Far too often, I have seen students try to find the easiest classes to enroll in or spend more time figuring out the minimum effort required to pass a class than they do on the actual class work.
However, as students, we shouldn’t go through the motions of our classes.
We shouldn’t be satisfied with classes that only earn us a requirement. We should want to take classes that make us think. We should immerse ourselves in them, and get the most out of them as we can.
A common joke is that the “N” in NMU stands for knowledge. While it’s kind of catchy, think about how degrading this is to ourselves and where we have chosen to get an education. We shouldn’t want Northern to have a reputation like this, and we shouldn’t encourage it with lazy attitudes and actions.
This semester, I’m taking American Indians: Identity and Media, a class offered through the Native American Studies (NAS) program on campus. I was a little nervous with signing up for a 300-level class. My only thoughts were that it sounded like an interesting subject but that it was an upper-level course and therefore a harder class to earn a good grade in, and that it would be my first NAS class, so I may not understand everything discussed.
But I’ve discovered it’s not all about grades and understanding in some classes. There’s so much more you can get out of a class when you stop worrying about your GPA. NAS 320 has been my favorite class so far.
Why? Because it makes me think. It confuses and frustrates me, but I love it. I have yet to feel despair, although that may be coming.
“Learning most things is a messy process. Confusion, frustration, even despair regularly occur. If students never experience those feelings, they also never experience the thrill of finally figuring something out, of really understanding and of being changed by what they learned.”
These words, spoken by Maryellen Weimer, a professor emeritus of speech communication at Penn State, were included in the syllabus for NAS 320.
Along with discussing our syllabus, during the first week of class, we discussed and dissected our learning objectives. One of them included the term “politics of representation.” In fact, one of the main focuses of this class is Native representation in movies and TV.
Although we talk about the representation of Native peoples in the media and how stereotypical it is, this wouldn’t be possible without some background information, especially since I wasn’t the only person in the class with a lack of knowledge regarding Native history.
When I was younger, I watched “Peter Pan” without giving it a second thought. I watched Western movies and wanted to dress up as a Native American. Now that I know those images were so false and disrespectful, I feel a little bit silly.
I knew the real Christopher Columbus story—not the one we learned in kindergarten—and I knew of the crimes committed against Native tribes by the United States government, but I was unaware of the extent. Learning only a small portion of the Native perspective in regards to U.S. history confused me.
The first week of class, it was hard for me to hear about Native history because of the way our government treated — and continues to treat — Native Americans. It was hard for me to accept that our government was even worse than it is now. After a month of class, it’s easier for me to stomach. I’ve been changed by what I’ve learned.
Students should not shy away from enrolling in classes that may make them think critically or have a chance of being too difficult or lowering their GPA.
These classes should be embraced as a chance to learn. We can make the “NMU: where the ‘N’ stands for knowledge” joke, but for students who want to be challenged, the opportunity to do so is very possible on NMU’s campus.
Funkenstone • Oct 9, 2013 at 11:49 am
Kyle,
I certainly respect your passion; however, semantics aside, you still haven’t convinced me the technology of the native culture was superior to the one which displaced it. I don’t believe Social Darwinism is a scientific discipline but more an ideology used in clumsy attempts to explain the failure of certain individuals, or groups of individuals to succeed within the boundaries of a well defined culture. That said I believe humans are animals and subject to the same evolutionary pressures of nature as all the other animals.
Obviously I didn’t make myself clear to you. I never suggested the Native Americans didn’t have a successful society or were not well adapted to their environment. That’s the whole point of natural selection. Had they not adapted well they would not have survived. Their culture certainly deserves respect and admiration.
I grant you I was sloppy in places as I wrote in haste and didn’t perform a quality edit. You got me on “the Pythagoreans.” That is funny. Yet that is how cultures generally advance, through the genius of a single individual who makes a discovery that is then built upon and advanced by his/her people. And my comment about killing animals with sticks was pejorative, but not incorrect. The natives fashioned wood into weapons they effectively used to kill their food and enemies.
My whole point is I am not surprised a culture with ocean going vessels, the ability to forge metal, the wheel, and a written language, to name some of their advancements, would inevitably displace a culture without those advancements. To say because an individual is a bad shot negates the advantages of the technology of firearms is a mistake in my opinion. I would argue the outcome of history is on my side in that debate. Transporting your belongings in a wheeled cart is more efficient than dragging them behind you lashed to poles. Granted, if you don’t have a road the latter will work better, thus the advantage of the ability to engineer a road. You obviously enjoy the benefits of books. An oral language works fine, but there is a tremendous advantage to passing on your knowledge to future generations through the written word. When I suggest the Pilgrims would have “figured it out,” I don’t consider it an “argumentative cop out,” but a hypothesis based upon the evolutionary success of other migrating populations.
I understand there is a belief that the mean spirited nature of the European white man led to the demise of the Natives and their culture. I suspect that is what is taught in many Native Studies classes, thus my reply to Anna suggesting another possible way of thinking. Consider it my idea of what a university education is about. Of course there is a truth in that idea. It is the primal nature of mankind. The reason we exist is because our ancestors were aggressive opportunists. But to suggest that is somehow unique to that place and time doesn’t keep faith with the history of animal life on Earth. In my experience (for what it’s worth I will reveal to you I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in Zoology from Iowa State University, although I must admit it is nearly 40 years old) when two populations of animals come in contact there ensues a competition for the scarce available resources. Often one side, guided by the invisible hand of natural selection, has an advantage and out-competes the other population. When there is no clear advantage the two groups exist in a state of competitive tension. There is evidence to suggest that happened in the early days of the European settlement of North America. The Jesuits attempted to educate the natives of the northeast. That was depicted in the movie “The Black Robe.” Stephen Abrose suggested in “Undaunted Courage” the original intent of the Lewis and Clark expedition was to establish contact with the native people in order to conduct commerce. Neither attempt ended well. You could argue the Europeans simply used the force of numbers to overwhelm the existing population, but you must have a very successful society to generate those numbers in the first place and the technology to transport them across a vast ocean in large numbers to succeed using that strategic plan.
I will agree to disagree with you and I will assume you will always just consider me “dammed wrong,” but the debate was interesting and I thank you for it. You may have the last word if you so choose.
Kyle • Oct 8, 2013 at 10:09 pm
Funkenstone,
While you have not rejected my argument, considering you responded to it, you do refute my points. As for the claim my response was characterized as ad hominem, I do indeed refute your assertion. You are the one with the illogical view.
I have no qualms with critiquing Native American culture and tradition, but only if those who are doing it are measuring a people by the true merit—as in using actual facts and not characterizing a rather industrious civilization as “living in the wilderness killing animals with sticks and fighting with their neighbors” and claiming “The North American Indians didn’t even have the wheel or a written language.”
As to my claims in my earlier comment—you would do well to read a book, as I’ve said before. Just one. Start with “1941” by Charles C. Mann. Excerpts:
“Tisquantum’s childhood wetu (home) was formed from arched poles lashed together into a dome that was covered in winter by tightly woven rush mats and in summer by thin sheets of chestnut bark. A fire burned constantly in the center, the smoke venting through a hole in the center of the roof. English visitors did not find this arrangement peculiar; chimneys were just coming into use in Britain, and most homes there, including those of the wealthy, were still heated by fires beneath the central roof holes. Nor did the English regard the Dawnland wetu as primitive; its multiple layers of mats, which trapped insulating layers of air, were ‘wamer than our English houses,’ sighed the colonist William Wood. The wetu was less leaky than the typical English wattle-and-daub house, too.” (Mann, 43)
On your “killing animals with sticks” and asserting the superiority of the firearm:
“It is true that European technology dazzled Native Americans on first encounter. But the relative positions of the two sides were closer than commonly believed. Contemporary research suggests that indigenous peoples in New England were not technologically inferior to the British—or, rather, that terms like ‘superiority’ and ‘inferiority’ do not readily apply to the relationship between Indian and European technology. Guns are an example. As Chaplin, the Harvard historian, has argued, New England Indians were indeed disconcerted by their first experiences with European guns: the explosion and smoke, the lack of a visible projectile. But the natives soon learned that most of the British were terrible shots, from lack of practice—their guns were little more than noisemakers. Even for a crack shot, a seventeenth-century gun had fewer advantages over a longbow than may be supposed.” (Mann, 63-64)
As for you comment on Native Americans lack of language—there are many. Algonquin languages were present in the New England region, and if you’d like to fulfill your language requirement, assuming you’re a student, considering taking an Anishinaabe class (they offer one at NMU). And I could go on, Funkenstone.
It is not that your comment upset me and I few into an emotional appeal. It’s that you’re just so damned wrong and people will lend credibility to you because, hey, you commented under a pseudonym on a writer’s column—and Anna left her full name and picture. Call me a hypocrite because I am doing the same.
Social Darwinism assumes that humans are subject to evolution but it presumes there are races, and there are not races or species of homosapien. It’s a bad theory. Particular peoples with favorable DNA will stay around for the long haul—they reproduce and survive. But you’re applying a biological concept to a historical and sociological topic. Peace is just a term for not currently at war (see William James’ The Moral Equivalent of War for a more in-depth discussion on that point).
Native populations in North America had adapted to their environment and were more suited to live in North America than the first colonists, many of whom depended on Native peoples. To say they would eventually figure it out is an argumentative cop out. Native populations—in North, Central, and South America—were done in by disease brought to their lands by European explorers and colonists.
And finally, Funkenstone, the “Pythagoreans” aren’t a people. Pythagoras was a mathematician who contributed to the development of his field with his geometric theorem. Perhaps he called his family the Pythagoreans, but they weren’t some math-savvy European nation. Know what you’re commenting on before you comment.
I’m done being critical, so why don’t you think on that for a while.
Funkenstone • Oct 8, 2013 at 4:54 pm
Kyle,
Social Darwinism is a social construct created by humans to distance themselves from the natural forces which act upon other animals. It’s a totally natural response for sentient beings. From the ad hominem attack and sanctimonious tone of your reply it’s obvious you have a very high regard for yourself and your intellect, so I’m not surprised you would see it that way, however, I reject your argument.
Perhaps the natural forces acting upon the two groups would be more obvious to you if the Europeans had smaller brains and used their fangs to fight the natives rather than gunpowder and bullets. But that neglects consideration of the natural force of Evolution doesn’t it? No doubt the natives helped the first arriving Pilgrims, but I also reject your argument that that was the determining factor for their success. From William Bradford’s diary we know what saved the Pilgrims was a change in their social compact. Considering the fact that all human life originated somewhere in Africa and migrated to lands with more adverse climates, it’s not hard to imagine they could have conquered the North American climate of the time on their own.
Humans are a diverse group, much as the animals of the Galapagos Darwin observed. If you accept the theory of natural selection you have to believe the environments encountered by those early migrating humans shaped the development of the species, thus my reference to the various accomplishments of the diverse human populations. You expressed your belief that a shelter of animal skin is a more advanced technology than a stone building equipped with a hearth, but you failed to explain the reason the Native American population of the time had no wheel, language, or other technological advances other populations had discovered.
I understand criticism of Native Americans generates extreme controversy in our modern society, and maybe you are sensitive to that criticism. That was my point to Anna about the risks of exploring new ideas and you certainly did a fine job of illustrating that point. Perhaps, if the plight of the Native North Americans is too sensitive for you, maybe you could frame your argument around the events of the Spanish conquest of the native people of Central and South America.
Kyle • Oct 8, 2013 at 12:52 pm
Funkenstone,
Not to pick on you, but there are some definite deficiencies in your comment. “Perhaps the displacement of the North American Indians by the Northern Europeans was an example of natural selection as first described by Darwin in the Origin of Species” is falling more on the side of Social Darwinism that has proven, in history as you’ve made your case, terribly horrific in its outcomes. Let’s not forget that natural selection is an evolutionary process and not a sociological effect. Native Americans, in fact, were more suited to survive in North America. May I remind you that the first English settlement in America was a failure and the people who settled faced starvation and brutal winters. If it wasn’t for the helpful natives, then those at Jamestown would’ve died much sooner than they did. Native Americans had wigwams whose design was far superior than the cold, ill-heated stone houses of the English. The list goes on, Funkenstone. Before you comment on that which you do not know, consider cracking a book. I doubt you’ve ever received a university education. If you have, then you’re hardly a sentient being. I wish you well in your studies.
And a fine column, Anna.
Funkenstone • Oct 7, 2013 at 9:31 am
Few articles in the Northwind have saddened me as much as yours. To read an American college student say “our government was even worse than it is now,” is disheartening. The history of the human condition can be characterized as one of tyranny, servitude, and misery, as those with the power of government oppressed those who didn’t share that power. The founders of this country, political geniuses that they were and armed with the knowledge of the atrocities committed by civilizations past, designed a government with checks and balances designed to prevent the abuses those who hold power so often commit. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s certainly the best system humans have ever designed in an attempt to govern themselves.
Can you name a civilization that did not wage war with its neighbors? The Egyptians? The Picts? The Vikings? The Romans? The Huns? The North American Indians? The list could go on. Searching for a peaceful society that lived in harmony with others is like searching for a unicorn.
Not to pick on the Native Americans, but since you framed your editorial around them let’s consider them. Where are the engineering marvels created by Native American populations? The Pythagoreans invented mathematics, the Egyptians built great pyramids, the Romans accomplished great feats of engineering, the Chinese built a Great Wall, there are castles all over Europe built by people of the Middle Ages, the Incas built Machu Pichu, and the Aztecs built great temples for human sacrifice, all while North American Indians were living in the wilderness killing animals with sticks and fighting with their neighbors. The North American Indians didn’t even have the wheel or a written language. How is that possible?
Before you condemn the ancestors of modern North America as heartless brutes perhaps you should consider them in a different light, using a form of critical thinking you might say. Perhaps the displacement of the North American Indians by the Northern Europeans was an example of natural selection as first described by Darwin in the Origin of Species. Maybe it was just another example of a population of animals more suited for survival displacing another population of animals less well adapted to their environment.
Certainly these are concepts you should consider for yourself. Today’s environment of political correctness often squelches the concept of critical thought with shouts of racism and bigotry. Engaging others with these ideas could risk ostracism.
Best of luck with your studies.
Chris Crozier • Oct 5, 2013 at 5:49 am
Hello Anna
I came across your article because I teach A-Level Critical Thinking in the UK and had set up a ‘Google Alerts’ search for Critical Thinking. I just wanted to say, I am highly impressed by your refreshing attitude to learning. If only more students shared your attitude! I absolutely agree that thinking critically can be a difficult process, but it’s rewards are limitless. Thankfully Critical Thinking does attract many students with a good work ethic and thirst for knowledge as it is an optional subject, therefore these qualities tend to apply to those who elect to take it, however this is not the case in all of my subjects I’m afraid. Many thanks for your enjoyable and insightful article, and best of luck with the rest of your studies and your future. With your impressive attitude to study, I expect it will be a bright and rewarding one.
Best Regards
Chris