides and skulls, and--the baby calf they found (more about that later).
They returned to the "hunt" in the northwest in September. He does say "hunt" again and again, and they do, in fact, kill many buffaloes to serve as specimens. He includes a map with dots to mark locations where they killed buffalo. Here's one of his accounts (p. 537):
McNaney killed a fine old bull and a beautiful two year old, or "spike" bull, out of this herd, while I managed to kill a cow and another large old bull, making four for that day, all told. This herd of fourteen head was the largest that we saw during the entire hunt.
About 4 miles from our late camp we came suddenly upon a fine old solitary bull, feeding in a hollow between two high and precipitous ridges. After a short but sharp chase I succeeded in getting a fair shot at him, and killed him with a ball which broke his left humerus and passed into his lungs. He was the only large bull killed on the entire trip with a single shot. He proved to be a very fine specimen, measuring 5 feet 6 inches in height at the shoulders.
Language he uses to describe their hunting indicates he loved the hunting. When he kills another "truly magnificent specimen," he says (p. 542):
I was delighted with our remarkably good fortune in securing such a prize, for, owing to the rapidity with which we the large buffaloes are being found and killed off these days, I had not hoped to capture a really old individual.
The live calf the expedition took to Washington was kept in a pen. It became quite popular, and in 1887, Hornaday proposed a "Department of Living Animals" at the Smithsonian. As director of the department, he proceeded to develop a captive herd.
Craighead George, correctly, gives credit to both, Roosevelt and Hornaday, for actions they took but she completely omits all the work that Native people were also doing in that same time period, and she doesn't give us a complete picture of Hornaday's activity as a buffalo hunter.
Ken Zontek's Buffalo Nation: American Indian Efforts to Restore the Bison (2007, University of Nebraska Press) provides a great deal of information about the work of Native people who sought to restore the bison. For example, Zontek writes of a herd of 300 developed and cared for in the 1890s by Michael Pablo whose mother was Blackfeet.
Left side of gutter: Craighead George describes government efforts to save the prairie by planting crops in curves instead of straight lines, planting trees with deep roots to break the wind, and, planting grass between corn to hold the soil in place.
Right side of gutter: Minor's illustration of a farmer on his tractor spreads across the double-page spread.
Left of gutter: Craighead George writes that one day, a young girl walked into her Kansas house carrying a six-foot blade of grass. Her dad asks her where she got it, and that it is buffalo grass that he thought was extinct. She tells him she got it in the schoolyard.
Right of gutter: Minor's illustration is of a school house on the prairie. The clothing on the children in the yard suggests a more recent time period.
Left of gutter: Craighead George describes the search for native grasses (bluestem, gamma, bunch, and buffalo grass). She says people raised the grasses and sowed the seeds on abandoned farms and grasslands. She says the Tall Grass Prairie Preserve was established in Kansas, and that 300 buffalo were released into that preserve.
I think Craighead George made a mistake about the preserve. The one in Kansas does not have buffalo. There is one in Oklahoma with buffalo. On the Nature Conservancy website and on the Oklahoma Prairie Country website is information about the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve. Both sites say that in 1993, the Nature Conservancy donated 300 bison for the preserve and that the herd is at its target herd of approximately 2500.
One morning not too long ago, a young man just out of graduate school galloped his horse across the Prairie Preserve, counting buffalo for the buffalo census. Suddenly he reined in his horse. An orange calf wobbled to his feet and blinked.
Welcome, little calf," the Wichita Indian youth called. "You are America's two hundred thousand and eighty-first buffalo."
A lark flew to the top of a six-foot blade of grass and sang as sweetly as a panpipe. The buffalo are back.
Craighead George tells us the man is Wichita. (Note: I searched on "Wichita Nation" to see if they have a herd, and the first hits the search returned are to Indian Guides programs. The Indian Guides program, while admirable for its goal of having families do activities together, makes a mess of things as they choose an Indian tribal name and engage in stereotypical activities.) I tried again, searching on "Wichita Tribe" and the first hit was, in fact, a link to the website of the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes, whose offices are in Anadarko, Oklahoma. They do not have a buffalo herd, but the Wichita guy may work for one of the tribes that does, or, he may work at the preserve.
I am glad Craighead George ended her book with the Wichita man, but I wish she had done more with the work Native Nations are doing today. The Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative, established in 1990, includes over 50 different tribes who now maintain herds on their lands. Their website refers to Roosevelt and conservationists (they don't mention Hornaday) but like Craighead George, they don't refer to Native efforts in the 1890s. I will send them a quick note recommending they add that info.
Minor's website includes reviews of the book. School Library Journal says it is "a must have for most libraries" and Horn Book calls it compelling.
I understand why it got positive reviews, but, it is one of the many books that---when the lens is focused on the way the book represents American Indians---it falls far short of being a book that I can recommend. I think Craighead George tried hard to approach the book with an interest in being unbiased. I say that because of some of her word choices (battle instead of massacre) and I think it is terrific to see that awareness in an author's work--but bias is there nonetheless in the heroic way Hornaday is portrayed, in the ghost-like portrayal of Sitting Bull, and in the "no Indians" portrayals of people who obviously weren't dead and gone.
In the end, authors have to do both: be fair, and, be accurate. I think her research---or the researcher who helped her---failed because the dates are off, which makes the related information problematic. I think Craighead George's editor failed her, too. He/she could have caught the problems with time periods.
I'll be thinking about the book for a while. I invite your thoughts, too, on what I've said here, and the book itself if you've got a copy.
On October 8th, ithiliana did a close read of Neil Gaiman's "Blog on a Train" blog post. His post is the one in which he addressed the "few dead Indians" remark he made in 2008 that I wrote about in April of 2010. I'm writing, here, about ithiliana's analysis because I like what she says on her LiveJournal. I read her work when I can. She is, as a dear friend said, hardcore. That friend and myself like hardcore writing.
In her analysis, Ithiliana made some good points. For one, she notes that his apology is part of a much longer post. As such, she sees his apology as being buried. He could have featured that response as a stand-alone item. She's right. In fact, I would have preferred that Gaiman wrote a stand-alone post.
Lots of linguistic scholarship exists on how badly people with greater authority/power do apologies to people who have less authority/power, but I think Gaiman's fauxpology goes even further into bad, considering he's blah blah award winning author. Or maybe, from another perspective, it's a well done manipulation that is designed to highlight his power and authority while "graciously" offering apologies (without ever once saying, I'm sorry, I screwed up) to the little people out there (multiple ones, by the way, as you'll see if you read the link of my snarky summary).
As I wrote my post yesterday (Neil Gaiman on "a few dead Indians"), I went back and forth with myself as I thought about what Gaiman said. He offered an apology. A Miss-Manners-type-person would say I should accept his apology.
There a lot to gain by reading and studying what ithiliana said. She is taking a certain angle on what Gaiman said. My angle is different.
I wasn't hurt by what he said, and I wasn't offended either. I can't afford the energy it would take to be offended everytime I come across something like "a few dead Indians." Part of what I'm doing with American Indians in Children's Literature is compiling the evidence of just how much this happens. I focus on these occurrences in children's and young adult books (see for example, my analysis of the Elizabeth Bird's Top 100 Children's Novels), but sometimes, I point to other incidences, too, which provide societal context for what occurs in children's books (see my post about a kid playing Indian in a Tommy Hilfiger ad).
What Neil Gaiman says is a big deal because of who he is... An award-winning and best-selling author who has, because of his books for children and adults, become a celebrity. Does who he is, I wondered, make him a person with greater authority and power as compared to me? Does his status make me someone with less authority/power, and therefore, should I be grateful that he paid any attention at all to my post about "a few dead Indians" and his subsequent Tweets to me about it?
I disagree because I have some power and authority, too, based on my research and writing and my advocacy for Native peoples. How any of us defines power and authority is relative to where we stand, the perspectives we put forth, and the people who pay attention to what we say. Did he choose to comment on my "few dead Indians" post because someone (his agent, perhaps?) told him that children's book authors, parents, teachers, librarians, professors, editors, and reviewers read my site?
Were his actions motivated by a sincere interest to acknowledge that he screwed up? Or were they motivated by an attempt to maintain a positive profile? Or both? Or, neither?!
Whatever the case may be, one thing is certain. A lot more people in the world now know that a remark like "a few dead Indians" merits attention. I didn't want an apology (yeah, I know, that's starting to sound redundant), but in truth, I wanted more than what Gaiman offered. I thanked him yesterday, not for the apology, but for being willing to publicly share his reaction and thought process. That is important! He wrote:
I was put out of sorts by Deb's initial post (mostly because I was reading it going "but that OBVIOUSLY wasn't what I meant"), and was idiotically grumpy on Twitter, but when I was called on it (by Pam Noles), and finally looked at the actual words recorded, I realised that people were perfectly sensibly taking what I said to indicate...
He provides an example that other writers could use. First reactions from Sharon Creech, Ben Mikaelsen, Ann Rinaldi, and Anne Rockwell to my critiques of their words and books were like Gaiman's. They were defensive, too. Have they revisited that defensive reaction? Privately, perhaps, but to my knowledge, not publicly, as Gaiman did. His reaction aside, he gave his readers three options as to how his remark might be read. Continuing with what I excerpted above, he wrote:
... that I thought that a) the US was pretty much unpopulated before the arrival of the white colonists in the 17th century, and/or that b) I was being dismissive of the slaughter of Native Americans, or simply that c) Native Americans were somehow inconsequential in the history of the Americas. (None of which was my intention. But intentions only take you so far.)
As I said when I first wrote about his remark, I was pretty sure he knew better, and I think what he said above is evidence of that. He's told us what he thinks and he acknowledges that intent matters little.
I would have liked him to go further than he did. I would have liked him to say "I should have corrected myself right away. I should have said something when the interview was published. But, I didn't." He tells us that he knew it was a stupid thing to say, but that he just moved on. His decision to just move on is important for him and all of us to consider. WHY did he just move on? Did he think nobody would notice? Well, he was right, wasn't he? Nobody noticed for over a year! How many times was that interview read? How many people read it and didn't notice that he said "a few dead Indians"?!
That is the problem. Hundreds (thousands? millions?) of times, those words were read, and nobody pointed them out. What I wanted from Neil Gaiman was for him to say this:
See what I wanted from Neil Gaiman? Due to his status, he is a person of influence. I wanted him to use that influence and that incident in a much larger way than he did. If he did, his words would be a powerful force that would work towards a decrease in the messed-up ways that American Indians and Indigenous peoples are portrayed in children's and young adult books, and in society (like the Hilfiger ad), too.
Can you imagine what the book publishing world would do if his million-plus fans (assuming he said what I suggested above) wrote to, say, HarperCollins, the publisher of Little House on the Prairie (feedback2@harpercollins.com) to say
"this book is messed up. Yeah, some regard it as a classic, but, it misrepresents and miseducates Native and non-Native children about the life of Native and non-Native people living in Indian Territory in the 1800s."
Can you imagine a scenario in which Native parents didn't have to think about keeping their children out of school on the day their teachers plan a Thanksgiving reenactment? Or, when their classmates were going to do a "land run" like the one that took place in Oklahoma? If you pause for just a minute, can you imagine how much of that sort of thing goes on?
With this post, am I alienating Neil Gaiman and his fans and anyone who read his apology and think well of him for offering it? Maybe, but I'm choosing to think that amongst that group of people there are a great many who will read what I've said and be motivated to think even further about the ways American Indians are represented in the books their children read, and, that seeing it for themselves, they'll be motivated to take action.
As you know I’ve been teaching private students, mostly one on one for over 25 years so I can’t say I’ve been in touch with what goes on in classrooms all over Brazil. Last time I taught English as a regular subject at school was back in 1986, so do your math, because I can’t. I’m an English teacher after all.
So I decided to talk (via Twitter) to a dear friend and fellow teacher, Iara Will, who teaches at state public schools in São Paulo. Here’s what she had to say:
But my classes have around 30 students… a tight room with broken air conditioning…, so I use computers in class only when a few students show up. The São Paulo state government has an online English Course program open to public school students who even receive a conclusion certificate. The online course presents everyday situations, videos and exercises even allowing for some interactivity. The course goes up to the Intermediate Level.
I try to give them activities that don’t have an easily found answer online, I encourage memorization and I make up many activities.
I’ve learned that English is more of a decorative subject than really Language Arts. It’s just a complement not a real subject.
By the way no one fails any subject nowadays at our schools. But even so, I make my opinion heard at school board and council, especially in disciplinary matters, because I’m one of the few who listens to the students.
My workload is low so I have some free time. Most teachers survive teaching at least 32 classes a week. It would be writing 18 class reports for English alone. Many teachers teach 54 classes a week. I don’t know how???!!!!
I use songs and films subtitled in English when I know they’ve seen it 20 times, like Finding Nemo. I give them a handout to fill in the blanks and other activities varying according to their grade.
Some students ask if they may go to the restroom in English, even during other classes, just to be funny, or to be the first to go.
We have more writing activities than conversation. It’s only 2 classes a week, I try hard to follow a program.
Wow! Such a short time. How do you divide the time in class? Roll call? Homework? Do you have any warm up activities?
They answer Roll Call in English – Hi, hello, present, I’m here or here. I use up to 10 minutes just for roll call.
Sometimes we talk about special holidays, such as Thanksgiving – we have a little party – they bring some foodstuff, name it in English.
I can honestly say that the "bat" pillow is the first real throw pillow I have ever made. I didn't have a lot of throw pillows, because, honestly, they're just one more thing the kids can throw around. But, I have become enamored with the art of the throw pillow. They are small, simple (relatively) sewing projects that don't take a considerable amout of time to complete (mostly). When my friend commissioned me to make some pillows for her daughter's bedroom, I was ecstatic! What fun! These are the three we came up with. The two square pillows are 12" X 12" and the longer one is 12"X16". We shopped for fabric together and I think we came up with a pretty sweet combination.
This is one of my favorites! (who am I kidding, I love them all!) I LOVE this fabric. We bought the rest of the bolt (there was less than 2 yards). I wanted to keep the pillow relatively simple so the fabric would shine. I made an envelop closure pillow, but kept the closure on the front and used the ties as the decorative element. Yummy!
This pillow is a copy cat of the original inspiration for the bat pillow. It is from the Pottery Barn catalog. I love the tone on tone of the felt. There's enough texture to keep it interesting, without being overwhelming. Delicious!
As I'm typing this, my almost two year old said "cute pillows mommy!" I wish you could hear her little baby girl voice. Melts your heart. I guess if she approves, what other accolades do I need?
Moving on...This pillow is so elegant. As I said the pillow is 12" square, so the flower is a good 6" in diameter. I used up $4 worth of fabric on the flower alone! It's gorgeous and full and makes a wonderful statement. I would start putting these on my bags, but I think the cost and time involved would be prohibitive. as it is though, expect to see at least a couple more of these cropping up as decorations in my own home.
Here is a close up of the flower. Isn't she just luscious? I have to give a shout out to Suzanne over at Just Another Hang up. She gave me the idea for a full bodied, super size organza flower. I didn't use her pattern, because I may end up selling some of these, and I didn't want to over-step. But you should go check out her loveliness- she's really amazing.
So, that's all for this outing. I'm always relieved to have another job done, and when it turns out as great as these did, well, you just can't help but smile!
If you want any specific information on how I made any of these pillows, feel free to e-mail me or leave a comment (just make sure I have a way to get a hold of you). I'm happy to share. And if enough people want them, I'll make up a tutorial. (I may anyway) :)
Oh my goodness, I love them all!!! Thanks for stopping by and linking up to Thrilling Thursday @ Paisley Passions :) Hope you stop by again soon!
ah these are gorgeous!! Come link up to Handmade Tuesdays if you have a chance! www.ladybug-blessings.com
Your pillows are perfect for a girls room. I love each one and I'm sure your friend's daughter does too!
Your pillows are beautiful! I love, love, love the blue flower. I think I may have to attemp to make one!
So fun! I desperately need to cover the ones on our couch! Would love for you to visit me at Sew Chatty and link up to Made with Love Monday! The party will be open until Friday if you want to link up multiple projects. Hope you have a great day! http://sewchatty.blogspot.com
I was really hoping these would be "boy" enough for my nephew. He picked the blue/brown stripe- so I guess it was a success. Still not sold on the dot fabric. It might be too juvenile for an 8 year old. Thoughts?
Working on new patterns. I've noticed that women carry TONS of frequency/loyalty cards with them anymore. I thought it would be fun to have a cute way to keep them organized. And perhaps in the car instead of your purse? This one is still in progress. I think 12 slots isn't enough for most people. How many cards do you carry?
And then there have been Point of View projects, Design team projects, and background work as I start to put together an "official" business- complete with taxes and everything *gasp*, writing and testing patterns for my pattern shop opening soon, all on top of keeping up with a crazy bunch of kids and all the life they bring with them.
I'm still trying to give myself space to enjoy, but for some reason, the inner me craves chaos or something- because I seem to be really good at over extending myself. There are also 2 boutiques coming up I'm considering selling at. I'm for sure doing one, just debating the other.
Oh money, why are you so necessary? And yet not? I've also started reading Walden by Thoreau, again. I tried before, but it's not the easiest read for me. Plus- sometimes I get annoyed by his tone. But, I think there's something important tucked between the lines I need to hear. So we're at it again.
Life is messy, busy, crazy and incredibly happy. I'm loving every nail-biting, hair-raising moment of it.
It's my sewing day. Hoping to finish up 4 wallets that are in process and get some mini-totes cut out. Perhaps writing it down, and promising to post results of my efforts, will add fuel to my fire? I'll report tomorrow.
Cute, cute. I so want to make new scripture totes for my kids! Thanks for the inspiration. Now to just do it!!!
I think 12 is way too much to carry. But then again, I have a wallet that has 16 slots and the spot for cash. I wish I could make me a new one, as it is getting old and starting to wear out.
In my wallet I carry my money cards, but my loyalty cards and punch cards are all over. To fit them all in a wallet I can count 16 off the top of my head but that's not including the ones I'm forgetting.... I would def use one of the loyalty card holders.
I love your wallets very colorful (easier to find them in the purse) and love the card holder too, I'd like to have one ^_^
Busy woman! I think 12 loyalty card slots is fine... you can always double-up and put 2 cards in each slot, right?
Good luck with all your sewing and with Walden... I will admit I never made it through the first 10 pages. But a line I use often is in those first few pages, so I sound more well-read than I actually am ;)
P.S. I'm not a good source of info for loyalty cards. I refuse to sign up for them because I don't want to have to carry them :)
Leading to a formal meeting with parents and matchmaker attending. As well as young marrieds who have decided not to have children, the worst part is: Most men quit online dating within 3 months due dating profile for a woman a lack of results. Find thousands of fun, most of them try “sogaeting”, one of the main purposes of dating is for two or more people to evaluate one another’s suitability as a long term companion or spouse.
If you’d like to experience that for yourself, are You A Victim Of Your Own Past Disappointments In Men? As it turns out, most services also encourage members to add photos or videos to their profile.
Highlight all your dating woman traits, for profile signing up I’ve been having so much fun and going out with a bunch of different women. But Daggett’s lawsuit gives plenty of detail a her grievances with the California, dating in Korea is also considered a necessary activity supported by society.
Dr. Lavkan is a critical care doctor in the SF Bay Area. He is affiliated with Hazel Hawkins Memorial Hospital and 2 more hospitals.
Dr. Lavkan saw kidney failure patients in 2014–2018, but we couldn’t determine whether he was a top doctor for the condition in the SF Bay Area. Learn more.
Dr. Lavkan saw acute renal failure patients in 2014–2018, but we couldn’t determine whether he was a top doctor for the condition in the SF Bay Area. Learn more.
Dr. Lavkan saw more diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) patients than 75% of similar doctors in the SF Bay Area in 2014–2018. Learn more.
Dr. Lavkan saw encephalopathy patients in 2014–2018, but we couldn’t determine whether he was a top doctor for the condition in the SF Bay Area. Learn more.
Dr. Lavkan saw aspiration patients in 2014–2018, but we couldn’t determine whether he was a top doctor for the condition in the SF Bay Area. Learn more.
Dr. Lavkan saw sepsis patients in 2014–2018, but we couldn’t determine whether he was a top doctor for the condition in the SF Bay Area. Learn more.