March 31, 2022

As an English Composition instructor who values affirmation of cultural differences, I found Daniel Cole’s “Writing Removal and Resistance” heartening, yet terrifying at the same time. Unfortunately, an alarming number of incoming freshman students don’t realize that American history has been completely white-washed from the very beginning of the recordings of history. This white-washing is probably because the ones actually recording historical events are white, empowered males in what they consider to be a white, empowered society. This unsettling reality extends beyond American History in the high school classroom and into the college English classroom. I wish I had the luxury of being able to teach such a class as Cole’s myself. What I wouldn’t give to open my students’ eyes to the real history of this not-so-great country. (Yes, this USAF veteran patriot said that.)

The method he used (while referring to Pratt’s “Cultures, Ideas, and Values) to introduce his students to these Native American writings sound similar to Foss and Griffin’s theory of invitational rhetoric. What I didn’t understand in Cole’s article was when he stated that “another limitation stems from the course’s principle strengths. Placing Native and Western writing side by side invites students to critique the Western rhetorical tradition” (126). What is so wrong with questioning the “way things have always been done”? Viewing Native American rhetoric from a different perspective – that of the unassuming freshman composition class – should bring new light to the beauty of that form, not degenerate it further. 

This country’s forefathers, while trying to free themselves from religious persecution, engaged in an aggressive act of oppression of the Natives of this land – who, in their own right, lived in an already established, complex society with its own authentic language and forms of communication, and therefore, rhetoric – simply because they  couldn’t understand this new culture, and so therefore deemed them savage. After learning about this in my adulthood, I can say wholeheartedly that I agree with Cole when he exclaims “at the very least, all Americans owe [it] to Native Americans to listen to both what they have said and what they are saying” (127).

In the early times of America’s history, Native Americans were forced to assimilate to the white (invading) European’s way of life, to include the clothes they wore, the language they spoke, and the religion (or lack thereof) they practiced – after escaping religious persecution, early settlers forced Natives through the same experience! And now, in western universities, we are practicing these same ideologies yet again. In Bronwyn William’s article, Speak for Yourself? Power and Hybridity in the Cross-Cultural Classroom, he truthfully states that the goal of English writing courses is “to assimilate the students into what the faculty considered mainstream academic discourse” and for our international students that means “forcing assimilation into the epistemological and rhetoric conventions of the [Western] culture” (588). How does this process teach students to own, acknowledge, and celebrate their origin cultures? Brutal truth here: it does not.

The methodology we currently use to teach composition is imperialistic, as Williams clearly describes in his article, saying “an unexamined foundation [in writing] perpetuates a disruptive epistemic violence for the students trying to come to terms with these unstated assumptions of power and the dominant culture”(589). The dominant culture being the Western culture. I find it interesting that he and his sources describe how students from other cultures write in a mimicking way. In nature, mimicry is a survival mechanism. I suppose those students from other cultures are simply trying to survive the Western college classroom. Which connects back to Cole’s referring to the Native American rhetorical device of ‘survivance’. This method of writing, according to Cole “enable[s] Native writers to use the very terms of their objectification [or assimilation] to assert themselves as subjects” (125). While this may open the eyes of non-Native readers to the Native plight of not being heard), I find it upsetting that they have to resort to this in the first place.

No one should have to assert themselves as a subject in their own writing simply to be heard. Western societies (and the patriarchal system) need to open their eyes, hearts, and, especially, their minds to the beauty that is (what many refer to in a negative way) the Other. We may never know what knowledge and insight can be shared if we remain close-minded to cultures not our own.

 

Cole, Daniel. “Writing Removal and Resistance: Native American Rhetoric in the Composition Classroom.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 63, no. 1, 2011, pp. 122–44.

Williams, Bronwyn T. “Speak for Yourself? Power and Hybridity in the Cross-Cultural Classroom.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 54, no. 4, 2003, pp. 586–609.