the education of Little Tree
Sally Brooks
Regarding Danielle's comments from Friday about sending the Native
American's to Carlisle, PA...
We recently seen a movie entitled The Education of Little Tree. I
remember thinking when the authorities hauled Little Tree off from the
family he loved to go to white man's school, I wonder how many
unschoolers have seen this and made the connection of the similarity
with unschooling. Otherwise the movie gives a great view into what the
kids went through.
Thanks for inadverdently reminding me, Danielle!
Sally
American's to Carlisle, PA...
We recently seen a movie entitled The Education of Little Tree. I
remember thinking when the authorities hauled Little Tree off from the
family he loved to go to white man's school, I wonder how many
unschoolers have seen this and made the connection of the similarity
with unschooling. Otherwise the movie gives a great view into what the
kids went through.
Thanks for inadverdently reminding me, Danielle!
Sally
[email protected]
In a message dated 9/18/05 4:37:56 PM, brooksclan4@... writes:
I don't know about the movie, but the book was first presented as
biographical and turned out to be entirely fabricated. I would say "fictional" but it
wasn't written as fiction, it was written dishonestly, so don't take it too
seriously.
I probably wouldn't know, but it was published by the University of New
Mexico Press and caused a lot of grief and scandal as its dishonest premise came to
light.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> We recently seen a movie entitled The Education of Little Tree. I==============
> remember thinking when the authorities hauled Little Tree off from the
> family he loved to go to white man's school, I wonder how many
> unschoolers have seen this and made the connection of the similarity
> with unschooling. Otherwise the movie gives a great view into what the
> kids went through.
>
I don't know about the movie, but the book was first presented as
biographical and turned out to be entirely fabricated. I would say "fictional" but it
wasn't written as fiction, it was written dishonestly, so don't take it too
seriously.
I probably wouldn't know, but it was published by the University of New
Mexico Press and caused a lot of grief and scandal as its dishonest premise came to
light.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sara McGrath
> I don't know about the movie, but the book was first presented asThat's sad to hear. I loved the book when I read it in high school.
> biographical and turned out to be entirely fabricated. I would say "fictional" but it
> wasn't written as fiction, it was written dishonestly, so don't take it too
> seriously.
>
> I probably wouldn't know, but it was published by the University of New
> Mexico Press and caused a lot of grief and scandal as its dishonest premise came to
> light.
>
Sara M
--
Sprouts http://clanmcgrath.blogspot.com
Unschooling Resources http://unschoolingresources.blogspot.com
[email protected]
In a message dated 9/18/2005 7:24:33 PM Central Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
I don't know about the movie, but the book was first presented as
biographical and turned out to be entirely fabricated. I would say
"fictional" but it
wasn't written as fiction, it was written dishonestly, so don't take it too
seriously.
I probably wouldn't know, but it was published by the University of New
Mexico Press and caused a lot of grief and scandal as its dishonest premise
came to
light.
~~~
I read that book for the first time in recent years, and I never took it as
anything but fiction. I didn't know about the scandal. I thought it was
good, though.
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
I don't know about the movie, but the book was first presented as
biographical and turned out to be entirely fabricated. I would say
"fictional" but it
wasn't written as fiction, it was written dishonestly, so don't take it too
seriously.
I probably wouldn't know, but it was published by the University of New
Mexico Press and caused a lot of grief and scandal as its dishonest premise
came to
light.
~~~
I read that book for the first time in recent years, and I never took it as
anything but fiction. I didn't know about the scandal. I thought it was
good, though.
Karen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 9/19/2005 9:28:23 AM Eastern Standard Time,
tuckervill2@... writes:
anything but fiction. I didn't know about the scandal. I thought it was
good, though.
Karen<
I can understand how it being fiction instead of a bio, when it was
portrayed as such, being a scandal and very disappointing to a lot of people. But
the story itself is still a very, very sweet story. It's such an UNSCHOOLING
story. Whether it's real or fake, it's still a story that shouldn't be
missed...I liked the movie too. The grandfather is played by James Cromwell, the
guy who played the farmer in "Babe." I really like him, and the woman who
plays the grandmother (Tantoo Cardinal) and it makes me sad that they did such
good work, but a lot of people won't see it because of the Scandal (they
didn't know at the time it was made, from what I understand.)
FWIW, I think it's worth a read and a peek.
Nancy B.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
tuckervill2@... writes:
>>I read that book for the first time in recent years, and I never took itas
anything but fiction. I didn't know about the scandal. I thought it was
good, though.
Karen<
I can understand how it being fiction instead of a bio, when it was
portrayed as such, being a scandal and very disappointing to a lot of people. But
the story itself is still a very, very sweet story. It's such an UNSCHOOLING
story. Whether it's real or fake, it's still a story that shouldn't be
missed...I liked the movie too. The grandfather is played by James Cromwell, the
guy who played the farmer in "Babe." I really like him, and the woman who
plays the grandmother (Tantoo Cardinal) and it makes me sad that they did such
good work, but a lot of people won't see it because of the Scandal (they
didn't know at the time it was made, from what I understand.)
FWIW, I think it's worth a read and a peek.
Nancy B.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 9/19/05 8:07:25 AM, CelticFrau@... writes:
that I just can't bring myself to want to see it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I
just think it's a horrible thing for the man to have done. And what adds
another layer of evil (perhaps too strong a word, but I can't think of another
one I could use) is that the author was not a good man.
It's one thing for fundamentalist homeschoolers to encourage kids to believe
made-up history, but I like to hope unschoolers will be more discerning.
Asa Earl Carter, Writer / Fraud
• Born: 4 September 1925
• Birthplace: Anniston, Alabama
• Died: 7 June 1979
• Best Known As: Author of The Education of Little Tree
Asa Carter was a speechwriter for Alabama politician George Wallace
in the 1960s, but gained more fame in the '70s and '80s as novelist Forrest
Carter, whose book "The Education of Little Tree" was a bestseller. The book
purported to be an autobiographical account of growing up in Tennessee with
Cherokee grandparents. First published in 1976 (and re-issued in 1986), it was
considered by many to be an instant classic of Native American literature. After
Carter died (from injuries he got in a 1979 fistfight), it was revealed that
he was, in fact, Asa Earl Carter, a former radio announcer and Ku Klux Klan
member, and that his "autobiography" was a work of fiction.
Carter also wrote Gone To Texas (1973), which became the Clint Eastwood
movie The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976).
That's from answers.com
http://www.answers.com/topic/asa-earl-carter
And they have other links, one of which lead to this:
Asa Carter
Determined to "outnigger" the opposition in his 1962 bid for governor, George
Wallace turned to the politics of race with a new fiery speechwriter, Asa
Carter. Carter, a right-wing radio announcer and founder of his own Ku Klux Klan
organization, was a man with a dark, troubling past. "He had a long history of
violence, in fact, it’s not an exaggeration to call him something of a kind
of psychopath," says Wallace biographer Dan Carter. Asa Carter had shot two men
in a dispute over money just a few years before joining Wallace’s campaign,
and his Klan group shared his volatile temperament. "In one eighteen-month
period," recounts Dan Carter in his George Wallace biography, "his followers
joined in the stoning of Autherine Lucy on the University of Alabama campus,
assaulted black singer Nat King Cole on a Birmingham stage, beat Birmingham civil
rights activist Fred Shuttlesworth and stabbed his wife, and, in what was billed
as a warning to potential black ‘trouble-makers,’ castrated a
randomly-chosen, slightly retarded black handyman."
Political observers noted a new punch in Wallace’s stump speeches during the ‘
62 campaign, and Carter was credited for the change. "[Asa Carter] was this
little quiet guy who always looked like he needed a shave," remembers Alabama
journalist Wayne Greenhaw. "He was a hell of a writer. I mean, he knew how to
put words together."
With Wallace’s victory in 1962, Carter was charged with writing a memorable
inaugural speech and he leapt at the chance to make history. "He worked on that
thing for two or three weeks," says Dan Carter, "holed up in a hotel room, as
one of his friends said, chain-smoking one cigarette after another. And when
he got through, he came to see George Wallace. He handed him the speech. And
he took his finger and pointed to one line. And he said, 'Read it --
segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever -- that's the line people are
gonna remember,' he said."
"And Wallace picked it up," says Alabama journalist Bob Ingram, "and looked
at it and said, "I like that line. I like it, and I’m going to use it."
Carter proved valuable to Wallace’s administration and continued to draw his
paycheck during Wallace’s first term in office. "Asa Carter was a most
integral part of the George Wallace organization," remembers Wallace’s former finance
director Seymore Trammell. "He was a man that had connections, good
connections with the underworld, you might say. He was our go-between between the
governor and with the Ku Klux Klan. He could keep those people quiet, or either he
could get them to be very disturbed."
Carter’s speechwriting services reached national audiences again when Wallace
stood in the schoolhouse door of the University of Alabama, barring two
African American students from entering. All the major networks would carry Wallace’
s symbolic stand and his statement, "[I] do hereby denounce and forbid this
illegal and unwarranted action by the central government."
However, as the times changed and the political climate in Alabama and the
nation softened, Carter, ever the hard-liner, became less and less enamored of
Wallace’s evolving attitude on race. He ran as a fringe candidate for governor
against Wallace in 1970 and finished at the bottom of the pack with his
racially-charged, divisive campaign.
In a remarkable turnaround, Asa Carter remade his image in his later life,
moving to Texas and becoming a writer under the pseudonym Forrest Carter. As
Forrest Carter, he had a string of successes including "The Rebel Outlaw: Jose
Wales" which became a Hollywood movie starring Clint Eastwood. He also penned
the "New York Times" bestseller "The Education of Little Tree," a fictitious
account of his childhood as a Native American orphan. Oddly, this "true story"
became a favorite among the liberal-minded people he had despised throughout his
life. Carter died in 1979 before his double identity reached national
attention.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> -=-FWIW, I think it's worth a read and a peek.-=-I'm so averse to revisionist history and so enamored of honesty and integrity
>
that I just can't bring myself to want to see it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I
just think it's a horrible thing for the man to have done. And what adds
another layer of evil (perhaps too strong a word, but I can't think of another
one I could use) is that the author was not a good man.
It's one thing for fundamentalist homeschoolers to encourage kids to believe
made-up history, but I like to hope unschoolers will be more discerning.
Asa Earl Carter, Writer / Fraud
• Born: 4 September 1925
• Birthplace: Anniston, Alabama
• Died: 7 June 1979
• Best Known As: Author of The Education of Little Tree
Asa Carter was a speechwriter for Alabama politician George Wallace
in the 1960s, but gained more fame in the '70s and '80s as novelist Forrest
Carter, whose book "The Education of Little Tree" was a bestseller. The book
purported to be an autobiographical account of growing up in Tennessee with
Cherokee grandparents. First published in 1976 (and re-issued in 1986), it was
considered by many to be an instant classic of Native American literature. After
Carter died (from injuries he got in a 1979 fistfight), it was revealed that
he was, in fact, Asa Earl Carter, a former radio announcer and Ku Klux Klan
member, and that his "autobiography" was a work of fiction.
Carter also wrote Gone To Texas (1973), which became the Clint Eastwood
movie The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976).
That's from answers.com
http://www.answers.com/topic/asa-earl-carter
And they have other links, one of which lead to this:
Asa Carter
Determined to "outnigger" the opposition in his 1962 bid for governor, George
Wallace turned to the politics of race with a new fiery speechwriter, Asa
Carter. Carter, a right-wing radio announcer and founder of his own Ku Klux Klan
organization, was a man with a dark, troubling past. "He had a long history of
violence, in fact, it’s not an exaggeration to call him something of a kind
of psychopath," says Wallace biographer Dan Carter. Asa Carter had shot two men
in a dispute over money just a few years before joining Wallace’s campaign,
and his Klan group shared his volatile temperament. "In one eighteen-month
period," recounts Dan Carter in his George Wallace biography, "his followers
joined in the stoning of Autherine Lucy on the University of Alabama campus,
assaulted black singer Nat King Cole on a Birmingham stage, beat Birmingham civil
rights activist Fred Shuttlesworth and stabbed his wife, and, in what was billed
as a warning to potential black ‘trouble-makers,’ castrated a
randomly-chosen, slightly retarded black handyman."
Political observers noted a new punch in Wallace’s stump speeches during the ‘
62 campaign, and Carter was credited for the change. "[Asa Carter] was this
little quiet guy who always looked like he needed a shave," remembers Alabama
journalist Wayne Greenhaw. "He was a hell of a writer. I mean, he knew how to
put words together."
With Wallace’s victory in 1962, Carter was charged with writing a memorable
inaugural speech and he leapt at the chance to make history. "He worked on that
thing for two or three weeks," says Dan Carter, "holed up in a hotel room, as
one of his friends said, chain-smoking one cigarette after another. And when
he got through, he came to see George Wallace. He handed him the speech. And
he took his finger and pointed to one line. And he said, 'Read it --
segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever -- that's the line people are
gonna remember,' he said."
"And Wallace picked it up," says Alabama journalist Bob Ingram, "and looked
at it and said, "I like that line. I like it, and I’m going to use it."
Carter proved valuable to Wallace’s administration and continued to draw his
paycheck during Wallace’s first term in office. "Asa Carter was a most
integral part of the George Wallace organization," remembers Wallace’s former finance
director Seymore Trammell. "He was a man that had connections, good
connections with the underworld, you might say. He was our go-between between the
governor and with the Ku Klux Klan. He could keep those people quiet, or either he
could get them to be very disturbed."
Carter’s speechwriting services reached national audiences again when Wallace
stood in the schoolhouse door of the University of Alabama, barring two
African American students from entering. All the major networks would carry Wallace’
s symbolic stand and his statement, "[I] do hereby denounce and forbid this
illegal and unwarranted action by the central government."
However, as the times changed and the political climate in Alabama and the
nation softened, Carter, ever the hard-liner, became less and less enamored of
Wallace’s evolving attitude on race. He ran as a fringe candidate for governor
against Wallace in 1970 and finished at the bottom of the pack with his
racially-charged, divisive campaign.
In a remarkable turnaround, Asa Carter remade his image in his later life,
moving to Texas and becoming a writer under the pseudonym Forrest Carter. As
Forrest Carter, he had a string of successes including "The Rebel Outlaw: Jose
Wales" which became a Hollywood movie starring Clint Eastwood. He also penned
the "New York Times" bestseller "The Education of Little Tree," a fictitious
account of his childhood as a Native American orphan. Oddly, this "true story"
became a favorite among the liberal-minded people he had despised throughout his
life. Carter died in 1979 before his double identity reached national
attention.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
I hadn't kept up with the UNM Press discussions lately, but this is sad. In
an article from 2001, at Salon.com:
Leading the way in the ignoring department is the University of New Mexico
Press, which is apparently not about to do anything that might kill the goose
that lays the golden eggs. Incredibly, UNM's handsome new 25th anniversary
edition (with a cover painting by the Oklahoma Cherokee artist Murv Jacob) makes
no mention of Asa Carter or the controversies that have surrounded the book
over the years -- an omission that Diane McWhorter equates to "publishing a book
of Hitler's paintings without mentioning the word 'Nazi.'" The specious
"biography" that appeared on the book's back cover in the original UNM edition,
which moistly gushed that "Forrest Carter, whose Indian name is Little Tree, was
known as 'Storyteller in Council' to the Cherokee Nations ... His Indian
friends always shared a part of his earnings from his writing," is gone, as is the
subtitle "A True Story." Only the words "Young Adult Fiction" in small print on
the corner of the back cover hint at the book's stormy history. The
introduction (which has remained unchanged since the first UNM edition in 1985) by
Rennard Strickland, a professor of law at the University of Oregon, blandly tells
us that Forrest Carter "wrote a number of important books," and that "'Little
Tree' speaks to the human spirit and reaches the very depth of the human
soul."
The University of New Mexico Press declined to comment about its
nonacknowledgment of "Little Tree's" unseemly provenance, referring a reporter to Rennard
Strickland. Strickland said he was not consulted by the University of New
Mexico about updating his introduction and that his purpose in writing the i
ntroduction was to "tell readers what they'd find in this book. I wasn't doing a
history of the controversy." He added, "I have given my last interview on the
subject."
===================
He did NOT write "a number of important books" and not much else is true
either.
Lies about where the money went, the BIG lie "a true story".... it's just too
much for me.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
an article from 2001, at Salon.com:
Leading the way in the ignoring department is the University of New Mexico
Press, which is apparently not about to do anything that might kill the goose
that lays the golden eggs. Incredibly, UNM's handsome new 25th anniversary
edition (with a cover painting by the Oklahoma Cherokee artist Murv Jacob) makes
no mention of Asa Carter or the controversies that have surrounded the book
over the years -- an omission that Diane McWhorter equates to "publishing a book
of Hitler's paintings without mentioning the word 'Nazi.'" The specious
"biography" that appeared on the book's back cover in the original UNM edition,
which moistly gushed that "Forrest Carter, whose Indian name is Little Tree, was
known as 'Storyteller in Council' to the Cherokee Nations ... His Indian
friends always shared a part of his earnings from his writing," is gone, as is the
subtitle "A True Story." Only the words "Young Adult Fiction" in small print on
the corner of the back cover hint at the book's stormy history. The
introduction (which has remained unchanged since the first UNM edition in 1985) by
Rennard Strickland, a professor of law at the University of Oregon, blandly tells
us that Forrest Carter "wrote a number of important books," and that "'Little
Tree' speaks to the human spirit and reaches the very depth of the human
soul."
The University of New Mexico Press declined to comment about its
nonacknowledgment of "Little Tree's" unseemly provenance, referring a reporter to Rennard
Strickland. Strickland said he was not consulted by the University of New
Mexico about updating his introduction and that his purpose in writing the i
ntroduction was to "tell readers what they'd find in this book. I wasn't doing a
history of the controversy." He added, "I have given my last interview on the
subject."
===================
He did NOT write "a number of important books" and not much else is true
either.
Lies about where the money went, the BIG lie "a true story".... it's just too
much for me.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Betsy Hill
** Lies about where the money went, the BIG lie "a true story".... it's
just too
much for me. **
Lies masquerading as heartfelt personal experience and insight seems
especially ooky to me.
Can you express profound truths when you are lying? It's a puzzlement.
Betsy
just too
much for me. **
Lies masquerading as heartfelt personal experience and insight seems
especially ooky to me.
Can you express profound truths when you are lying? It's a puzzlement.
Betsy
[email protected]
In a message dated 9/19/05 9:45:56 AM, ecsamhill@... writes:
If someone came here who had no children and posted about "personal
experiences" that were fictitious, it would discredit everything else in the
discussion, wouldn't it?
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Lies masquerading as heartfelt personal experience and insight seemsOooky isn't "okay," right? <g>
> especially ooky to me.
>
If someone came here who had no children and posted about "personal
experiences" that were fictitious, it would discredit everything else in the
discussion, wouldn't it?
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 9/19/2005 9:28:23 AM Eastern Standard Time,
tuckervill2@... writes:
I probably wouldn't know, but it was published by the University of New
Mexico Press and caused a lot of grief and scandal as its dishonest premise
came to
light.
Well phooey! I didn't know about all the racist stuff...
I had read that it was originally presented as biographical, but that the
author himself never presented it that way, it just sort of morphed into that
and he never denied it...maybe sort of like a snowball rolling?? Yeah, it is
dishonest.
But I also read that it never came to light that it wasn't autobiographical
until after he was dead, so he couldn't speak up for himself or defend
anything he had done, or supposedly done. I think it's such a bummer because it
really is a good story.
If ONLY it hadn't been presented as a true story, I could probably stomach
the rest of the stuff. There are plenty of authors out there who live really
crappy lives (abandoned children and family, womanizers, etc) but I can still
read their work.
Nancy B.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
tuckervill2@... writes:
I probably wouldn't know, but it was published by the University of New
Mexico Press and caused a lot of grief and scandal as its dishonest premise
came to
light.
Well phooey! I didn't know about all the racist stuff...
I had read that it was originally presented as biographical, but that the
author himself never presented it that way, it just sort of morphed into that
and he never denied it...maybe sort of like a snowball rolling?? Yeah, it is
dishonest.
But I also read that it never came to light that it wasn't autobiographical
until after he was dead, so he couldn't speak up for himself or defend
anything he had done, or supposedly done. I think it's such a bummer because it
really is a good story.
If ONLY it hadn't been presented as a true story, I could probably stomach
the rest of the stuff. There are plenty of authors out there who live really
crappy lives (abandoned children and family, womanizers, etc) but I can still
read their work.
Nancy B.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 9/19/05 12:09:02 PM, CelticFrau@... writes:
I don't care about Michael Jackson's emotional scars--he can still write
GREAT songs and dance and sing the heck out of them.
A friend of mine quit watching Harrison Ford movies when he left his wife.
I think that's nuts.
But to go into detail about boarding schools and family histories and then
for it to have been bullshit is deeply disturbing to me. It taints all the
REAL documentation of people and their beliefs in that area at that time.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> -=-If ONLY it hadn't been presented as a true story, I could probablySame here.
> stomach
> the rest of the stuff. There are plenty of authors out there who live
> really
> crappy lives (abandoned children and family, womanizers, etc) but I can
> still
> read their work. -=-
>
I don't care about Michael Jackson's emotional scars--he can still write
GREAT songs and dance and sing the heck out of them.
A friend of mine quit watching Harrison Ford movies when he left his wife.
I think that's nuts.
But to go into detail about boarding schools and family histories and then
for it to have been bullshit is deeply disturbing to me. It taints all the
REAL documentation of people and their beliefs in that area at that time.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sally Brooks
I was totally ignorant of the background information about the author
when I watched this movie with my 12yo dd. Again, with new
information brought to light, I still see parallels to unschooling,
too. That was why I brought it here. Sorry to disturb those who
knew the background stuff about the author.
when I watched this movie with my 12yo dd. Again, with new
information brought to light, I still see parallels to unschooling,
too. That was why I brought it here. Sorry to disturb those who
knew the background stuff about the author.
--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 9/19/05 12:09:02 PM, CelticFrau@a... writes:
>
>
> > -=-If ONLY it hadn't been presented as a true story, I could
probably
> > stomach
> > the rest of the stuff. There are plenty of authors out there who
live
> > really
> > crappy lives (abandoned children and family, womanizers, etc) but
I can
> > still
> > read their work. -=-
> >
> Same here.
>
> I don't care about Michael Jackson's emotional scars--he can still
write
> GREAT songs and dance and sing the heck out of them.
>
> A friend of mine quit watching Harrison Ford movies when he left
his wife.
> I think that's nuts.
>
> But to go into detail about boarding schools and family histories
and then
> for it to have been bullshit is deeply disturbing to me. It
taints all the
> REAL documentation of people and their beliefs in that area at that
time.
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Debi
I agree there are parallels to unschooling, but I would really be
hesitant about using it as an example to anyone else. Yes, the way
Bonnie Bee "kinned" her grandson was a wonderful example of the kind of
relationship we should be striving for with our own children -- but the
source is rotten, and that taints the whole thing.
See, the author was not just a bad guy who happened to write a great
story -- he was a master at manipulating the human emotion. He had
studied how to do that very thing, and brought it to fruition with his
slogan for the governor's campaign.
What he did in the book was to perpetuate the myth of the "noble savage"
-- incidentally disrespecting many of their real traditions along the
way. Some words he used were nonsense words, not even aboriginal
languages. It is unclear whether he was trying an experiment to see how
far he could mess with people's thinking -- I know there are several
academics who have written that that was his motivation, but as he
cannot defend himself I will give him the benefit of a doubt. There is
no question, however, that he didn't do enough research into the
authenticity of everything he presented as Native culture.
There is also no doubt that he was a really messed up guy -- the drunken
bar brawl he was in was with his own son, whom he had abandoned (along
with his wife and the rest of his children) several years before in
order to reinvent himself as a folksy Native American storyteller.
Those who knew him in his final years had never been told of his
previous life as a speechwriter and family man, and were horrified when
those facts came out after his death. Many people felt betrayed by what
he did, including many Native Americans whom he had "befriended".
John Holt never had any children, and never claimed he did. He did have
vast experience with other people's children, however -- that is why I
am willing to look at what he wrote about how children learn. If he
turned out to be a twisted individual who had harmed his own family and
been an active and vicious member of the Klan; had written his books
specifically to play on the emotion of kind-hearted people; and those
who were closest to him in his earlier years were forthright about his
manipulativeness and skewed tendencies, I wouldn't be recommending him,
either.
Some of those on this list who have been the most prolific have also
made errors in their earlier lives, but they have been gracious and
humble enough to share them, and to show how they would -- and do! -- do
things differently now. I know Sandra didn't come from the best of
circumstances, but she has made a difference in the lives of many on
this list by what she shares. She doesn't seek to twist things to
provide beautiful examples. She simply leads a beautiful life, and
allows us glimpses of what works -- and doesn't work -- for her and her
family.
The author of the book, on the other hand, came from fairly decent
circumstances and both hinted and outright lied in order to sell a book
which actually does damage to the very people it claimed to "champion"
-- both by its lack of veracity about being autobiographical and by its
false and misleading content. Just the sick feeling of being "played"
by anyone unfortunate enough to have fallen in love with the characters
and the concept (and I count myself among those numbers) is enough to
make those readers cautious about any similar stories, and that is a shame.
Debi, duped and disgusted by it
Sally Brooks wrote:
hesitant about using it as an example to anyone else. Yes, the way
Bonnie Bee "kinned" her grandson was a wonderful example of the kind of
relationship we should be striving for with our own children -- but the
source is rotten, and that taints the whole thing.
See, the author was not just a bad guy who happened to write a great
story -- he was a master at manipulating the human emotion. He had
studied how to do that very thing, and brought it to fruition with his
slogan for the governor's campaign.
What he did in the book was to perpetuate the myth of the "noble savage"
-- incidentally disrespecting many of their real traditions along the
way. Some words he used were nonsense words, not even aboriginal
languages. It is unclear whether he was trying an experiment to see how
far he could mess with people's thinking -- I know there are several
academics who have written that that was his motivation, but as he
cannot defend himself I will give him the benefit of a doubt. There is
no question, however, that he didn't do enough research into the
authenticity of everything he presented as Native culture.
There is also no doubt that he was a really messed up guy -- the drunken
bar brawl he was in was with his own son, whom he had abandoned (along
with his wife and the rest of his children) several years before in
order to reinvent himself as a folksy Native American storyteller.
Those who knew him in his final years had never been told of his
previous life as a speechwriter and family man, and were horrified when
those facts came out after his death. Many people felt betrayed by what
he did, including many Native Americans whom he had "befriended".
John Holt never had any children, and never claimed he did. He did have
vast experience with other people's children, however -- that is why I
am willing to look at what he wrote about how children learn. If he
turned out to be a twisted individual who had harmed his own family and
been an active and vicious member of the Klan; had written his books
specifically to play on the emotion of kind-hearted people; and those
who were closest to him in his earlier years were forthright about his
manipulativeness and skewed tendencies, I wouldn't be recommending him,
either.
Some of those on this list who have been the most prolific have also
made errors in their earlier lives, but they have been gracious and
humble enough to share them, and to show how they would -- and do! -- do
things differently now. I know Sandra didn't come from the best of
circumstances, but she has made a difference in the lives of many on
this list by what she shares. She doesn't seek to twist things to
provide beautiful examples. She simply leads a beautiful life, and
allows us glimpses of what works -- and doesn't work -- for her and her
family.
The author of the book, on the other hand, came from fairly decent
circumstances and both hinted and outright lied in order to sell a book
which actually does damage to the very people it claimed to "champion"
-- both by its lack of veracity about being autobiographical and by its
false and misleading content. Just the sick feeling of being "played"
by anyone unfortunate enough to have fallen in love with the characters
and the concept (and I count myself among those numbers) is enough to
make those readers cautious about any similar stories, and that is a shame.
Debi, duped and disgusted by it
Sally Brooks wrote:
>I was totally ignorant of the background information about the author
>when I watched this movie with my 12yo dd. Again, with new
>information brought to light, I still see parallels to unschooling,
>too. That was why I brought it here. Sorry to disturb those who
>knew the background stuff about the author.
>
>
[email protected]
> -=-I was totally ignorant of the background information about the authorWouldn't you rather make waves that come back with information than not to
> when I watched this movie with my 12yo dd. Again, with new
> information brought to light, I still see parallels to unschooling,
> too. That was why I brought it here. Sorry to disturb those who
> knew the background stuff about the author. =
>
have made the waves at all?
I'm not disturbed. I just wanted to point out that there's a LOT to learn
in the vicinity of that piece of literature, maybe more in its surroundings
than in its substance.
It's always worth being skeptical and critical. Sometimes you find from
your research that your example is perfectly wonderful, or 80% wonderful, or
artistic license, or fantasy. That's fine, just so you know.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]