View
0
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
W&M ScholarWorks W&M ScholarWorks
Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects
2011
Teaching at the interface: Curriculum and pedagogy in a teachers' Teaching at the interface: Curriculum and pedagogy in a teachers'
institute on Virginia Indian history and cultures institute on Virginia Indian history and cultures
Lisa L. Heuvel College of William & Mary - School of Education
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Heuvel, Lisa L., "Teaching at the interface: Curriculum and pedagogy in a teachers' institute on Virginia Indian history and cultures" (2011). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539791817. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.25774/w4-h2gc-v954
This Dissertation -- Access Restricted On-Campus Only is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact scholarworks@wm.edu.
TEACHING AT THE INTERFACE: CURRICULUM AND PEDAGOGY IN A TEACHERS' INSTITUTE
ON VIRGINIA INDIAN HISTORY AND CULTURES
A Dissertation
Presented to
The Faculty ofthe School of Education
The College of William and Mary in Virginia
In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
by Lisa L. Heuvel February 2011
TEACHING AT THE INTERFACE: CURRICULUM AND PEDAGOGY IN A TEACHERS' INSTITUTE
ON VIRGINIA INDIAN HISTORY AND CULTURES
By
Lisa L. Heuvel
Approved February, 2011 by
\
o1z5rnn~~~ Chairperson of Doctoral Committee
JjJa.~,~ ml A. McEachron, Ph.D.
g_~~ W& . .• &?m. Woody Holto , Ph.D.
ii
Table of Contents
List of Tables .............................................................................................................. .............. vi
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... vii
Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................. viii
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... x
Chapter One: The Context for This Study ................................................................................ 2
The Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................... 7
Research Questions ............................................................................................................... 9
The Significance of the Study ............................................................................................. 11
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................. 13
Chapter Two: Review of Literature ........................................................................................ 16
The Relationship of Education and Colonialism ................................................................. 17
The Sociology of Knowledge .............................................................................................. 21
The Influence of Critical Pedagogy, Social Justice, and Subaltemity ................................ 25
The Emergence of Indigenous Agency in Education .......................................................... 27
Related Indigenous Research Methodologies ..................................................................... 33
The Relationship of Collaboration to Transformational Educational Change .................... 35
Chapter Three: Methodology .................................................................................................. 40
The Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................ 41
European-American Tradition of Teaching ........................................................................ 47
Curriculum ....................................................................................................................... 48
Pedagogy ......................................................................................................................... 50
Indigenous Ways ofKnowing ............................................................................................. 52
Curriculum ....................................................................................................................... 53
Pedagogy ......................................................................................................................... 55
Methods .................................................................................................................................. 57
Risks .................................................................................................................................... 58
Privacy and Confidentiality ................................................................................................. 59
Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 59
Ethical Considerations ......................................................................................................... 61
iii
Chapter Four: The Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute and Its Presenters ....................... 63
BJTI Program Participants: An Overview of the Target Audience .................................... 64
The BJTI Presenters as Cross-Cultural Collaborators ......................................................... 67
Contesting Virginia's Dominant Narrative ......................................................................... 69
The BJTI: A Virginia Indian-Directed Epistemology ......................................................... 78
Group Characteristics of Presenters .................................................................................... 84
The BJTI Presenters as Cohorts .......................................................................................... 86
Chapter Five: The Keepers: Surviving the Fallout of the Racial Integrity Laws ................... 89
The Keepers ......................................................................................................................... 90
Tribal Affiliations ............................................. : .............................................................. 91
Childhood Memories and Parental Protection ................................................................. 91
Personal Experience and Education ................................................................................ 96
Transmitting Their Heritage ............................................................................................ 98
Experience and Transcendence ..................................................................................... 100
Chapter Six: Bridge Builders and Synthesizers: Sharing Pain, Pride, and Commitment.. ... 104
Inroads in Public Education .............................................................................................. 105
Cohort Two ....................................................................................................................... 106
Tribal Affiliations .............................................................................................................. 107
Stewards of Heritage and Identity ..................................................................................... 1 09
Cohort Three: The Synthesizers ........................................................................................ 113
Connections between the Keepers, the Bridge Builders, and the Synthesizers ................ 116
Chapter Seven: Characteristics ofBJTI Native Curriculum and Pedagogy ......................... 117
The Native Cohorts' Paradigms ........................................................................................ 118
Native Cohorts' Curricula ................................................................................................. 123
Core Beliefs ................................................................................................................... 131
Knowledge Integration .................................................................................................. 134
Format and Content ....................................................................................................... 136
Intended Outcomes ........................................................................................................ 139
Native Cohorts' Pedagogies .............................................................................................. 141
Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 144
iv
Techniques and Technology .......................................................................................... 149
Classroom Dynamic ...................................................................................................... 154
Outcomes for Audiences ............................................................................................... 157
Chapter Eight: Characteristics ofBJTI Non-Native Curriculum and Pedagogy .................. 160
The Bridge Crossers' Paradigm ........................................................................................ 161
The Bridge Crossers' Backgrounds ............................................................................... 161
The Bridge Crossers' Curricula ......................................................................................... 165
Core Beliefs ................................................................................................................... 165
Knowledge Sources and Knowledge Integration .......................................................... 167
Format and Content ....................................................................................................... 170
Intended Outcomes ........................................................................................................ 1 71
Bridge Crossers' Pedagogy ............................................................................................... 172
Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 173
Techniques and Technology .......................................................................................... 175
Classroom Dynamics ..................................................................................................... 178
Outcomes for Audiences ............................................................................................... 179
Chapter Nine: Conclusions ................................................................................................... 183
Collaboration ................................................................................................................. 184
Transformation .............................................................................................................. 187
Education ....................................................................................................................... 188
Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 190
Appendix A: Participant Invitation Letter ............................................................................ 197
Appendix B: Participant Informed Consent Form ................................................................ 199
Appendix C: Presenter Interview Protocol ........................................................................... 201
Appendix D: Interview Codes and Descriptions .................................................................. 202
Appendix E: Researcher as Instrument Statement ................................................................ 205
References ............................................................................................................................. 206
Vita ........................................................................................................................................ 225
v
List of Tables
Table 1: Comparison of European-American and Indigenous Teaching Paradigms .............. 46 Table 2: A Model of the European-American Tradition of Teaching .................................... 47 Table 3: A Model oflndigenous Ways of Knowing ............................................................... 54 Table 4: Paradigms of BJTI Native Presenters .................................................................... 119 Table 5: BJTI Native Presenters' Teaching Traditions: Curriculum .................................... 130 Table 6: BJTI Native Presenters' Teaching Traditions: Pedagogy ....................................... 144 Table 7: BJTI Non-Native Presenters' Paradigm ................................................................. 164 Table 8: BJTI Non-Native Presenters' Teaching Traditions: Curriculum ............................ 169 Table 9: BJTI Non-Native Presenters' Teaching Traditions: Pedagogy .............................. 173
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1: A Model of the BJTI as Virginia Indian Epistemology .......................................... 83
vii
Acknowledgments
Every culture has its stories. Some chronicle spiritual and physical journeys in which the seeker encounters obstacles, guides, and through them, transformation. The doctoral dissertation process has been my journey of understanding across cultures. As a descendant of Massachusetts Bay colonists and Ellis Island immigrants, I appreciate America's appeal to people beyond its shores. However, the dark outcomes of that attraction for Native American peoples cannot and should not be denied.
My life has been immeasurably enriched by teaching and writing about Virginia history, and that interest drew me to the museum field. In 1998, I joined the Jamestownyorktown Foundation as an education instructor. In the process of seeking answers to my own and others' questions about the Jamestown narrative, Terry Bond, Dr. Thomas Davidson, Nancy Egloff, Samuel "Running Deer" McGowan, and Sharon Walls were generous with their knowledge of Virginia history in relation to Native peoples. At the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Frances Burroughs, Richard McCluney, and Dr. William White encouraged this research during my doctoral studies. I thank them and my colleagues at both museums for their support.
I owe a deep debt of gratitude to Barbara Carson, Edris Head and Dr. Helen Rountree for inspiring me over the past decade with their scholarship and guidance, and to Dr. James Swiney (Cherokee) for being a lifelong mentor. Dr. Samuel Cook at Virginia Tech became a friend and valued colleague during my doctoral studies; I greatly appreciate his insights and early review of my manuscript.
Within the last four years, I have been the grateful recipient of encouragement, insights, and trust from Virginia Indian leaders and representatives, especially Chief Kenneth Adams (Upper Mattaponi), and Chief Stephen Atkins (Chickahominy). Virginian Indian Heritage Program Director Karenne Wood (Monacan) and Virginia Foundation for the Humanities President Robert Vaughan and Grants Director David Bearinger have supported this research since its early stages, as did the Virginia Council on Indians and its Program Administrator Deanna Beacham (Weapomeoc). I am grateful to the many tribal members and educators who shared colonialism's impact upon their communities over the last four centuries and have demonstrated their unyielding commitment to future generations.
Members of the Virginia Indian Nations Summit on Higher Education and Native American Students' Summit on Higher Education have added to my understanding of Virginia Indian and non-Native perspectives on educational advocacy, as have Betsy S. Barton, elementary history and social science specialist for the Virginia Department of Education, and Patrice Ambrust, Director of Education at the Valentine Richmond History Center. Virginia educators participating in the 2007 and 2008 Virginia Indians Past and Present Teachers' Institute were articulate about their needs in teaching students about Virginia Indian heritage and cultures.
viii
At The College of William and Mary, the staff of Swem Library Special Collections graciously shared their resources, as did Director James Heller and Betta Labanish at Wolf Law Library. Dean Virginia McLaughlin staunchly supported my work on behalf of Virginia Indian education in the School of Education, and Dr. Jeremy Stoddard led me to essential sources in critical theory. My professors allowed me to work on some aspect ofthis research in their classes as a doctoral student; I was honored to receive a 2010 dissertation research award named for one of them, Dr. David Leslie. School of Education Registrar Gwendolyn Pearson has guided me cheerfully though the labyrinth of doctoral degree requirements.
My committee members, Dr. Gail McEachron of the School of Education and Dr. Woody Holton of the University of Richmond were integral to this dissertation's development. Dr. McEachron and I share the commitment to teaching with respect about Virginia Indian history and cultures. Dr. Holton's teaching and writing about Virginia history has been a model for me. I am truly grateful for their insights and support. From our first conversation, my chair and advisor Dr. Dorothy Finnegan anchored my doctoral work with her solid belief in this research and her commitment to academic excellence. She has had a profound influence on my life and scholarship.
The Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute faculty members participating in my dissertation study share a passion for bringing history to light. They are all exemplars who contribute significantly to education for and about the Virginia Indians. These individuals chose to stand by their words without anonymity, and I truly hope I justified their trust in me: Chief Kenneth Adams (Upper Mattaponi), Ashley Atkins (Pamunkey), Deanna Beacham (Weapomeoc), Rhyannon Curry (Creek), Dr. Jeffrey Hantman, Samuel McGowan (Mattaponi), Arlene Milner (Upper Mattaponi), John Milner (Cherokee/Upper Mattaponi), Dr. Kent Mountford, Powhatan Red Cloud-Owen (Chickahominy/Mohawk), Dr. Helen Rountree, Dr. Gabrielle Tayac (Piscataway), Gerri Reynolds Wade (Rappahannock), and Karenne Wood (Monacan).
My husband Johannes Jacobus Heuvel, Jr. demonstrated his love and faith in every way, beyond words to describe it. This dissertation is dedicated to him. I thank my beloved relatives in the Heuvel, Liberati, Rose, and Swift families, my friends, and my pastors for being there for me during nine years of Master's and doctoral studies.
Also, I cannot imagine this path without my study group: Holly Alexander Agati, Beth Deer, Dr. Jodi Fisler, and Michael Kaplan. Their friendship helped me to meet the demands of comprehensive examinations and dissertation writing over the last four years, knowing we were there for each other.
Finally and most significantly, I honor the Virginia Indian peoples past and present for their faith, their patriotism, and the many contributions they continue to make to the Commonwealth and our nation. I honor the advocates for social justice who have stood by them.
Their collective story became my story. I hope that in some way, it will become yours.
ix
TEACHING AT THE INTERFACE: CURRICULUM AND PEDAGOGY IN A TEACHERS' INSTITUTE
ON VIRGINIA INDIAN HISTORY AND CULTURES
Abstract
In the 1990s, as Virginia Indians faced the 2007 quadracentennial of Jamestown's
founding, they initiated plans to publicly correct inaccuracies and omissions embedded in the
historical narrative. The Beyond Jamestown: Virginia Indians Past and Present Teachers'
Institute was one such initiative through the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities'
Virginia Indian Heritage Program. Designed for educators' professional development
regarding Virginia Indian history and cultures, the Institute's first two years (2007 and 2008)
featured a Virginia Indian-developed curriculum with both Native and non-Native presenters.
This qualitative, interpretivist study sought evidence of teaching at the interface of
cultures by these invited presenters using pedagogy and curriculum as units of analysis, and
questioned whether they shared an educational vision or paradigm despite different cultural
backgrounds. The study revealed that the Institute demonstrated effective collaboration
among presenters influenced by both Indigenous and European-American paradigms. It
exposed participating educators to a little-known period in Virginia history-the era of the
Racial Integrity Act of 1924 and segregation-through the stories of tribal experts who
experienced the attempted eradication of cultural identity. These oral histories contributed to
the distinct Virginia Indian epistemology that emerged in the program. The BJTI also
demonstrated Virginia Indians' 21 st_century agency in inviting its non-Native presenters and
participating educators to collaborate in decolonizing Virginia education.
LISA L. HEUVEL
PROGRAM IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY, PLANNING AND LEADERSHIP
THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY IN VIRGINIA
X
TEACHING AT THE INTERFACE: CURRICULUM AND PEDAGOGY IN A TEACHERS' INSTITUTE
ON VIRGINIA INDIAN HISTORY AND CULTURES
xi
Chapter One
The Context for this Study
The 16th and 17th -century Spanish and English explorers who arrived in modem-day
Virginia characterized its Indigenous peoples as exotic and unequal. Through the Doctrine
of Discovery established by the Roman Catholic Church, it followed that although King
James was not Catholic, he and other European monarchs also considered the lands already
inhabited in the Western Hemisphere ripe for colonization (Miller, 2008, p. 1 ). Once the
English established Jamestown in 1607 as a permanent English claim in America (British
after 1707), the Native peoples whom they encountered endured the effects of
marginalization and minority status over the next four centuries.
As Szasz (1988, p. 53) observed, "The colonists' ethnocentrism made it impossible
for them to compare their civilization to that of the Native Virginians," and the combined
forces of colonialism and segregation hindered Virginia Indians from equal participation in
the academy and popular culture. Most historians from similar cultures and worldviews
have tended to accept documents that European colonists produced as objective historical
accounts (Axtell, 1988), despite the critical silences they contained (Wood, 2009).
For generations, the colonialist perspective dominated texts portraying Virginia
Indian history, cultures, and contributions to American society, influencing educators who
learned and taught with the traditional historical narratives. The losses that Virginia's
Indigenous peoples suffered in land, languages, populations, and empowerment
compounded a public perception that their cultural identities (and thus an Indigenous
knowledge base) were gone. However, modem Virginia Indians increasingly contest this
assumption through fresh examinations of colonial records, emerging archaeological
evidence, and language reclamation (Wood, 2009). Rountree (1990, p. 277) argued that
2
surviving Virginia Indian tribes, like those in other parts of the United States, have
"collective memories of descent" supporting a distinct ethnic identity that has resisted
Anglicizing over four centuries.
For clarification, I use the terms aboriginal, American Indian, First Nations,
Indigenous, Indian, Native, and Native American as descriptors of Native peoples where
geographically or otherwise accepted. The tribes of Virginia prefer the terms Indian and
Virginia Indian. When known to me, tribal affiliations are added for individuals. When
comparing and contrasting concepts across cultures, I use the descriptors European
American, Anglo, European, non-Native, or White to identify those concepts, group, and
individuals under discussion that are non-Native in origin; Western is used in some cases by
this study's participants, in related literature, or by me when appropriate to modem usage.
For the term Indigenous, I draw on Bruyneel's 2007 definition recognizing Indigenous
people as descendants of those who experienced, or who themselves directly experienced,
colonial rule. By using comparisons such as Native and non-Native, or European-American
and Indigenous, I am not placing these constructs in opposition. Instead, they are reference
points for the discussion of commonalities as well as differences in the nature of knowledge,
and in transmitting that knowledge as a human endeavor.
In essence, I am looking for the interface of cultures through education within the
context of one Virginia Indian education initiative. As questions arise related to racial or
cultural identity, I hope to incorporate the insights study participants may provide as most
relevant to this research study.
Native Americans historically have adapted to change as a dynamic process, yet
retained their sense of identity and community (Kidwell & Velie, 2005). Today's Virginia
Indian tribes and nations demonstrate that these are complementary processes. They are
3
reclaiming their past from the majority culture while pursuing economic and educational
empowerment through the channels of media, education, and government. Their education
initiatives are integral to the focus of this study, the Beyond Jamestown: Virginia Indians
Past and Present Teachers' Institute, and to placing it within a broader cross-cultural
discussion of pedagogy and curriculum. The origins of the institute (hereafter referred to as
the BJTI) are described below.
In the 1990s, as they faced the 2007 quadracentennial of Jamestown's founding,
Virginia Indians initiated plans to publicly correct inaccuracies and omissions embedded in
the historical narrative. Educating teachers and students about Virginia Indian nations'
heritage and cultures was an intertribal goal. Six of Virginia's eight state-recognized tribes
at the time intensified their efforts to achieve Federal recognition. 1 By jointly
communicating the message "We're still here, we've always been here, and we're not going
away," Virginia Indians constructed connections across worldviews, institutions, and
knowledge systems to expand public awareness of their stories nationwide. With the
Virginia Council on Indians and other statewide organizations, individual tribes
strengthened Native and non-Native alliances across the Commonwealth and worked
actively within their own communities to promote heritage preservation.
The Virginia Indian Heritage Program has emerged as one major result of these
efforts. It was established in 2005 as a partnership between the Virginia Foundation for the
Humanities (VFH) and the eight State-recognized tribes of Virginia, working toward public
1 H. R. 1385, The Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of2009 sponsored by Rep. James Moran [D-VAS] extends Federal recognition to the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe-Eastern Division, the Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc., the Monacan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Indian Tribe (Retrieved from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hlll-1385).
4
5
outreach and public preservation. 2 Additional developments within the last decade include
partnerships with the Virginia State Department of Education and the Virginia Indian Nations
Summit on Higher Education. 3
Important revisions in the Virginia K-12 Standards of Learning concerning American
Indians and Virginia Indians have also been made; more textbook publishers now are
consulting Virginia Indian scholars and tribal leaders. As early as 2005, the Virginia Council
on Indians (VCI) sought inclusion of Virginia Indian representatives on Standards of
Learning (SOL) review committees. The VCI proposed to the Virginia Board of Education
and the Virginia Department of Education that the General Assembly should approve a
revision ofthe SOL. The new standards would "include more extensive, accurate, and
culturally sensitive information on Virginia Indian history and cultures, stressing intellectual
honesty in presenting both positive and shameful episodes of the past" (Virginia Council on
Indians Executive Summary, 2005, para 11 ). In 2007 and 2008, a committee including
Native educators and representatives reviewed the Virginia Standards of Learning in Social
Studies in 2007. The revised standards for American Indian and Virginia Indian history and
cultures were approved in 2008. The new items were field-tested in the spring 2010 History
and Social Studies SOL, and are incorporated into the 2010-2011 SOL assessments.4
In today's learning environment, Virginia educators face increased accountability for
student performance and education for citizenship in a culturally diverse society. However,
2 In addition to those seeking Federal recognition, the Cheroenhaka (Nottoway), Mattaponi, Nottoway, Pamunkey, and Patawomeck Indian Tribes complete the list of those that are currently State-recognized. The Cheroenhaka (Nottoway) Indian Tribe of Southampton Country, Virginia, the Nottoway Indian Tribe of Virginia, Inc., and the Patawomeck Indians of Virginia were most recently recognized in early 2010. 3 The VINSHE members include Virginia Indian tribal representatives and currently, three State universities: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, the University of Virginia, and The College of William and Mary (in the order they became members). 4 The Virginia Department of Education Web site (http://www.doe.virginia.gov/VDOE/Instruction!History/hist ss framework.html) contains the revisions.
in the K-12 history and social studies curriculum, time constraints make it difficult for
teachers to cover topics such as Jamestown's founding or the Eastern Woodland Indians.
The Virginia Indian Heritage Program supports educators' professional development
related to Virginia Indian history and cultures through the Beyond Jamestown: Virginia
Indians Past and Present Teachers' Institute. Virginia Indian scholars lead the seminar, with
guest lectures by tribal leaders and non-Native faculty on tribal histories, ethno-history,
archaeology, and environmental science. Evolving from the Beyond Jamestown: Virginia
Indians Yesterday and Today travelling exhibition curated by Virginia Indian Heritage
Program director Karenne Wood (Monacan), the Beyond Jamestown program was designed
to address Virginia schools' curricular and knowledge shortfalls by providing Virginia
Indian perspectives on the Commonwealth's history and Native cultures.
The University of Virginia hosted the first annual Beyond Jamestown Teachers'
Institute (BJTI) in June 2007. The School of Education at The College of William and
Mary hosted the second in June 2008. This seminar produced over fifty graduates statewide
between 2007 and 2009. 5 Its curriculum has incorporated lectures by Virginia tribal
speakers, chiefs, and academic experts as well as readings, instructional materials,
discussions, and field trips. The BJTI focuses on dispelling misconceptions and historical
errors about Virginia Indians that have persisted in popular culture and classrooms. The
VFH offered thirty-two hours of curriculum development credit toward Virginia re-licensure
for 2007 and 2008 participants. The Virginia Indian Heritage Program and a We the People
grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities funded the institutes in both years.
5 Fifteen more Virginia teachers attended an abbreviated version of the BJTI at the University of Richmond in 2010 through the School of Continuing Studies. That summer session did not include the full roster of presenters from the previous sessions. It is discussed in this study's epilogue.
6
As a milestone in cross-cultural transmission, the Beyond Jamestown Teachers'
Institute offers a significant opportunity for studying the pedagogy and curriculum of its
Native and non-Native faculty members. The BJTI presenters include Virginia Indian
scholars, tribal leaders, tribal educational representatives, and non-Native scholars working
actively as collaborators and teaching across cultures. My observations during the 2007 and
2008 summer seminars suggest that these individuals balanced traditional teaching
approaches within the academy and within Virginia Indian cultures, and that Native teachers
and the non-Native teachers demonstrated some differences in their approaches that deserve
further exploration. Yet, researchers to date have not documented descriptions and analyses
of pedagogical methods and curricular content in this innovative cross-cultural program.
What sort of intentions do these teachers have for their audiences as they approach the
construction of their lessons? Why are there differences? Are these differences related to
their cultural heritage and positions, to their formal and informal education, to their values
and beliefs about passing on a divergent narrative?
The Statement of the Problem
This study's problem is to document the curriculum and pedagogical practices of the
Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute's Native and non-Native faculty members, or
presenters, in order to explore differences and similarities in the content and techniques of
these teachers. As defined by Levine ( 1981 ), curriculum is the "body of courses and
formally established learning experiences presenting the knowledge, principles, values, and
skills that are the intended consequences of the formal education offered by a college" (pp.
521-522). For this study, Levine's concept of curriculum is mainly applied to the lesson or
lessons that the individual teachers deliver, rather than encompassing a body of courses
organized within an institution of higher learning.
7
8
To use the European-American terms curriculum and pedagogy in relation to Native
teaching methodologies and content requires acknowledging some significant differences and
challenges in portraying cultural worldviews accurately. However, they are the most
appropriate operational terms for general understanding, and these differences are addressed
in separate models.
In general, pedagogy can be defined as "the activities of educating or instructing or
teaching" (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2010, n. pag.), and this definition is
incorporated into the models of pedagogy and curriculum developed in my conceptual
framework. In looking at the pedagogy ofBJTI faculty members, I also explored Giroux's
2004 construct of pedagogy as "a discourse of possibility" that leads students to understand
and challenge ideological systems in relation to social transformation and justice (p. 73) and
Bank's concept of pedagogy as a pathway to transformative and global citizenship education
(Banks, 2001, pp. 5-16).
In this study, the term "presenter" defines individuals who are recognized within and
without Virginia Indian communities, are designated by the BJTI program director as experts
in related fields and as such, were invited to teach in one or both of the Beyond Jamestown
program's first two years (2007 and 2008). Further, the educators identified as potential
participants in this study actively support the Virginia Indians' statewide education initiative
to tell their own story.
The BJTI presenters possess varied academic and cultural backgrounds spanning
tribal affiliations, academic disciplines, and professions. They share a demonstrated
commitment to education related to Virginia Indian history and cultures. Moreover, these
exemplars walk in two worlds through their advocacy of Virginia Indian agency, in that they
consistently maintain awareness of a culture other than their own in their words and actions.
These individuals have spent years building relationships that enable them to function as
cultural mediators in the service of education for and about Virginia Indian peoples, and
potentially operate as agents of change. Specifically, this study explored the pedagogy and
curricula of these knowledge workers as the basic units of analysis.
9
Interwoven throughout is one central inquiry: Who defines knowledge, particularly in
light of the dominant historical narrative? In using the term knowledge, I define it as "what
can be known by an individual or mankind [sic]" (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary,
2010, n.pag.), with the understanding that many cultural contexts apply.
Research Questions
Mason Durie's concept of modem researchers operating at the interface of the Maori
and Pakeha (non-Maori) cultures in New Zealand (Durie, 2000) focused on the synergy
created by intellectual collaboration. Although Durie incorporates both worldviews within
the context of scientific research, his principles for moving between the mores of the Maori
community and expectations of the scientific community suggest a path for bicultural
education that is culturally sensitive to both cultures. It was a starting point for this study of
curriculum and pedagogy. Expanding on Durie's construct, this study explores teaching at
the interface of cultures, focusing on the Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute faculty. By
using guidelines similar to Durie's, educators from two cultures may produce a learning
environment that demonstrates awareness of cultural dominance as an invasive and historic
issue and present counter-narratives as a teaching strategy. Such presentations are open to
cross-cultural perceptions and seek to avoid extensive cultural bias or appropriation. By
using a multi-layered approach, such educators expose their students to global perspectives
in historical analysis, empowering them to be critical observers of cultural assumptions. In
the case of the Beyond Jamestown program, lecturers may have a continuing and significant
influence on K-12 students statewide through the 2007 and 2008 BJTI graduates at a
foundational level.
Exploring the nature of teaching at the interface became an integral part of this
study. In order to do so, the research questions I addressed included:
1. What are the curricula and pedagogies employed by the Native faculty members
within BJTI?
A. Are there commonalities within the content and techniques?
10
B. How deliberate is the content and techniques? If deliberate, what are the
values, attitudes, and beliefs that are reflected in the messages that the faculty
want to promote or communicate?
2. What are the curricula and pedagogies employed by the non-Native faculty
members?
A. Are there commonalities within the content and techniques?
B. With regard to motivations, how deliberate are the content and techniques?
If deliberate, what are the values, attitudes, and beliefs manifested in the
messages that the faculty consciously want to promote or communicate?
3. Do the curricula and pedagogies differ between the Native and non-Native
faculty? If so, how?
4. To what do the faculty members attribute any differences in their approaches to
their curricula and pedagogies? Cultural differences? Educational
differences? Other reasons? Do they recognize specific strengths and
weaknesses in each?
5. Do the curricula and pedagogies of the two groups of faculty have any attributes
in common? If so, what accounts for the similarities?
11
The Significance of the Study
As the Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute continues to grow as an educational
program, new assessment mechanisms and protocols may result from participant feedback,
recommendations from research and prior survey data while retaining its unique cultural
identity and mission. Because modifications may be made within the program in the future,
the opportunity to study the faculty from its first two years of operation without any
contaminants may not be possible again. In the future, the program may be adjusted in
length or content to accommodate factors such as teachers' scheduling preferences and
emphasis on the Virginia Standards of Learning, particularly the revisions previously
described and changes yet to come.
To date, both Native and non-Native researchers have written accounts of education
as a force of cross-cultural contact and collision, but have not examined the pedagogical
dynamics in 21 81-century Virginia. The BJTI is a unique portal through which we can learn
about historical narratives as well as paradigms, exploring storytelling as a dynamic tool of
educational transmission and validation across cultures. Another possible outcome of this
study is that constructs may be transferable to other educational settings where pedagogy
and curriculum have implications for cross-cultural collaboration.
Through their interviews, study participants articulated some of their core beliefs and
values in relation to the BJTI. This guided reflection represented a first for the BJTI faculty
in several respects. To date, their individual presentations have not been the subject of
formal debriefing or post-program evaluation processes; nor have their pedagogy and
curricula been tied to specific teaching goals. Each of these individuals participated in one
or both of the first two years of the BJTI program, its earliest stages; therefore, the lack of
direct feedback (for example, through evaluations that presenters see afterwards) may be
characteristic of the overall program design, or it may reflect an as-yet unrealized program
goal. Because most are experienced public speakers and educators, these had personal
insights into their performances and the receptivity of their audiences, as well as the
motivations for participating and the methods they employ.
Framing this qualitative research study within the Virginia Indian-designed Beyond
Jamestown program linked it effectively to more global cross-cultural exchanges and
collaborations at the K -16 level, including Indigenous or Aboriginal education located in
North America, Australia, and New Zealand. Such research can be particularly useful in
documenting perceptions and experiences of key actors (and observers) of a pedagogical
revolution. As previously noted, social and political forces surrounding the 2007
commemoration and the federal recognition movement galvanized the creation of the
Beyond Jamestown program. It is simultaneously an educational framework, a mechanism
of change, and a form of educational advocacy developed by Virginia Indians with support
from tribal communities, state organizations, and other allies.
The intended audience for this study includes BJTI stakeholders in Virginia Indian
communities and statewide education, and it pertains to broader discussions of history
education, indigenous education, colonialism, multiculturalism, and social justice. Readers
may possess an individual interest in bridging cultures as mediators and advocates, or a
collective interest in policy and communities of practice. In the case of individuals seeking
12
a better understanding of cross-cultural collaboration, reflections ofBJTI faculty members
may suggest ways through which that is accomplished in individual and collective action.
The professional activities, educational backgrounds, and life experiences of BJTI faculty are
diverse. Yet, these individuals share a unique forum in which to confront persistent
stereotypes and misconceptions about Virginia Indians and potentially influence the way
BJTI participants teach history and social studies. Therefore, some of the educational
philosophies and praxis of BJTI faculty may be useful in developing other types of cross
cultural programs.
For communities specifically interested in evaluating and improving the Beyond
Jamestown Teacher Institute, understanding its pedagogical dimensions may support these
processes further by documenting how these Native and non-Native lecturers view their
teaching methodologies. Bogdan and Biklan ( 1992), emphasize the importance of such
study:
13
People who try to change education, be it in a particular classroom or for the whole
system, seldom understand how people involved in the changes think. Consequently,
they are unable to anticipate accurately how the participants will react. Since it is the
people in the setting who must live with the change, their definitions of the situation
are critical if change is going to work (p. 200).
Ultimately, the focus of the Beyond Jamestown faculty is on educators attending the
program and through them, generations of students across Virginia. Through faculty
members' reflections upon their practice over the last two years, there may be a ripple effect
on future iterations of the Beyond Jamestown program.
Limitations and Delimitations
The research study under consideration was delimited to the curriculum and
pedagogy of the BJTI faculty and included the preparations, content, structure, elements, and
relationships inherent in their presentations and the processes through which they teach. This
study focused specifically on the BJTI program rather than other teaching of Indigenous
educational content or methods. The BJTI faculty included a smaller number of non-Native
faculty members from whom to draw in designing and implementing a purposeful sampling
strategy. I made every effort to create a balanced mix of participants and to interview as
many as possible. The total number of faculty participating in the first two years ofthe
program was small, numbering sixteen possible participants. Of these, fourteen presenters
agreed to share their perceptions and experiences in interviews, and to follow up with
individual and grand member checks, and to be identified in the study rather than to remain
anonymous. Two presenters, one from each year of the program, were unavailable.
14
Although their experiences are certainly valuable and their contributions to the
program significant, several participants provided related insights based on similar
backgrounds. Although a small group may allow fewer possibilities to compare a range of
individual viewpoints, in this case it opened the study to in-depth discussions with most of
the BJTI presenters. For them and for me, it led to insights from multiple perspectives on the
power of education to transform a dominant educational system, and allowed me to explore
theoretical triangulation (Glesne, 2006) from participants' related perspectives as well as my
conceptual framework.
The program's interruption in summer 2009 due to budget restrictions presented a
major limitation in terms of potential fieldwork and also participants' detailed memories of
the 2007 and 2008 programs. No timely possibilities existed for equivalent classroom
observation of the BJTI faculty as part of my field research. Thus, the study relied on
participants' reflections on their prior experiences during the data collection. For the most
part, presenters did not recall their complete content, but remembered the situational context
and their pedagogical/curricular decision-making processes). My familiarity with both
programs encouraged richer and thicker descriptions from participants, as I was present
during both programs. I was involved with the BJTI as a 2007 participant and 2008 associate
scholar. From January 2008 to June 2009, I conducted a pilot study through the College of
William and Mary to measure teacher gains in the 2008 program and to make
recommendations for improving evaluation methods in a related unpublished longitudinal
study.
15
This research is the continuation of 13 years of increasing study of Virginia Indian
history and cultures as expressed in American culture and in comparison to the experiences
of other Indigenous peoples. I started from a limited knowledge base as a museum educator,
and can appreciate the challenges teachers have faced in gaining accurate information on
these topics for themselves and their students. Through discourse with members of the
Virginia Indian nations as well as their Native and non-Native colleagues, I continue to
expand my perspective on the complexities of this contested historical narrative, the political
landscape, and the Virginia Indians' cultural survival through specific strategies, including
education. That area is my primary focus.
Since 2006, I have worked in collaboration with a number of Virginia Indian tribal
leaders and educational representatives, teaching about their people's history and culture in
museum settings and in teacher development programs. I participate in higher education
initiatives that encourage Native student recruitment across the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Such activities have enriched my views on major differences existing between Native and
non-Native worldviews and ways in which these differences may be bridged. Because of
these insights, I view this dissertation as a work in progress. It expresses a moment in time
regarding my research on the interface of cultures, and on the power of shared experiences
and relationships as a decolonizing force in education and in society.
Chapter Two
Review of Literature
Native individuals and groups increasingly are developing networks and
relationships with scholars and interested groups within the dominant cultures worldwide.
As bridges of knowledge are constructed between cultures, such partnerships potentially may
mediate cultural differences and expand educational horizons multi-culturally. In Custer
Died For Your Sins (1972), the late Sioux activist Vine Deloria, Jr. wrote, "Unless there is a
frank understanding between the two people, red and white, so that the relationship between
them is honest, sincere, and equal, talk about culture will not really matter" (p. I 03). Four
decades later, this statement resides at the heart of collaborative teaching and learning.
Teachers and students may partner in revising centuries of misunderstanding,
dishonesty, and coercive policies and practices by exploring both Native and non-Native
worldviews. Rather than maintaining what has been the normative perspective, the infusion
of Indigenous knowledge presents educators in K-16 settings with resources for discussing
ways of knowing outside the dominant epistemologies of European-American knowledge
production (Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2008, pp. 138-140). Through the Beyond Jamestown
teacher development program, incorporating Indigenous knowledge and scholarship into the
curriculum has created the opportunity to expand teachers' educational ideologies.
To provide a context for the study, this review ofliterature identifies prevailing educational
ideologies within a sociocultural framework of historical relationships of resistance and
support in education, noting how education has influenced the development of Indigenous
agency in the 21st century in complex ways. Although no single theoretical tradition
provides a complete framework for the discussion of relevant research, pedagogy (both
16
17
European-American and Indigenous) informs it through multiple scholarly perspectives. The
literature review serves as an interface between Indigenous ways ofknowing and traditional
European-American pedagogy. It includes major European-American authors in the
sociology ofknowledge, subaltemity, critical pedagogy, and social justice as well as leaders
in Indigenous intellectual thought. It acknowledges the earliest European and Native voices
to describe Virginia's Indigenous peoples through pedagogy, and considers major eras of
educational and social conflict up to the present day.
There is a dearth of information for the 18th and 19th centuries in Virginia due to
document destruction during the Revolutionary and Civil Wars; therefore, most of the
historical literature centers on the 17th, 20th, and 21st centuries. The review includes
modem Native and non-Native authors with significant perspectives on Virginia Indian
cultures, pedagogy, and Indigenous education. Two authors participated as members of the
BJTI faculty, which may make their work of special interest to this study.
No single theoretical tradition encompasses formal European-American pedagogies
and Indigenous pedagogies. The multiple lenses in this review of literature offer insights into
Indigenous ways of knowing and dominant epistemologies in European-American
knowledge production. They do not address as extensively how practitioners of these
worldviews operate across cultures as facilitators in educational settings, which this study
proposes as a significant pedagogical question.
The Relationship of Education and Colonialism
For four centuries, eyewitness accounts written by European explorers and colonizers
have remained relatively unchallenged as the primary source interpretations of cultural
interaction with Virginia's Indian tribes. Embedded in historical accounts and education
18
from the 18th through the mid-20th centuries, colonialism privileged White epistemologies in
Virginia's historical narrative, exerting continual pressure to Anglicize Virginia Indian
culture and subjugate Indigenous knowledge (Rountree, 1990; Tarter, 2007; Wood, 2009).
Historically, education has enforced societal control and cultural assimilation; a
growing body of 21st-century literature documents the persistent effects of colonialism and
related classroom responses. Some European-American researchers have defined education
as a changing cultural product, but do so within the framework ofEuro-American teaching
methodologies. Education research described in this section does not address Indigenous
epistemologies as extensively. The resulting pedagogical analysis thus is more dependent
upon other contextual frameworks, such as critical pedagogy and social justice. The studies
of formal European-American pedagogy below are informative, but do not bridge Native and
non-Native teaching methodologies successfully.
Despite the lack of direct reference to Indigenous pedagogy or cross-cultural research,
various studies indicate that colonialism persists through the privileging of White cultural
norms in American pedagogy and practice (Bell, 2007; Carter, 2000; Chubbuck, 2004;
Miller, 1995). The effects of institutionalized cultural norms extend to preservice as well as
inservice teacher education, through students' personal schemas as well as the content and
methods they are learning in coursework.
In their 2008 meta-analysis of 46 qualitative and quantitative studies published
between 1997 and 2006, Trent, Kea, and Oh describe professional development as a
promising but unlikely catalyst for "powerful pedagogical practices and learning outcomes,"
given current cost and efficiency criteria (pp. 13 7-13 8). Preservice teachers experiencing
discomfort from encountering and acknowledging racism may use specific distancing
19
strategies to avoid it, such as silence, social disassociation, and separation from responsibility
(Case & Hemmings, 2005, pp. 606-626). Thus, preservice teachers may demonstrate
minimal skills in incorporating cultural diversity into their lesson plans, to the point of doing
so only as an afterthought (Ambrosio, Sequin & Hogan, 2001). In addition, some faculty
members' inexperience and apprehensions preclude them from teaching about multicultural
issues beyond a superficial level. These traits may instead perpetuate racial stereotypes in
the classroom (Asher, 2007; Case & Hemmings, 2005; Phuong, 2000; Sheers, 2003).
Loewen (2007) emphasizes the resiliency of American exceptionalism in curricula
materials as well as the invisibility of racism and anti-racism in American history textbooks,
and the correlation of textbook acceptance to most teachers' limited history knowledge. Van
Hover, Hicks, and Irwin (2007) found that beginning Virginia teachers coped with the
pressure of high-stakes testing by using classroom control and broad curriculum coverage as
survival strategies. Further, Virginia's testing system emphasizes recall ofhistorical facts
over skills that foster historical inquiry, such as multiple perspectives and primary source
analysis (Van Hover et al., 2007).
Accordingly, a lack of consensus on effective teaching and learning methodologies
prevails in the teaching of history at the K-12 level. In seeking to align content standards and
assessment procedures for social studies and history education, policy makers have left
teachers and students behind (Bolinger & Warren, 2007; Kelly, Meuwissen & Vansledright,
2007; Van Hover et al., 2007). These authors suggest that policy makers in Virginia and
other states have grappled unsuccessfully with the relationship of higher cost to higher
quality programs in history and social studies education, as well as the diminished focus on
those subjects in recent years. The resilience of traditional state and local standards in
20
Virginia history education programs creates an "institutional inertia" that seemingly supports
dominant narratives of the past, encouraging a focus on immediate short-term gains over
complex teaching and cognitive thinking (Kelly et al., p.135).
Specific factors may influence to what extent teachers model historical thinking and
teach students to develop critical reasoning skills in understanding history from different
cultural starting points. Personal and professional schema, concepts of history, and
perceptions of curriculum, students, and pedagogy shape how teachers interpret and
implement instruction. High stakes testing heightens these complexities, as do standards that
do not encourage historical inquiry in Virginia and other states (Kelly et al., 2007; Van
Hover et al., 2007).
In their survey of 102 elementary and 38 secondary teachers in an Indiana school
district, Bolinger and Warren (2007) discovered that teachers preferred passive methods such
as lectures to interactive methods such as debate and role-play. Further, elementary school
teachers understand best practices, but do not necessarily employ them in the classroom.
Among the variables Bolinger and Warren (2007) listed as potential factors in teacher
use are preservice preparation in history, social studies, and instructional methodologies,
prioritization of math and language arts in assessments, and time constraints in the
classroom. These authors concluded that teachers might need training to employ active
instructional methods for social studies that encourage critical thinking, in the face of current
state requirements. All these elements are important to consider in the implementation and
assessment of teacher development programs in different educational settings.
Researchers have presented strategic improvements to address the complexities of
assessment and accountability, ranging from aligning assessment measures with best
21
practices in history and social studies education in Indiana (Bolinger & Warren, 2007) to
developing strategies to help beginning teachers cope with the cognitive dissonances they
face in teaching history in Virginia (Van Hover et al., 2007). Through such strategies,
educators and policy makers guide history education away from a factual to a conceptual
emphasis, one that encourages multiple historical perspectives rather than merely the
dominant narrative.
Cumulatively, such findings and the lack of Indigenous references within them
present the challenge to 1) increase Indigenous resources available to educators; 2) include
more comprehensive perspectives in teacher development on the enduring nature of
colonialism and its relationship to education, and 3) support preservice and inservice teachers
in dealing with the cognitive dissonances that may result episodically or throughout their
professional lifetimes.
The Sociology of Knowledge
In Postethnic America (1995), Hollinger observed that the Enlightenment gave rise to
a celebration ofknowledge as authority. In the post-1945 era, the publication of Kuhn's
1962 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions heralded a new paradigm questioning the
acceptance of science as absolute truth. Within a conceptual framework of historicity
knowledge transmission and scholarship are marked as cultural products that represent an era
and convey its opinions and prejudices (Hollinger, 1995).6 Scholarship in the sociology of
knowledge supports the transformative nature ofhistory education. Mannheim's early 20th_
century conceptual framework on the sociology of political education and Foucault's
published lectures on the nature of power in society provide complementary perspectives on
6 Hollinger defines "historicity" as "the contingent, temporally, and socially situated character of our beliefs and values, of our institutions and practices" (Postethnic America (1995), p. 60).
22
the dynamics of knowledge transmission. Their work indicates ways in which new frames of
reference, new social realities, and new global worldviews can change history and the
reigning dominant ideology (Foucault & Gordon, 1977; Mannheim, Kettler, & Loader,
2001). As systems ebb and flow generationally, value conflicts always become embedded in
the process (Mannheim & Kecskemeti, 1952, p. 185).
Mannheim's schema suggests that all past and present historical eras may have
multiple perspectives, despite the silencing and suppression of some voices. The historian's
position is or should be a non-positivist stance during a systemic and in-depth analysis of
each era's multiple perspectives and standards. Using those constructs, Native and non
Native worldviews in Virginia are different sides of the same history, should be
contextualized accordingly, and may be translated to worldwide applications. In tum, we see
that the transmission of knowledge between English and Indigenous peoples reflected the
relativization of ideas between them, as the cultures accepted or rejected ideas from each
other in interactions. This concept suggests how Virginia Indians and members of the
dominant culture maintained most of their own social realities as a form of cultural
resistance, but practiced cultural adaptation when necessary or beneficial.
In considering why cultural resistance occurred, Mannheim's construct of the
dynamic of orthodox thinking is apposite: "Every act of thought" operates as a defense
against open thinking in an otherwise closed system that rejects anything new coming into it
and relies upon orthodox patterns of thought (Mannheim et al., 2001, p. 54). In closed
educational systems, academics may attempt to reduce a new thought or emerging
construct's significance by de-valuing or over-simplifying it (Mannheim et al., p. 54), thus
resisting critical thinking or discourse as alternatives. This concept of closed educational
23
systems grouped Virginia Indians with the Irish in the early colonial era: Elizabethans
stereotyped both as primitive uncivilized cultures, because neither accepted Anglicanism in
England's first wave of colonial expansion (Gibbons, 2000). That English colonizers and
philanthropists continually emphasized the need for Indian schools in America underscores
historical outcomes for its Indigenous peoples. Although Virginia Indians were willing after
first contact to accept the English God into their pantheon of deities, they would not renounce
the others (Rountree, 1989). The Indians' polytheism was an unacceptable compromise to
the English, fueling British philanthropic funding and efforts to convert Indians to
Anglicanism through education. What began as a seemingly benevolent desire to bring the
word of God to New World inhabitants evolved over time into a formidable rationale for
cultural domination.
In Power/Knowledge (1977), Foucault outlined the implications of education as a
societal tool. Foucault critically analyzed mechanisms by which power works in organized
forms of Western social life, particularly the power of knowledge and truth. Education
(incorporating knowledge and its transmission) thus functions as a tool of domination or
emancipation. Therefore, the surfacing of subaltern studies, critical pedagogy, teaching for
social justice, and Indigenous studies can be defined as emancipatory responses within
European-American society. Stringer (2007, p. 197) uses the Foucauldian postmodern
perspective on power to discuss how teachers, researchers as members of the "power elite,"
build an organizational framework defining language and meaning. In America's European
American-based educational systems, the production of meanings encompasses textbooks,
curricula, and both the formal and informal communications that take place in school
settings.
24
This understanding of education as an ideological product enhances the convergent
discussions of history education, teacher development, and Indigenous advocacy. From that
perspective, the historical narrative of education for and about Virginia Indians during the
last four centuries illustrates how domination operates; actors in that narrative simultaneously
represent "the vehicles and the articulated effect ofpower" (Foucault & Gordon, 1977, p.
98). Foucault's constructs provide insights into the deconstruction of education as a key tool
of the domination/emancipation of the Virginia Indian narrative. Accordingly, asking where
power is applied and where it has produced results are important to discovering how
subjugation works. For example, Rennard Strickland ( 1997), a legal historian of Osage and
Cherokee heritage, points out that as Indian policy developed in America, it followed shifts
in public perception of the so-called Indian problem over four centuries. Christianity,
military power, resettlement, and training and education were control mechanisms attempted
as social solutions at various times, modified by each era's prevailing attitude toward
Indigenous peoples (Strickland, 1997, p. 110).
Perpetuating dominant majority epistemologies in the classroom and popular culture
ameliorates the ambiguity of America's origin and silences disturbing questions of rights and
accountability as well as the intellectual and ideological devaluation ofNative cultural
constructs. To acknowledge the "terrible past" contests idealized historical accounts of
American freedom and democracy (Huhndorf, 2001). However, the development of
subaltemity as a major area of study provides evidence of the transformative potential of
education.
25
The Influence of Critical Pedagogy, Social Justice, and Subalternity
Ghosh (2008) posited that the collective body of work representing the sociology of
knowledge, which evolved from the early 19th to the mid-201h- century, explains changes in
knowledge production as cognitive shifts creating cultural, social, and ultimately institutional
innovation. Examples are subaltern studies and other conceptual models related to
postmodernist and postcolonial scholarship.
In his conceptualization of critical pedagogy, Paulo Freire (1994) envisioned
education as emancipatory. He emphasized that education is not only a cognitive act but also
an inquiry into the societal forces surrounding it. Freire clarified education's potential
transformative role for oppressed peoples, but warned that merely understanding social
reality does not in itself constitute a change in reality. Nonetheless, awareness can energize
educators to join a global political struggle against oppression. Teaching students to engage
as "agents of their own history" with an awareness of social, political, and economic
conditions, prepares them for active and potentially transformative roles in society rather
than passive participation (Rossato, 2005, p. 134).
Freire's ongoing work inspired American educators to examine pedagogy as social
activism, which has generated education reform in areas such as teacher development. By
envisioning teachers as cultural workers and social agents, Freire, Shor, and Pari (1999) and
other scholars offered new means to empower them. To Cajete (2004), Freire's 1970 concept
of education as social consciousness closely parallels what Cajete saw as the "natural
democracy" of Indigenous education, a process that encourages authentic dialogue between
all participants.
26
Shor (1992) noted that a "critical paradigm of empowering education" is one in which
teachers and students reach a middle ground between cultures, one which disallows any one
culture (including academic) to predominate (p. 204). Tejeda (2008) described a
decolonizing pedagogy as one that enables students to understand the present as a product of
the past and to develop a critical approach to the understandings and interpretations of history
(p. 27). When a critical pedagogy empowers students, the resulting philosophy of education
is transformational rather than simply a transmission of knowledge (Klug & Whitfield,
2003).
In related research, subaltern scholars have examined Indigenous perspectives from
the view of cultures and populations experiencing inequality under colonialism, particularly
in Southeast Asia and Latin America. Beverly (1999) discussed the academy as a tool in
relationships of power and privilege, aligned with academic resistance to legitimizing
subaltern texts in classrooms. Investigating such power relationships challenges one of
education's traditional missions, which is to educate citizens to maintain their position in
society-some for the dominant group and others for the subordinate. Subaltern voices
interfere with this normative process by contesting the inevitability of the dominant narrative.
Beverly (1999) also makes the case that the academy did not represent oppressed peoples
accurately as subalterns in Latin America in the 1960s-1970s.
The challenge he posed to academics seeking to advocate for oppressed or
marginalized peoples is significant to this study: How can academic knowledge represent
subalterns when it has been used to subjugate them? That inquiry points to the significance
of continuing reflection in education, through which beliefs, fallacies, and biases may be
revealed and critically examined. While the previous discussions of historical context,
27
power, critical pedagogy, and subaltemity contribute to understanding aspects of the Beyond
Jamestown program as a mechanism of change, they are not the sole factors. To appreciate
the scope of this phenomenon, we must recognize the increasing body of Native scholarship
nationwide that encompasses education, critical theory, and intellectual thought, and
juxtaposes them with European-American constructs as an expanded discourse.
The Emergence of Indigenous Agency in Education
Modem Indigenous advocacy contributes an essential understanding in comparing
formal European-American and Indigenous pedagogies. Post-modernist and post-colonialist
theories have influenced worldwide Indigenous educational movements. Centering on North
America, cultural struggles between Native and non-Native peoples have focused on a
complex interplay of historical and current power relationships, competing value systems,
and contested definitions of land ownership arising from economic and political forces.
Recent interdisciplinary scholarship in and about Virginia has expanded the range of
topics beyond politics to social, economic, and cultural issues. Within the last 40 years, new
scholarship has transformed the old master narrative of the Commonwealth into a complex
and empowered blend of races, genders, and social classes, all with stories to tell (Tarter,
2007, p. 44). In the 21 81 century, Virginia Indian peoples are actively advising educational
institutions and textbook publishers on how to revise K-16 curricula and content to make it
more historically accurate and representative of their cultures.
The development of the Virginia Indian Heritage Program of the Virginia Foundation
for the Humanities (2005), the publication of the first, second, and third editions of the
Virginia Indian Heritage Trail Guide (2007, 2008, 2009), and direction of the Beyond
Jamestown teacher development program have all increased the visibility of Virginia's
modem Indigenous peoples. Virginia Indian tribal leaders and educators travelled
nationwide during 2007 and since then have continued to build relationships with other
American Indian tribes and nations. For example, Chief Stephen Adkins (Chickahominy)
and Chief Kenneth Adams (Upper Mattaponi) were invited to become trustees of their alma
mater, Bacone College in Muskogee, Oklahoma. Along with other tribal leaders, they are
active in higher education initiatives for Indian students to develop a rising generation of
leaders. In addition to national academic conferences and cultural events, Virginia Indian
educators' statewide presentations include the Virginia Forum, the Virginia Council for the
Social Studies, and the Virginia Association of Museums. They work with the Virginia
Department of Education and Virginia universities on online college courses, American
Indian Studies programs, and programs for K-12 educators.
28
The growing empowerment and visibility of Virginia Indians in education for their
own communities and others echoes similar advances in other parts of the world. In his
description ofNative experiences in Canada and the United States, Valaskakis (2005) has
pointed to current Aboriginal studies as part of a cultural renaissance. Canadian research and
development related to cultural diversity education compares to similar collaborations with
the Maori in New Zealand (Consedine & Consedine, 2001; Durie, 2000; Ritchie, 1995).
Working with the University of Alaska, Native Alaskan educators have contributed to the
Guidelines for Cross-Cultural Orientation Programs (2003) as part ofthe Alaska Knowledge
Network. This body of theoretical and applied research readily applies to teacher
development applications. Cardinal (1999) suggests a new perspective on aboriginal
education and curriculum integration within the framework of the Western Canadian
Protocol Social Studies K-12 Project. Using Banks and Banks' Multicultural Education:
29
Issues and Perspectives (1997) and Manitoba Aboriginal Perspectives for the Social Studies
(1998), Cardinal outlined several strategies for curriculum reform.
These action steps build upon each other in successive degrees of knowledge building
and social activism, and may provide a model for multicultural education strategies in the
United States. From an initial and superficial focus on Aboriginal contributions to culture,
the next step is adding some historical Indigenous content to an existing curriculum. After
presenting Aboriginal cultures and history from Aboriginal perspectives, the fourth
curriculum development step is formally empowering students and teachers as social activists
for Aboriginal issues.
In New Zealand, the debate about Maori sovereignty has involved both Maori and
Pakeha (non-Maori) residents of New Zealand in conflicts over rights for two centuries. Yet
education advocates in both cultures have written extensively about bridging New Zealand's
colonial history and multiple identities to build a strong multicultural relationship (Consedine
& Consedine, 2001; Durie, 2000; Ritchie, 1995). Their recommendations resonate with
American Indian educational advocacy. Consedine and Consedine (200 1) recommended
valuing individual cultural identity, understanding the nation's colonial history, raising
awareness through education workshops, and supporting the Maori in their quest for social
justice.
The Maori people's demonstrated progress in attaining self-determination and in
moving beyond colonial relationships as the accepted epistemology suggests the importance
ofbicultural facilitators. Experience in contesting hegemony inherent in State policy,
institutionalized bureaucracy, and schooling in New Zealand has supported the Maori in
addressing issues from intellectual property rights to the cultural competency of pre-service
and in-service teachers with policy makers (Tomlins-Jahnke, 2006).
30
In comparison to these international efforts however, cross-national comparative
studies of the U. S. education system suggest "educational rhetoric in the United States
remains essentially one-dimensional" (Chabbott & Emerson, 2003, p. 5). Possible factors are
the imperviousness ofU. S. education policy to domestic and international education
research, the embedded nature of the dominant majority view, and a pervasive belief that
international perspectives are irrelevant (Chabbott & Emerson, 2003).
Shklar ( 1991) noted that throughout American history, tensions have persisted
between a national ideology of equality and the exclusion of American Indians and other
minorities from full rights as citizens. American Indian intellectuals and other
representatives today call for authentic representation of their peoples through intellectual
sovereignty and cultural preservation. This movement represents Native peoples' collective
demand to own their pasts. With the support of popular and scholarly movements like those
cited previously, these persistent efforts are changing the "dualistic paradigms" of Bum
American thought (Shanley, 2001). Deconstructing the hegemony surrounding Indigenous
peoples is part of changing that paradigm, and decolonization represents reparation for the
cultural genocide of the past (Gabbard, 2006). Research by scholars across cultures indicates
that Indigenous education still suffers from a persistent dualism, with Indigenous peoples
viewed as commodities or threats to Euro-Americentrism (Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2008).
As discussed earlier in the review of literature, Foucault (1977) deconstructed
education as a key tool of domination and emancipation. By asking where power is applied
and how it produces outcomes, we can identify intersections of power that have historically
hindered American Indian empowerment or more recently, have supported it in significant
ways.
31
Stringer (2007) discusses power and control extensively in his outline of postmodem
European-American philosophical foundations. To Stringer, the mechanisms of knowledge
production in human organizational and social life outlined by Foucault (1972), Derrida
(1976), and more postmodem theorists represented significant perspectives in social research.
Stringer (2007) connected the need for more participatory discourse (Derrida, 1976) and
other voices (Huyssens, 1986) with an understanding of the relevance of social texts (Fish,
1980; Lyotard, 1984).
Holistically, these constructs intersect with Warrior's 1995 discussion of eras in
American Indian intellectual tradition in comparing the prominent 201h -century Native
writers Vine Deloria Jr. (Standing Rock Sioux) and John Joseph Mathews (Osage). Deloria's
critical analyses of the United States and Indian America evoke cross-cultural comparisons
which, combined with work of other Native theorists, creates a substantial framework for
studying Native curriculum and pedagogy. His commentaries acknowledged the competing
dynamics of oppression and endurance, yet continually advocated American Indian
intellectual sovereignty and self-determination.
Deloria and Lytle (1983) concluded that it is impossible to understand American
Indians in their contemporary setting without first gaining some knowledge of their history.
Deloria ( 1995) explored the issue of intellectual sovereignty in Red Earth, White Lies, noting
an inherent racism in academic communities: "The bottom line about the information
possessed by non-Western peoples is that the information becomes valid when offered by a
white [sic] scholar recognized by the academic establishment; in effect, the color of the skin
32
guarantees scientific objectivity" (p. 50). Shanley (200 1) also noted that perspectives derived
from Indigenous peoples were mostly "absent, marginalized, or mediated" until Native
Americans wrote or taught in significant numbers within related fields of study. Shanley
further observed that Native academic influence could filter downward as far as kindergarten,
which underscores the importance of studying Virginia Indian academics' roles in the
Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute.
In a 1995 National Council for the Social Studies publication for library media
specialists, Harvey, Harjo, and Welborn proposed using specific organizing concepts and
generalizations to build a K-12 curriculum in social studies. The general principles they
recommended also relate to pedagogy and curriculum: 1), Use the date when the material
was first written or produced as a guideline, 2) whenever possible, seek Indian authors, artists
and community resources, 3) seek diversity of thought and perspective, and 4) continue to
question, to learn, and most important, to experience (Harvey, Harjo, & Welborn, 1995, p.
19).
The 21st century development of educational resources about American Indians by
American Indians compares to the expansion of Indigenous-based teaching materials in other
parts of the world. In North America, Aboriginal peoples in Alaska and Canada are among
those linking to major educational systems and instructional media, preserving Native
heritage and tradition for their own communities as well as non-Native students and teachers.
These initiatives may predict a growing acceptance and institutionalization of Indigenous
worldviews with an accompanying de-emphasis on dominant cultures' precepts in modem
educational systems.
33
Interdisciplinary scholars working across cultures posit other ways such research is
advancing along new frontiers of discourse. Linguistics may transform North American
Indian studies as researchers delve into Native language materials; further, as theorists extend
the boundaries of current cultural definitions, new concepts of "Indianness" may emerge
which expand meaning and knowledge communication through more balanced perspectives
(Shoemaker, 2002). Morrison (1997) also seeks balance from a historian's viewpoint, but
advocates a "true emic-etic perspective" that synthesizes multiple voices for a more balanced
American narrative.
Researchers offer differing strategies for decolonizing education, including 1)
exploring historical and political gaps in knowledge rather than ignoring them (Epstein,
2001); 2) including Indigenous knowledges and developing and evaluating Indigenous
methodologies from a non-European-American perspective (Morgan, 2003); and 3)
recognizing that standardized forms of measurement cannot function effectively across
cultures in comparing systems ofknowledge (McGovern, 1999). Non-Natives should also
consider the validity of other schemas of time, history, and values through cultural
comparisons from ethno-history, Indian studies, anthropology, and folklore (Nabokov, 2002)
and respect the centrality of historical grief and trauma to any discussion of culture and
knowledge (Duran & Duran, 1995). Shoemaker (2002) also contends that all theories by
definition imply "a universalism that is at odds with the cultural relativism that serves as the
basic premise underlying Indian cultural and historical studies" (p. 68).
Related Indigenous Research Methodologies
Kincheloe and Steinberg (2008) noted that Indigenous knowledge represents ways of
knowing that fall outside of the dominant European-American epistemologies. However, the
public emergence of Indigenous knowledge reveals dominant culture ideologies to be
exclusive rather than inclusive (Epstein, 2001; Huhndorf, 2001; Shanley, 2001; Shklar,
34
1991 ). Therefore, the recognition and acceptance of Indigenous research constructs calls for
awareness of foundational beliefs outside the perimeters of European-American
methodologies (Nee Benham & Cooper, 2000; Martin, 2008; McGovern, 1999; Morgan,
2003; Reagan, 2005; Smith, 2008; Wilson, 2008).
Speaking as a Maori researcher, Linda Tuhi Smith observed, "From the vantage point
of the colonized, a position from which I write, and choose to privilege, the term 'research' is
inextricably linked to European imperialism and colonialism" (2008, p. 1 ). What Smith
referred to as the "counter-stories" to the history of European-American research is directly
related to the widespread taking and commodification of Indigenous knowledge that has been
resisted through those stories.
From an Indigenous perspective, what European-American cultures have
institutionalized as scientific or academic research is an articulation of imperialism (Deloria,
1995; Smith, 2008; Wilson, 2008). Further, as Christensen (2008, p. 37) has pointed out in
his discussion of standardized versus customized teaching, there is a correlation between
specific subject matter and specific intelligences. He contended that "intellectual cliques"
composed of curriculum developers, teachers and students who excel in one pattern of
thinking exclude those whose strengths lie in another. This portrayal of multiple
intelligences as exclusionary within a classroom also applies across cultures. The types of
intelligences predominant in the majority culture can take precedence in education, to the
detriment of cultures with different learning styles.
In comparison to traditional European-American research agendas, Indigenous
35
approaches begin within a decolonizing framework. Smith's model (2008) reflected four
processes for an Indigenous research agenda: decolonization, healing, transformation, and
mobilization, which reflect a more political stance than an objective one. As she noted,
Maori people conducting projects or activities in New Zealand at the community, tribal, or
local level or within more academic settings deliberately may use Indigenous terms reflective
of their worldviews to describe their research, rather than European-American terms. For
knowledge workers within the traditional European-American culture, these may be new
concepts in theory and application. However, operating at a higher level of global awareness
mandates honoring alternative epistemologies.
Morgan (2003, p. 47) argued that "Higher education needs to provide an environment
where these methods can be developed and evaluated from a non-Western perspective." To
Morgan, academia can transform itself to provide a culturally sensitive setting. In tum,
Indigenous research can resolve its inconsistencies in methodology and evolve to meet the
needs of Indigenous peoples (2003, p. 47). Martin (2008) has emphasized principles of
cultural respect and cultural safety as the foundational constructs for an Indigenous research
paradigm that "articulates its assumptions, theory, methodology and ethics as these are
embedded in Aboriginal ontology, epistemology and axiology and underpinned by
relatedness" (p. 145).
The Relationship of Collaboration to Transformational Educational Change
Cultural and disciplinary differences in teaching constitute another significant line of
inquiry. To be successful, both teaching and teaching environments have the responsibility
to "understand the importance of Native knowing" and to honor Native worldviews (Ah Nee
Benham & Cooper, 2000, p. 19). Yupiac educator Oscar Kawagley (1995) argued that
36
Indigenous knowledge and scientific knowledge in the European-American tradition are not
incompatible pedagogically, which suggests the potential of a synergistic interface between
them. However, Pueblo educator Gregory Cajete (1999) posited that creativity- and ecology
based worldviews critical to Indigenous societies have been de-valued in comparison to
technology-based skill development and cognitive training. He contended that key
Indigenous understandings might guide teaching for cultural and ecological literacy and
transactional competence. In tum, this alternative educational practice can inform or inspire
solutions to current environmental, social, and cultural crises in America.
Intercultural collaboration for the advocacy of Indigenous knowledge and the
production of new knowledge is an emerging interdisciplinary area of inquiry bridging
Native and non-Native ontologies and epistemologies. Both Cook (2003) and Lassiter
(2005) view collaboration as a contemporary development within the profession of
anthropology. Lassiter's collaborative research with the Kiowa Indian community reflects an
awareness of history, power, and ethical and moral commitments. In describing the history
of anthropologists working in Virginia Indian communities as advocates of Indigenous rights,
Cook (2003) emphasizes that such awareness and reflection are essential if anthropologists
are to avoid taking over Indigenous decisions, thus perpetuating colonial attitudes and
outcomes. Freire (1970) also envisioned entering a community and learning about its major
issues and problems as a first step to solving social problems. Stringer (2007) incorporated
similar stages in his recommendations for action research.
Collaborative leadership theory also may be significant in understanding mutual goals
(Bourdas, 2007). Leadership qualities such as ethics and vision have been recognized in
studies across racial and ethnic cultures (Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996; Yuki, 2005). Evans'
37
2006 concept of "character in action" is a potential schema for cross-cultural collaboration in
education: demonstrating commitment to mutual values and goals through listening,
discussion, and action.
Because interdisciplinary areas of knowledge inform this study's research questions,
moving beyond existing theories and findings may contribute to theory, to practice, and to
social issues (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). Yet to be heard are the voices of these exemplars
and others like them. Their cultural perceptions, educational ideologies, and lived
experiences influence their pedagogical practices and may connect them in significant ways.
The Beyond Jamestown: Virginia Indians Past and Present Teachers' Institute is a
distinctly Virginia Indian project. It embraces the apparent dualism ofNative-non-Native
and European-American-Indigenous perspectives. Further, it presents possibilities for
interpreting the disciplinary and societal themes described in this literature review from a
phenomenological point of view. Specifically, understanding what influences these
presenters in their teaching approaches may indicate whether methods traditionally
considered as culturally distinct create a new dynamic in a shared educational setting.
This inquiry may reveal whether such exemplars begin with mutual and
transformative goals in mind when they prepare instructional materials and deliver that
content to students who are themselves educators. It also may indicate to what extent
presenters intentionally used experience as a form of mediation between themselves and the
BJTI participants to facilitate learning (Kozma, Belle, & Williams, 1978; Marzano, Brandt,
Hughes, Jones, Presseisen, Rankin, & Suhor, 1988), and if so, how this mediation functioned
in relation to other variables such as a societal role as teachers in preserving or improving
38
culture (Bigge & Shermis, 1992), or restructuring the participants' knowledge bases through
conceptual or experience-based learning (Tillema & Imants, 1995).
Additionally, comparing traditional and Indigenous methodologies may generate new
multicultural insights about the teaching interface envisioned in this study by addressing the
bond of education and identity as an over-arching and essential discourse. Wilkerson (2005,
p. 27) notes that "the Indian experience encompasses not just the present, but layers upon
layers of past people and events" that bridge modernity and tradition. Most cross-cultural
exchanges involving Native Americans and other Indigenous peoples historically took place
as appropriations of the non-dominant group's epistemologies as expressed through the filter
of the dominant group (Deloria, 2009). We can delineate this appropriation within the
framework of the documentary history primarily created by historians as opposed to folk
history as expressed through written and oral tradition (Blu, 1980, p. 216).
The inherent tension between these two constructs has surfaced with the increased
visibility of post-colonial resistance in the form of persistent reminders oflndigenous and
Indian presence: in the case of the Virginia Indians, the familiar saying, "We're still here," to
which the second phrase is sometimes added,"- and we're not going away."
Native American/American Indian studies recognize and articulate Native cultural
viewpoints as key voices to be heard (Kidwell & Velie, 2005) as part of a resurgence in re
locating story and oral text as resistance to colonial discourse as historical narrative (Smith,
2008; Bruyneel, 2007). In tum, this points to the Beyond Jamestown teacher development
program as a potentially potent expression of pedagogical sovereignty as described by
Grande (2004). It may parallel Morgan's 2003 model oflndigenous research by meeting the
needs of Virginia Indians in correcting the historical narrative and presenting a forum to tell
their own stories, while simultaneously allowing new methodologies to develop and be
evaluated from Virginia Indian epistemologies.
39
Chapter Three
Methodology
The phenomenon under study is the Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute,
specifically the curricular and pedagogical practices used by its faculty members during the
first two years of the program (2007-2008). This research study seeks evidence of
educational principles and practice as a dialogue between cultures. It questions whether
Native and non-Native exemplars share an educational vision or paradigm in their teaching
within the Beyond Jamestown program. If so, this phenomenological study seeks to discover
the elements and core meanings of that synergy from their lived experiences, using
European-American and Indigenous educational paradigms to frame the inquiry.
Chapter 1 proposed curriculum and pedagogy as the study's primary units of analysis
for European-American formal educational traditions and Native ways of knowing, including
what may emerge in this study as Virginia Indian epistemologies. In the literature review in
chapter two, I discussed the prevailing educational ideologies of resistance and support as a
context for the Beyond Jamestown teacher development program and its faculty exemplars.
Chapter 3 builds upon an understanding of these forces. It introduces a conceptual
framework to guide the inquiry into the worldviews and lived experiences framing each
faculty member's pedagogy and curriculum as part of shared understandings. Additionally,
Chapter 3 lays the groundwork for exploring how my personal worldview, experiences, and
relationships affect my role of researcher as instrument. I agree with Kidwell (1999, p. 282)
that "contact between cultures must be examined from the viewpoint of both cultures." In
fact, the genesis of this project has been working with colleagues for the last 12 years on
40
education for and about Virginia Indians, and in sharing the belief that education is a
transformative social force.
The Conceptual Framework
41
Some Beyond Jamestown exemplars represent Virginia Indian tribal communities in
governance and education. Others operate within federal and state organizations strongly
connected to tribal communities and the Virginia Indian Heritage Program. Most are
members of state-recognized Virginia Indian tribes or Nations; some are members of
neighboring tribes. All of these individuals have distinguished themselves through their
substantial contributions to American Indian and Virginia Indian heritage and culture
preservation, to intertribal collaboration, and to education advocacy for and about their
peoples.
The Native faculty members of the Beyond Jamestown program all engage in
education and service activities that concern their own and other tribes. Several are
academics who have taught courses in higher education, published extensively, and
conducted collaborative projects as tribal representatives and content experts. Others work
outside of academe as historians, educators, and consultants. For all the Virginia Indian
exemplars, their public visibility increased before, during, and after the 2007
quadricentennial of Jamestown's founding as part of the educational initiatives of their tribes
and nations and an increased global focus on their peoples' history. They advocated for
public awareness of the contested historical legacy for Virginia Indian peoples and federal
recognition of six ofVirginia's state-recognized tribes. The same increased activity is true of
the non-Native Beyond Jamestown teaching faculty.
42
Conceivably, these Native and non-Native educators bring elements from the
alternate tradition into their individual teaching methods. They may demonstrate that some
aspects of pedagogy and curricula are constants across cultures, or that a new epistemology is
emerging from their collaborations. Therefore, constructing European-American and
Indigenous models of curriculum and pedagogy informs this inquiry. The starting point for
these potential intersections is considering common characteristics of education as a
worldwide human activity.
Education requires at least four components, which are the teacher, the learner, the
knowledge to be transferred or skill to be developed, and a method for doing it. Egon Guba's
1990 construct of a paradigm suggests a more comprehensive way to describe teaching and
to compare European-American and Indigenous knowledge systems. Defined as a basic
belief system characterized by a set of fundamental questions or arguments, the four elements
of a paradigm consider the nature of reality (ontology), the relationship between the knower
and the known (epistemology), the process of finding knowledge (methodology), and its
inherent values (axiology).
A generic educational paradigm includes the arguments that 1) humans are born
without knowledge and must learn to act the right way (ontology); 2) a society's young must
be taught in order to enculturate and socialize them (epistemology); 3) knowledge is
disseminated in many ways based on the right way of acting and seeing the world
(methodology); and 4) as a process, teaching reflects the cultural values and goals of specific
communities (axiology).
These perspectives represent common ground in European-American and Native
education processes. Taking this argument to the next level, Table 1 outlines two distinct
43
paradigms as a basis for comparison-one for European-American and one for Indigenous
teaching traditions. These models draw on extant literature to compare and contrast the two
elements of education for the two cultures. Neither worldview is monolithic nor are the
paradigms in this chapter absolute classifications.
No single set of assumptions or beliefs can capture the extensive functions of
education in either culture, particularly because they represent worldwide communities
continually undergoing processes of change. Just as there are no generic Indians, African
Americans or Europeans, many nuances of individual and societal variance exist in Native
and non-Native teaching epistemologies. Indigenous scholars such as Deloria and Wildcat
(2001), Smith (1999), and Kawagley (1995) have emphasized the massive disruption to
Indigenous cultures from colonialism and imperialism. Both deliberate adaptation and forced
assimilation have caused Native cultures to absorb aspects of European-American cultures,
yet as Yupiac educator Oscar Kawagley (1995) has pointed out, European-American
societies also contain intellectual and cultural artifacts from Indigenous cultures.
Discussing how European-American and Native cultures compare and contrast relates
to a larger vision of a universal education process. Gustavsson and Osman ( 1997) postulate
that both dissimilarities and diversity must be acknowledged in a dialogue between cultures;
in other words, people can learn about their own culture by learning about other cultures.
They noted that "A traditional humanist departure point considers the perspective that human
beings transcend themselves: that in order to learn something new one has to unlearn
entrenched perspectives" (p. 183). From this perspective, comparing European-American
and Indigenous paradigms encourages self-discovery for educators within each worldview by
generating new insights into their own cultural understandings and teaching methodologies.
In their presentations, the BJTI program's presenters discuss some of the most
difficult challenges Virginia Indians have faced, including racial bias, political and social
resistance to Federal recognition, and the lingering effects of colonialism in textbooks and
curricula. They are empathetic about Virginia Indians' ownership of their history.
44
BJTI faculty members' sharing of personal insights and actions, along with their
planned curriculum content, may be significant to understanding how they teach. The
immediacy of the Institute experience for participants suggests an important correlation to
Bandura's constructs on observational learning, in that their formal and informal behavior
may be representative of the modeling process developed in social cognition theory. As he
notes: "Learning from models may take varied forms, including new behavior patterns,
judgmental standards, cognitive competencies, and generative rules for creating new forms of
behavior" (Bandura, 1989, p. 23). The faculty's formal and informal behavior in this
specific cultural context may influence participants' awareness ofNative culture and norms,
and in tum be incorporated into their own professional schema and practice if accepted as
valid. Exploring whether faculty members intentionally incorporate the essence of
Bandura's social learning principles can help to define their instructional methodologies.
In the formal European-American teaching tradition, knowledge deemed valuable by
society is formalized as a program curriculum within an authorized educational setting (see
Table 1 ). European-American intellectual traditions are predominantly based on a scientific
or positivist perspective that is linear in nature; the curriculum is expected to produce specific
objectives and outcomes, and involves change in the learner's cognitive state. In the
European-American sense, pedagogy signifies prescribed roles for the teacher and learner,
mostly within the larger sphere of institutions that agencies accredit and thus authorize to
create guidelines for the exchange of knowledge. Completing the program usually awards
credentials or certifies the learner in a socially recognized way.
45
For the purpose of this study, non-European-American teaching traditions are defined
from Indigenous scholarship emanating from scholars in the United States, Canada, New
Zealand, and Australia. Although the concept of education as a system of knowledge transfer
remains the same in Indigenous knowledge systems, the roles, expectations, and process are
not linear, but cyclical (see Table 1). They traditionally center on the community rather than
the individual. In this worldview, extended family and community members collaborate in
experiential learning that prepares learners for their community roles. This dynamic honors
oral tradition and integrates supernatural, physical, and spiritual dimensions.
The elements in Table 1 and the two tables that follow suggest that the nature of the
Beyond Jamestown exemplars' teaching practices for the program can be analyzed using
literature from both traditional European-American and Indigenous paradigms. I seek to learn
to what extent the faculty members' teaching epistemologies are related to the constructs
within these models, and if they support the faculty's teaching practice.
Table 1 introduces parallel models of knowledge transmission from two worldviews,
drawing from the scholarship of European-American and Native theorists. My review of
literature indicates that culturally identifiable principles of teaching and learning exist, and
that comparing them would inform the frameworks developed as Tables 2 and 3. In tum,
Tables 2 and 3 are more detailed delineations of elements of European-American and
Indigenous teaching. Each paradigm draws on overall characteristics of pedagogy and
curriculum identified by European-American and Indigenous scholars.
As suggested by Ryan and Bernard (2003), themes and subthemes within collected
data may link to theoretical models. The following models (Tables 1, 2, and 3) will
continually foster my inquiry and discussion as I explore my research question. They will
provide reference points as I discover and organize relevant themes in participants'
responses.
Table 1
Comparison of European-American and Indigenous Teaching Paradigms
Ontology
Epistemology
Methodology
Axiology
European-American Tradition
A guided relationship between teacher and student, with specific roles for each
To transfer knowledge in formal educational systems deemed effective by society, predominantly in classroom settings
Knowledge is disseminated within a traditional framework of content that is validated by recognized authorities and taught by credentialed instructors in organized settings
Knowledge is rational and individually-based; it is derived from human endeavors, ideas, and experience
Indigenous Tradition
Learning occurs as students absorb knowledge from themselves, others, and the environment
To teach and learn within a community where everyone is a teacher
Knowledge is disseminated across generations through oral history, art forms, and cultural tradition
Knowledge is holistic and community-based; it is derived from human, environmental, and supernatural sources
46
Ultimately, the models of European-American and Indigenous teaching may change through
the insights gained from participant interviews. They may inform the development of a
subsequent model and define the space between both systems.
European-American Tradition of Teaching
Indigenous and European-American knowledge systems both originated as distinct
forms of cultural transmission. European-American or Western teaching traditions can be
traced from classical Greek and Roman roots, developing as predominantly European
traditions and values regarding education.
Table 2
A Model of the European-American Tradition ofTeaching
Curriculum
Contains philosophical viewpoint (values)
Creates coherence; makes prescriptive choices of key ideas or writers; develops students' higher order skills Requires practice of learned skills -particularly core skills
Integrates education and experience -provides multiple opportunities to apply what is learned Sets criteria to determine high-quality teaching and learning
Meets institutional and faculty educational guidelines
Pedagogy
Has defined teaching philosophy
Students are required to synthesize learning and skills
Organizes and re-organizes knowledge in effective and student-accessible ways
Accounts for student learning styles, motivations, and stages of development
Serves as role model and/or guides students through interactions in and outside the classroom
Accounts for curriculum constraints such as knowledge boundaries of course, course sequences, and methods of evaluation
Transfers knowledge through different learning technologies or in different learning contexts
47
48
Curriculum
As defined by McKernan (2008), a curriculum is an educational policy comprised of
the knowledge intentionally planned, valued, and offered as training or education. In
traditional European-American curriculum design, achieving coherence comes from making
prescriptive choices ofkey ideas or writers (Gaff, Ratcliff, and Associates. 1997), which
develops students' higher order skills, including critical thinking, written and oral
communications, and problem solving (Diamond, 1998). Using these foci, high expectations
of educational outcomes and attention to diverse learning styles and talents emerge as key
measures of curricular quality (Diamond, 1998). Aligning a higher education curriculum
with desired learning outcomes also creates coherency (Driscoll & Wood, 2007).
Curriculum experimentation and reform have generated different philosophies of
American higher education across time (Levine, 1981 ). Alternative philosophical viewpoints
exist regarding curriculum; among them, the perennialist perspective values, preserves, and
transmits a canon of tradition and cultures, whereas an objectivist perspective of curriculum
identifies and measures aspects of learning from an interdisciplinary perspective. Curriculum
also relates functionally and humanistically to the organizational culture of the institution it
serves; in higher education, curricular decisions made as to the nature of knowledge, its
production, and evaluation depend upon an institution's values and purpose (Gaff et al, 1977;
Walker, 2006).
Alternative models range from traditionally-based to learner-based, objectives-based,
and society- and problem-centered curricula. The latter model has particular significance for
the Beyond Jamestown program and this study in considering social change as a learning
goal through curriculum development. Using a problem-centered curriculum contests what
49
McKernan (2008, p. 35) refers to as the "null curriculum," content that is either neglected or
ignored by schools.
The multicultural educational reform movement has focused on the implicit
discrimination in Anglocentric and Eurocentric educational culture and formal curriculum,
but more importantly, has addressed how the components of discrimination originated and
continue to operate. Darder (1991) argues that dominant educational discourses have been
conservative and positivist, and that this ideology carries over into American schools'
curricula through the knowledge and content selected as legitimate for credentialing. Both
curricula and teaching methodologies have perpetuated themes and values of the dominant
culture, imparting a colonizing knowledge to students (Darder, 1991 ). Champagne (2007)
maintained that in higher education, most academic disciplines generate knowledge and
theory within the context of American and Western civilizations.
Education has been central in the social transformation of America from an industrial
to a post-industrial, knowledge-based society. Schooling (the "acquisition and distribution of
formal knowledge") is the primary institutional tool of education in a knowledge society,
meaning that lifelong educational processes will continue to increase in importance (Drucker,
1994, 3). Education's centrality in American life makes it an institutional barometer of
changing values and of societal priorities in educating its citizens. In higher education, this
emerging knowledge-based society mandates the production of students who can manipulate,
transform, and create new knowledge (Garcia-Cepero, 2008). Therefore, promoting higher
order thinking and creativity in students instills the applied knowledge needed to address
societal problems in place of knowledge for knowledge's sake (Garcia-Cepero, 2008). The
positivist and technology-driven ideology operating in tandem with these values can
influence curriculum content at all grade levels.
50
Similarly, the rise of a market ideology based on production and consumption
supports the regulation of curriculum and assessment. Thus, society holds education
accountable for producing good citizens who are contributing members, based on the needs
our changing national and global economies call for. These market-driven values are in
opposition to the construct of a "caring pedagogy" and pastoral care in education (McKernan,
2008, p. 23). The placement of curricular authority outside the classroom is another
controlling factor in curriculum, assessment, and increasingly, pedagogy (Villegas & Lucas,
2002). These values echo the positivist influence of scientific rationality that critical
education theorists have contested in the postmodem era. The historical and current contexts
for curriculum may or may not factor into the BJTI faculty's individual philosophies on
content development. However, they are significant to my understanding as an interviewer
of how these educators compare in their responses.
Pedagogy
Since the colonial American era, the European-American teaching system generally
has perpetuated lasting values and institutions that support the existing power structure
(Darden, 1991 ). This system authorizes educators to take roles in hierarchical educational
structures, influencing their teaching expectations, their performance of duties, as well as the
manner of evaluation of those responsibilities. Table 2 identifies overall characteristics of
the instructor's role in European-American knowledge transmission, not principles of a
particular theory or individual factors such as teaching philosophy, experiences, and personal
schema.
51
From a didactical perspective, the lecture model-the "sage on a stage" model, with
students as the passive recipients of students' learning-has predominated in American
classrooms from the 18th through most ofthe 20th century. A more recent constructivist
model sometimes referred to as "guide on the side" centers on teacher facilitation of students'
active learning and the co-construction of reality by instructor and learner. Expanded
learning technologies and diverse learning contexts also have increased the interactivity of
knowledge transmission in 21 st_century classrooms. In recent years, the paradigmatic shift
from teacher-based to learner-based instruction in higher education has altered pedagogy and
curriculum in significant ways (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Fear, Doberneck, Robinson, Fear, Barr,
Van Den Berg, Smith, & Petrulis, 2003). To ensure specific learning outcomes, institutions
of higher learning increasingly require their faculty members to create curriculum coherence
by aligning it with pedagogy in their course designs (Driscoll & Wood, 2007). Currently,
European-American pedagogy calls for a series of actions that serve as measures of teaching
ability. Organizing key materials concisely and coherently is one measure, as is setting
criteria for evaluating high quality teaching and learning (Bess, 1998; Gaff et al., 1997).
The European-American instructional process includes the knowledge andre
organization of knowledge generated through creating a syllabus, assembling resources,
integrating knowledge from different fields, and integrating the teacher's own experiences.
Different cultures may share these pedagogical processes in other forms; however, I
articulate them here as approaches to European-American traditions of teaching. Requiring
students to synthesize learning and skills, to demonstrate learned skills, particularly core
skills, and integrate education and experience in multiple opportunities to apply what is
learned are also significant to the teaching process (Diamond, 1998).
52
On the university level, Boyer (1990) notes that "teaching, at its best, means not only
transmitting knowledge, but transforming and extending it as well" (p. 24). The extent to
which BJTI faculty see themselves in the role of transforming education or as reflexive
practitioners is a key area of inquiry in this study. Since the Beyond Jamestown program
targets K-12 teachers, each faculty member's approach to adult education will inform my
understanding of their instructional strategies and self-reflection, as well as my own
understanding of that process. Education theorist John Dewey cautioned" ... any theory and
set of practices is dogmatic which is not based upon critical examination of its own
principles" (1938, p. 22). How BJTI faculty members 1) identify the elements of their
presentations, 2) select learning outcomes for teacher-participants, 3) evaluate their success
in achieving those goals, and 4) describe influencing factors in their backgrounds are all
integral components in formulating my interview questions.
Indigenous Ways of Knowing
Both European-American and Indigenous ideologies are rooted in previous
generations (Lomawaima & McCarty, 2006), and concepts of time, space, and process are
central to people's worldviews in both paradigms. However, although Indigenous lifeways
have followed cyclical and rhythmic patterns for thousands of years, European-American
cultures appear linear and mechanistic in comparison (Barnhardt & Kawagley, 2005).
Further, Europeans have assumed that Indigenous peoples needed their intervention
as underdeveloped societies, and should advance by European-American standards of
progress. These constructs represent essential understandings within those cultures, but also
historical and significant misunderstandings across cultures (Brown & Cousins, 200 1 ).
According to Barnhardt and Kawagley (2005), "For indigenous [sic] people there is a
53
recognition that many unseen forces are at play in the elements of the universe and that very
little is naturally linear, or occurs in a two-dimensional grid or a three dimensional cube"(~
20).
Curriculum
The communal values held by Indian tribes and nations are integral to Indigenous
ways of knowing, such as the importance of understanding culture and history both past and
present. As a knowledge system, Indigenous traditional teaching is grounded in "self
determination, cultural self-esteem, and personal vision and passion" (Ah Nee-Benham &
Cooper, p. 15). As Reagan (2005) emphasizes, education is not synonymous with formal
schooling; however, authentic assessment of experiential learning is achieved through the
demonstration of skills and knowledge by students (see Table 3).
Education stresses learners' civic, spiritual, and vocational needs; people build
knowledge systems specific to their expected societal roles and rooted in their social and
physical environments (Deloria, 1995; Reagan, 2005). For both Indigenous teachers and
learners, meaning and significance reside in everything in the physical as well as the
supernatural world (Reagan, 2005). An Indigenous curriculum sustains Native lifeways and
cultural identities and is holistic in its approach, embracing spirit, mind, and body (Reagan,
2005). It values traditional and cultural criteria as measurements of well-being and education
over standardized forms of assessment (McGovern, 1999).
The ability to draw from the cultural wellsprings of the past yet incorporate cultural
change empowers American Indian cultures to engage with new scholarship, particularly
critical theory. It also challenges them to fully engage in identifying European-American
influences not based on Indigenous intellectual perspectives and teaching methodologies.
Table 3
A Model of Indigenous Ways of Knowing
Curriculum Pedagogy
Contains philosophical viewpoint Has defined teaching philosophy founded (values) upon Indigenous knowledge
Values cultural norms as criteria for Creates experiential learning opportunities student development and learning over based on watching and doing; both standardized forms of measurement language and silence are valued
Stresses learners' civic, spiritual, and Establishes elders and older youths as vocational needs, also awareness of teachers within communities individual's roles within the community
Supports educational pathways outside of Encourages discovery through storytelling, formal schooling with multiple levels of meaning
Affirms that the knowledge of the past will illuminate the present
Sustains Indigenous cultures and traditions; upholds Indigenous communities' rights and selfdetermination within a framework of traditional cultural understandings
Designs holistic education systems to balance spirit, mind, and body
Integrates games, oratory, myth, and sacred stories
Differentiates between public and private knowledge according to specific protocols and traditions of different families, clans, and tribal nations
Draws meaning from the natural world as well as from human and supernatural spheres
54
One resulting theory, Red pedagogy, has encouraged the exploration and discovery of
intersections of power as foundational to the histories and development of Indian
communities (Grande, 2004). As outlined by Grande, Red pedagogy's overarching goal is
decolonization: "Indeed, the degree to which Indigenous peoples are able to define and
exercise political, intellectual, and spiritual sovereignty is an accurate measure of colonist
relations. The dream of sovereignty in all these realms, thus, forms the foundation of Red
pedagogy" (p. 166). However, some Indigenous scholarship has moved beyond critical
theory (Grande, 2004; Barnhardt & Kawagley, 2005: Warrior, 1995). Grande (2004) has
observed:
55
While critical pedagogy provides the tools for constructing a more potent and overtly
challenging critique of the colonialist project, it should be evident by now that it
remains deeply informed by European-American theory. Specifically, critical
theories of education operate on the assumptions of individualism, rationality,
anthropocentrism, and progressivism, which contribute not only to the cultural crisis
but to the ecological crisis. (p. 66)
The richness and depth of recent scholarship honoring Native worldviews will be
reference points in this study. Seeking to understand how the Beyond Jamestown faculty
members view their experiences as teachers and developed their curricula and pedagogies is
central to the next phase of research described in the following section. Seeking to
understand how distinctive elements ofNative teaching and learning drawn from the
literature review correlate with faculty exemplars' insights and experiences also will guide
the formulation of my interview questions and additional probing questions.
Pedagogy
As a defined teaching methodology emerging from Indigenous knowledge,
Indigenous pedagogy possesses culturally oriented characteristics and ancient roots. So does
European-American pedagogy. Guided experiential learning sustains Indigenous cultures,
and through pedagogy, teachers create these opportunities for observation, imitation and
direct instruction (Reagan, 2005). From observation, experience, and reflection, individuals
56
learn to take responsibility for learning from the community, from the physical environment,
and from spiritual guidance (Cajete, 1999; Fenelon & LeBeau, 2006; McGovern, 1999;
Reagan, 2005). Those beyond one's own age and experience level, particularly the tribal
elders, lead learning within the larger communal circle as guides within a holistic framework.
To Wildcat (2001), traditional European-American educational methods and
organization are central to the disconnection between the European-American tradition and
American Indian education:
Therefore, the hope for American Indian education lies first in the explicit
identification of features of the Western tradition or worldview that produced many of
the problems we are immersed in today; and second, in the active reconstruction of
indigenous [sic] metaphysical systems, which, I believe, result in experiential systems
ofleaming (p. 1 0).
Indigenous pedagogy encourages discovery through storytelling with multiple levels
of meaning, and derives from the use of memories belonging to family, tribe, or clan
(Trimble, Sommer, & Quinlan, 2008). The ways in which oral history is used as a learning
tool depends upon protocol and tradition, and does not involve personal ownership of
traditional and sacred stories. Rather, the narrator may add information in telling and
retelling the stories that does not affect their meaning and structure (Trimble et al., 2008).
For modem Native scholars grappling with instructional methodologies for American Indian
studies, the dual process of transmitting and acquiring knowledge in this field presents
challenges beyond existing stereotypes.
57
Methods
I approached my research question using an interpretivist paradigm to address the
curriculum and pedagogy of the Native and non-Native faculty exemplars in the Beyond
Jamestown Teachers' Institute. This paradigm supports a socio-cultural lens and humanistic
research methods, permits the discovery of other paradigms and academic disciplines, and
honors participants' perceptions about their worldviews.
The study sample was composed of participating presenters in the 2007 and 2008
sessions of the Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute. By including all individuals who
taught in either or both years, a wider range of Native and non-Native educators is accessible.
The population for both years totals 16 and includes three non-Native faculty and 13 Native
faculty members. 7 Although a small group allows for fewer possibilities to compare a range
of individual viewpoints, in this case it opened the study to in-depth discussions with most of
the presenters and directors of the program.
I planned to interview as many Native and non-Native faculty members as possible,
based on how many agree to participate. Once the Institutional Review Board approved the
proposal, I sent to each BJTI faculty member a letter of invitation (Appendix A) that outlined
the research study, its purpose, and what participants might expect in terms of time
commitment, and types of data to be gathered. The letter also described how anonymity
would be maintained during and after the study. Prior to the first interview, each participant
was asked to complete and return the signed informed consent form (Appendix B) at the
interview or by mail in a self-addressed, stamped envelope.
7 As I was one of the non-native faculty members in the 2008 Institute, I am not including myself in the total.
58
Based on the interview protocol in Appendix C, participants took part in an initial
tape-recorded interview of between one and one-and-a-half hours. Four participants were
contacted afterwards for specific fact-checking. During each interview, I began with the
initial in-depth, open-ended questions developed for my interview guide with additional
probing questions as needed, and then asked participants for clarification of their responses
as a first level member check. I sought further clarification and correction by having all
participants review written transcriptions of their interviews as a second level member check,
and sought the same clarification regarding artifacts that any participants voluntarily provide
as reflective of their teaching methodologies. Each participant was invited to share a
document or other artifact that relates to their individual teaching methodologies, to describe
it in their own words, and to indicate how it reflected their teaching practice as a BJTI faculty
member.
Risks
There were no foreseeable risks associated with participation in this study. If for any
reason participants wished to discontinue their participation in this study, they could
withdraw their consent at any time during the interviews or by notifying me by email or
telephone. Each participant had the right to decline or agree to provide an artifact
representative of his or her teaching methodologies, to choose the artifact provided, and to
have it returned or (if an electronic document) destroyed at the study's conclusion along with
the key to any identities if pseudonyms were used. One participant referenced a map and two
others described documents, but no artifacts were given to me as representative of
participants' teaching methodologies.
59
Privacy and Confidentiality
When I asked the participants if they wanted to select a pseudonym, all fourteen
chose to be identified in all written and electronic interview transcriptions. Further,
participants were informed of the right to decline answering particular questions and to have
any information they so specified held in confidence. Participants were informed that their
interviews would be audio-recorded and that I would secure safely all recordings during the
study. All participants reviewed their interview transcripts for accuracy. Prior to the start of
the interviews, I reminded the participants of the study's purpose, the voluntary nature of
their participation, and that confidentiality would be maintained during and after the study.
At the conclusion ofthe study, all audio recordings and related materials of a confidential
nature were destroyed.
Data Analysis
Through my analysis, I sought evidence of an active interface between traditional and
emerging forms of scholarship and such evidence emerged through the reflections of this
study's participants. As Rossman and Rallis suggest, the direction of the analysis took shape
from remaining open "to the unexpected" (2003, p. 274) letting my research and the
participants' responses reveal new layers of interpretation about the BJTI phenomenon. This
aspect of qualitative research accommodated diverse perspectives presented by these
participants and their experiences and emerging themes in the research process (Rossman &
Rallis, 2003) that challenged or confirmed my original interpretations.
Participants' responses were analyzed in relation to elements in the three tables
discussed previously. I used interview transcripts, field notes, and memos to find the
meaning and significance of participants' articulation of knowledge-building. (Thirunarayann
& Perez-Prado, 2005). Drawing on the analytical process developed by Marshall and
Rossman ( 1999), I coded the data into constructed categories of meaning based on
curriculum and pedagogy as units of analysis. The next stage of axial coding suggested
patterns, themes, and codes.
Defining knowledge building and knowledge transmission occurs within socio
cultural contexts; this rationale supported a research design grounded in Indigenous and
traditional European-American research methodologies, and European-American critical
ethnography constructs. It opened my inquiry to a more comprehensive exploration of the
impact of a dominant culture on education and the impact of a related phenomenon as a
mechanism of change, in this case, the Beyond Jamestown teacher development program.
In their 2006 phenomenological study of Australian academics' perceptions of
curriculum, Fraser and Bosanquet (2006) found that individuals' conceptions of curricula
were not fixed or unchanging. Rather, educators constantly reviewed and modified their
perceptions in response to different teaching contexts, the effects of changing priorities in
academic life, and as the result of varied external influences such as access to educational
research (Fraser & Bosanquet, 2006, p. 271 ). Awareness of these changing dynamics
enabled me as a researcher to identify the effect of time and self-reflection on study
participants' conceptualizations of their curricula and pedagogies.
I explored shared beliefs and experiences by identifying the major themes from
participants' stories. Because these individuals were linked by characteristic beliefs,
perceptions, or experiences, they formed a profile of cross-cultural mediation within the
Beyond Jamestown phenomenon that extends the meaning of their roles as exemplars.
60
61
Ethical Considerations
Ethical considerations required me to build a research design without potential harm
to study participants, and to create this plan with awareness of available resources and costs
to all involved (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). In discussing activist anthropology, Cook
(2008) noted the emergence of ethnographic research that purposefully seeks collaboration
with research communities (Lassiter, 2005; Rappaport, 2007). Fully realized, such
collaborative ethnography focuses on "collaboration as a space for the coproduction of
theory" with community consultants (Rappaport, 2008, p. 2).
To clarify, I utilized a socio-cultural and phenomenological approach rather than
exploring a culture ethnographically as a participant-observer. Yet within the perimeters of
this study, the Virginia Indians' cultural protocols of respect and trust relationships, their
cultural sovereignty, and forms of governance were essential factors. This study was a
continuance of my ongoing collaboration with the Virginia Indian tribes and nations in K
Adult education initiatives and in the changing of Virginia's traditional master narrative.
In the formative 2007-2008 sessions, I observed the BJTI faculty members lecture,
discuss, and interact informally with BJTI educator-participants and each other. I have
collaborated with many of these individuals on education projects and seen them teach in
other settings. Such experiences continually informed my research process as background
for the discoveries yet to come. Although it is not collaborative ethnography or action
research by definition, my research is similar to both in that 1 ), tribal leaders and the BJTI
administrators have been consulted in the course of its development, and 2), my own
orientation and prior research cause to believe in its mission and to explore this phenomenon
with care.
62
Magolda (2000) states that fieldwork contains both power and politics, with power
demonstrated in three areas: 1) the "different positionalities of researcher and researched", 2)
the power "exerted during the research process", and 3) the power exerted "during the post
fieldwork writing and representing" (p. 229). My intention in exploring the research
question was as critical as BJTI exemplars' intentions in their teaching methodologies and in
participating in this research study.
I asked Beyond Jamestown faculty members to reflect upon their theory and practice.
They chose to share deeply held beliefs and experiences trusting me to respect their rights as
respondents and to represent their perspectives accurately as individuals and as
representatives of larger social systems. These exemplars provided compelling insights into
their perceptions as Native and non-Native educators that apply in the Beyond Jamestown
setting, but also operate outside of it.
The culminating stage of collaboration is making the final study available to the tribal
communities and related institutions, including the director of the Beyond Jamestown
Teachers' Institute. I am prepared to share and to discuss my findings with the program's
collective stakeholders in addition to the study participants as a matter of respect and
reciprocity.
Chapter Four
The Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute and Its Presenters
How is knowledge exchanged, and by what process does it become privileged
between cultures? The Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute reflects a committed effort by
Virginia Indians, allied scholars, and the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities to introduce
educators to an Indigenous worldview that is shared by these scholars, decolonizes Virginia
state history, and potentially shifts how participating educators teach and think by comparing
systems of knowledge, while placing value on both.
Recognizing that multiple levels of Virginia Indian agency contributed to collective
survivance of tribal identity during and after the Racial Purity Act of 1924 is critical to the
Virginia Indian counter-narrative and to this analysis. Within this chapter I discuss the
importance of the RIC as a symbol of racial injustice and survivance among Virginia Indians
living today. The term survivance is employed by a number of Native and non-Native
scholars, and I chose the definition used by Ojibwe scholar Gerald Vizenor (1998):
Native survivance is an active sense of presence over absence, deracination, and oblivion;
survivance is the continuance of stories, not a mere reaction, however pertinent. Survivance
is greater than the right of a survivable name (p. 1)
In what ways do the eyewitness accounts of survivors create a potent pedagogical
counter-narrative to challenge the silences and omissions of mainstream history? How does
the telling of these accounts affect individuals who not only experienced the effects of
Virginia's 201h-century Racial Integrity Laws, but also choose to transmit their memories to
63
64
predominantly White teachers with relatively little or no knowledge of that era's oppression
toward people of color?
This chapter describes my study findings and establishes a basis for comparing the
phenomenological insights shared with me by Native and non-Native study participants
within the context of the Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute, looking at it as a Native-led
product of three compelling dynamics. First, I suggest that these dynamics are the living
memories of racial inequality held by Native presenters, their families, and tribes, the vibrant
nature of storytelling and narrative in bonding Native peoples across generations, and as a
Virginia Indian-led decolonization project. Second, I present a model for understanding the
specific cohorts' roles within the BJTI faculty. Third, I discuss in what ways Native
presenters used pedagogy and curriculum to communicate across cultural boundaries with the
2007 and 2008 BJTI program participants. Within this chapter, I also provide a historical
perspective on Virginia's role in promoting racial purity through law and so-called scientific
eugenics in the early 20th century, and link this history to related scholarship and to my
informants' own experiences.
BJTI Program Participants: An Overview of the Target Audience
The Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute's purpose is to help educators and other
interested individuals to "gain a richer appreciation of our collective story" by presenting
alternative Native perspectives to those Americans typically encounter (Virginia Indian
Heritage Foundation Web site, 2010). The program designers and presenters recognize that
Virginia educators-a key audience in transforming statewide curricula-vary in their
awareness and understanding of state history, in their interpretation and implementation of
that history to include a Native viewpoint, and in the extent to which they acknowledge that
65
European-American cultures have been institutionalized in American society and education.
In sum, participating educators in this program are potential agents of change in their schools
and classrooms, change that this study's participants consider a moral and educational
imperative.
Native BJTI presenters consistently expressed the belief that narratives of invasion,
appropriation, and racial bias from the 17th through the 20th centuries in Virginia have been
much less well known or taught in educators' pre-service and in-service training. Ashley
Atkins, who spoke to the 2008 BJTI participants, was exposed to this gap even within the last
25 years as a Virginia student taking fourth-grade Virginia history:
I have a very different perspective, because I grew up knowing I was Native, that
there are Native people and two reservations in Virginia, with a lot of teachers not
realizing that. And not knowing anything about it. Just the fact that I was told,
"There are no Indians in Virginia." I had a cousin who wanted to do a project on the
Pamunkey Indian reservation, and her teacher [was] saying, "There are no
reservations, you're lying." Some things like that.
Disney's animated feature Pocahontas (1995) influenced American popular culture as
a mythic portrayal of Jamestown's founding and of the relationship between Pocahontas and
Captain John Smith (Edgerton & Jackson, 1996; Pewewardy, 1997, Lacroix, 2004). Gerri
Reynolds Wade and Karenne Wood both commented in their interviews on how this
romanticized account has negatively impacted students' perceptions of Virginia Indian
history. Gerri emphasized that "Pocahontas didn't hatch, you know. She has a background.
She had parents."
66
Gerri worked on the Virginia SOL revisions and discussed that process with the 2008
BJTI class, and expressed the hope that such change creates an increased focus on the entire
Virginia Indian historical narrative and greater cultural awareness: "In particular, to realize
that 'Oh, here are Indians right here. Right next door, right wherever. Who have
backgrounds, who've been here, who've given to society, who have a lot to offer.'"
Because of their own work in education, this study's participants do not
underestimate the related challenges teachers face. Teaching about major differences in
American Indian spiritual beliefs, traditions, and ways of dress in comparison to Virginia
Indians can be complex, as Rhy Curry pointed out:
To really highlight that this is what this group of people looks like, but this is what
Virginia Indians look like. That their histories at times are very similar, but at times
are very divergent. And unfortunately, I can't always think of how you explain that in
a theme. That's definitely an observed difficulty in teaching, and how do you get that
point across in 50 minutes?
As a former teacher and principal and also as a speaker, Gerri Reynolds Wade uses
her education experience in assessing the progress yet to be achieved, first, in teaching
teachers to help create sensitivity and awareness among their students, and second, in adding
more information on Virginia Indian history and cultures to the Virginia Standards of
Learning. She vividly remembers an incident where she was asked to speak to classes in an
urban Virginia school. Gerri brought the Indian regalia she wears for ceremonial occasions,
but hung it out of sight and asked the teachers not to mention her heritage in advance. After
her initial presentation, Gerri revealed she was a Virginia Indian: "And this little girl said,
and I'll never forget it, 'You're an Indian? Then you need to be on a resa ... a resa .... " She
couldn't think of the word, 'reservation.' She was five years old."
67
Gerri proceeded to sit on the floor with 75 kindergarteners, let them touch her regalia,
and talk about whether clothes make a person look White. She commented, "How
insensitive they were, and how ignorant, if you will, of people in their world. They
had no idea that there were Indians in Virginia and that Indians lived anywhere but a
reservation."
Understanding teachers' needs and integrating them into the Beyond Jamestown
Teachers' Institute was part of the program developers' mission. For the 2007 and 2008
Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institutes, program participants were selected through an
application process based on their teaching experience, backgrounds, and responses to
questions such as why the institute interested them, what questions they hoped it would
address, and also what related classroom and student needs applicants described. Selected
participants included in-service K-12 teachers, art, media, and music educators, and museum
staff members presenting information on Virginia's Native peoples. Some, but far from all,
of the 2007 and 2008 cohort members had previous interactions with tribal members or
communities; one identified her tribal affiliation both prior to and during the 2007 program.
The BJTI Presenters as Cross-Cultural Collaborators
At the surface level, BJTI presenters seem to be part of a duality: those who are
Native and those who are not. However, this simplistic classification ignores their multi
faceted backgrounds as Anglo or Native academics trained in European-American-based
education systems, tribal experts with or without higher education degrees, Native educators
who may not be members of Virginia Indian tribes, and those who directly or indirectly
68
experienced the effects of Virginia's 201h -century eugenics movement, specifically the Racial
Integrity Act of 1924.
This rich diversity enhanced the BJTI pedagogy and curricula, and supported its
potential to effect change. Virginia Indians and their non-Native colleagues have used
education as a tool of empowerment by entering the public arena with a summer seminar
offered statewide and held at two major universities in 2007 and 2008.
Analyzing group characteristics of the BJTI's cross-cultural collaborators in this
phenomenological study contributes to an understanding of how decolonization and
education can interact. By seeking the Native and non-Native presenters' worldviews in my
study, joint characteristics such as commitment, goals, and values emerged. These shared
traits have united the BJTI presenters I interviewed as a teaching community of advocates
despite differences in age, education, and cultural background. Further, these similarities
point toward a distinct epistemology that ultimately synthesizes many perspectives as core
beliefs.
I suggest that the Institute represents a defining moment in Virginia education as an
innovative partnership between the Commonwealth's Indigenous peoples, K-16 teachers, and
participating education institutions that openly addresses injustices of the past and recognizes
Native agency in the Commonwealth. Moreover, power and cultural perception intersect in
the institute as differing approaches to education introduced in the previous conceptual
frameworks describing European-American and Indigenous knowledge systems. As I will
show, the Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute has become a community ofunderstanding
that operates as a cross-generational, cross-cultural interface of teaching and learning. In this
respect, it resembles Durie's (2000) concept of the synergy created through intellectual
69
collaboration, in his case by modem researchers operating at the interface of the Maori and
Pakeha (non-Maori) cultures in New Zealand (see Chapter 1). There, as in the United States,
the dominant narrative has been actively resisted and contested by New Zealand's Indigenous
people in the post-colonial period. In the next section, I outline the basis for my comparison
in relation to the BJTI.
Contesting Virginia's Dominant Narrative
Throughout the Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institutes of2007 and 2008, BJTI
presenters disrupted the historical narrative familiar to most Virginia teachers by addressing
stereotypes and colonialist assumptions. They shared new archeological evidence regarding
pre-contact Indian cultures and as many as 18,000 years of Indian presence on the land we
call Virginia, thousands of years longer than previously believed. They situated Indian actors
in the colonial English accounts within a different framework of interpretation-that of
Virginia Indian written and oral accounts. Simultaneously, they exposed educators to
Indigenous oral text and European-American-based historical research on the modem era.
Their work represents what Maori researcher Linda Tuhi Smith (200 1) privileges as "the
vantage point of the colonized" (p. 1 ), and it has put a human face on history through the
living memories ofVirginia Indians. Throughout the interview process, all of this study's
participants returned time and again to the importance of correcting the historical record and
creating a balanced dialogue about Virginia Indians of the past and present.
The assimilation of Indigenous peoples through conversion, training, and education
by force if necessary-was promoted by Indian schools at colonial colleges such as William
and Mary and Harvard and at 191h -century Indian boarding schools including Hampton
Institute and Carlisle. As Helen Rountree has pointed out in Pocahontas 's People ( 1990), the
70
English in Virginia turned toward "civilizing" its Indigenous peoples by the mid-1 ih century.
Virginia Indians were subject to laws that restricted their interactions and agency in relation
to Whites; the separation of people by color in Virginia society continued into the 19th
century. Societal attitudes fostered increasing demands for racial purity that further
disempowered Indians' agency and identity, grouping them with non-Whites (Rountree,
1990). Tightened racial classifications in the Commonwealth continued the assault on
Virginia Indians' cultural identity in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
On the national level, Theodore Roosevelt claimed in his 1889 history The Winning of
the West, written a decade before his presidency ( 190 1-1909) that the conquest of the Indians
and the winning of the West was "the great epic feat in the history of our race" (Gerstle,
2001, p, 20). Expanding on the concept of U.S. manifest destiny and racial nationalism,
Roosevelt sought to preserve America's Anglo-Saxon heritage, urging a paternalistic
assimilation of other racial and ethnic groups in response to waves of Eastern and Southern
European immigration in the early 20th century (Trachtenberg, 2004; O'Leary, 1999). This
position in tum created tensions between his Presidential goals of civic and racial nationalism
(Gerstle, 2001). Indians were idealized nationally and symbolically in popular culture
(Trachtenberg, 2004), but actual Native people were pressured to relinquish their tribal
identities and heritage, with the goal of assimilating them into mainstream culture along with
European immigrants (Calloway, 1999, p. 350).
Throughout the South, the rise of Jim Crow laws in the late 19th century produced the
atmosphere of social inequity and racial violence there (Brinkley, 2008). At the same time,
there were growing pressures to maintain a White majority status quo. Theories of the period
positioned eugenics as a means of race improvement. These theories contributed to stronger
71
segregation laws nationally (Cook, 2000) and to more stringent racial classifications within
the Commonwealth. Such laws had been passed previously in 1705 and 1866 in Virginia
(Wood, 2009). In 1910, the Virginia General Assembly (Acts of Assembly, 191 0)
established new racial classifications for the state:
Every person having one-sixteenth or more of negro blood is deemed a
colored person, and every person not a colored person having one-fourth or more of
Indian blood shall be deemed an Indian (p. 581 ).
Two years later, the Virginia General Assembly created the Bureau of Vital Statistics
to register all births, marriages, and deaths in the state, with birth certificates documenting
parents' races. Dr. Walter Ashby Plecker immediately became the bureau registrar. Plecker,
who graduated from the University ofMaryland's medical school in 1885, was a public
health officer in Virginia before heading the Bureau of Vital Statistics. In both positions, he
helped to reduce mortality rates for babies born to poor mothers through midwife education,
and was known as a public health innovator (Fiske, 2004). Plecker began waging a personal
crusade of documentary or paper genocide aimed at eradicating Virginia Indian identity by
changing or eliminating that racial classification on birth, death, and marriage certificates.
In his alliance with John Powell and other leading White supremacists in the state,
Plecker was empowered and emboldened to wield so-called scientific racism to accomplish
his goals. As Plecker's range of influence expanded throughout the state, he promoted racial
segregation and sterilization of even thousands of poor Whites placed in mental asylums and
classified as "defective persons."8 These individuals, along with African Americans and
8 Virginia's 1924 Eugenical Sterilization Law targeted poor White southerners as "degenerates" and was enacted to prevent the their propagation. The test case of Buck v. Bell was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1927
72
Virginia Indians, were targeted to eliminate unwanted mixing of races and undesirable
genetic traits in the state population.
Plecker was hardly alone in his convictions. In the early 20th century, eugenics as
sound science and society's route to improvement was espoused by university scholars,
scientists, and psychologists, some of whom developed related intelligence tests for Army
recruits and immigrants in the 1920s. Eugenics became accepted and taught as science in
institutions ofhigher learning and high schools across America (Schrag, 2010).
Within the next decade, the Virginia General Assembly exerted further control over
people of color by passing the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 as one of a series of legislative
actions called the Racial Integrity Laws.9 Virginia's new Racial Integrity Act only
recognized Whites and African Americans as racial classifications, on the theory that
Virginia Indians no longer existed as a definable population due to interracial marriage
(Tayac et al, 2006). The Virginia General Assembly approved "An ACT to preserve racial
integrity" on March 20, 1924. It read in part:
For the purpose of this act, the term "white person" shall apply only to the person
who has no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian; but persons who
have one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and have no other non-
Caucasic blood shall be deemed to be white persons. (p. 535)
by an 8-l vote. Between 1907 and 1956,60,166 people were sterilized in the US, including 6,811 in Virginia (Painter, 2010, p. 275). 9 Although the federal American Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 granted full citizenship rights and suffrage to Native Americans, states controlled their right to vote. Virginia did not grant that right for two decades to its Native citizens (Tayac, Schupman & Simermeyer, 2006). Indians could not vote in all states until 1968 (Malcomson, 2000).
73
The "Pocahontas Clause"- the last clause in the above quoted section of the Act that referred
to those with one-sixteenth Indian blood-permitted prominent Virginia families to openly
retain their genealogical ties to the iconic figure while remaining legally White.
Plecker, who authored the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, served as Virginia's chief
enforcer of state racial integrity policies for 34 years (Fiske, 2004). Accordingly, he sent lists
of surnames of people-often including Virginia Indians- that he considered of mixed
lineage to public agencies to ensure that they would be treated as "negro." Plecker's
eugenics publications and his continuous manipulations of the law demonstrated his firm
conviction that "pure" Indians no longer lived in Virginia (Wood, 2007, Fiske, 2004). Thus
classified as "negro," state-sanctioned racial policies in Virginia barred Indians from
marriage to Whites, from identification as Indian on marriage and birth certificates, or from
equal education.
Throughout the state, Indians refused to send their children to the "negro" schools
and thereafter faced limited in-state options that included private Catholic schools, if
admitted, and tribal elementary schools. The State Board of Education and the State
Superintendent had begun providing elementary schooling on the Mattaponi and Pamunkey
Indian reservations. This happened partly in acknowledgement of colonial treaties of 164 7
and 1677 that established these reservations, but also a 1917 ruling that these tribes were thus
wards of the state (Library of Virginia, 2010). The Chickahominy's Samaria Indian School,
the Eastern Chickahominy's Tseno Commocko Indian School, and the Upper Mattaponi's
Sharon Indian School were non-reservation tribal schools, and thus without legally-mandated
State support (Rountree, 1990; Pfeus, 1949).
74
The Monacan Nation's Bear Mountain mission school was established in 1908 and
received support from the Episcopal Church, Sweet Briar College, and to a limited extent, the
Amherst County School Board (Cook, 2000). According to Rountree (1990), Nansemond
students attended White schools, but Rappahannock students largely went without any
educational support. Even so, there was a school for Rappahannock students in Alps,
Virginia, and it is discussed later in this chapter.
Tribal schools often went to only the seventh grade, forcing Virginia Indians to drop
out, leave for Bacone College or its associated high school in Oklahoma, or attend similar
institutions in other states to complete their high school and college educations. However,
Kenneth Adams pointed out exceptions in the Upper Mattaponi community to the seventh
grade restriction: His older brother Wesley and several other Upper Mattaponi students were
schooled through the ninth grade in the woodshed that then served as their schoolhouse,
before Wesley went to Bacone for the tenth grade; Ken's older sister Nora went through the
eighth grade in the Chickahominy Indian school.
These examples underline the importance of personal and tribal histories that have not
yet become well known, but which demonstrate that Walter Plecker's efforts were thwarted
at times by Virginia Indians and Anglos alike despite his pervasive campaign. "It is not true
that Walter Plecker destroyed all records oflndian identity," Kenneth said. "We have Upper
Mattaponi documents: birth certificates, marriage licenses, and pre-WWI and also WWII
draft records listing people as Indian. But not all tribes have these kinds of records, and these
records are not a significant majority of Virginia Indians of that era."
Kenneth noted:
I do believe that many local people who lived close to the Upper Mattaponi
people knew them as Indians. I do know for certain that [Plecker] did attempt
to prevent Upper Mattaponi people from being listed on birth and marriage
records, but he did not completely succeed. Perhaps there were local people
at the [King William County] courthouse who were in our comer. There
could have been a variety of reasons. In 1930, several years after Walter
Plecker started his campaign, my mother and father were married in King
William County as Indians. Not long afterwards, the courthouse clerks
became a little bit wary. My father's sister and the man she was going to
marry went to the courthouse in 1939, and said that they were not leaving
until they were given a marriage license as Indians.
75
Such examples of open resistance shifted the policy in King William County, but the
1920s were a very difficult period for Upper Mattaponi people, with some choosing to leave
the state. "Some people went to Pennsylvania to live and work," Ken said. "Eight to ten
families moved into the same community in the 1920s and 1930s. It wasn't just about
education, but about getting decent jobs as much as anything else. This was before and
during the Depression."
As related by several Native BJTI presenters, when it comes to Walter Plecker and
the enactment of laws directed against miscegenation, the Virginia Indians' response has
been a persistent emphasis to this day on their people's right to education. Other Virginia
Indian tribes besides the Upper Mattaponi had families who left or sent their children to
schools in other states. Virginia Indian tribes' strategies in-state included building their own
schools as noted above and collecting funds for teachers' salaries and Indian student
76
scholarships. Anthropologist Frank Speck, who began contacting Virginia tribes in 1919 as
part ofhis research, helped surviving tribes to organize and to document their history in 1939
and the early 1940s. 10 Speck, James Coates, and other allies openly contested Plecker's
eradication efforts and the plight of Virginia Indian education. They gained support from the
federal Office oflndian Affairs in sending Indian students to public or church-run high
schools out of state and to the Cherokee Indian School in North Carolina (Rountree, 1990,
pp. 236-23 7). Walter Plecker retired in 194 7. Over time, state agencies as well as the
Virginia General Assembly took steps to reverse some of the effects of the 1924 Racial
Integrity Act, re-defining laws pertaining to Indians and adding educational opportunities for
Indian students. By the 1950s, the two reservation schools merged into one school on the
Mattaponi reservation for Grades 1-8. The consolidated facility was improved using State
funds and donations from the Society of Friends and the Richmond Dietetics Association
(Library ofVirginia, 2010). Beginning in 1953, Indian students ofhigh school age could
complete their coursework in Virginia at Oak Hill Academy in Virginia, Bacone Junior
College in Oklahoma, in Michigan, and at North Carolina's Cherokee Reservation School.
Other pressures for improvement were being applied in 1953 and 1954 by the American
Association for Indian Affairs (AAIA), the American Association of University Women
(AAUP), and the Veterans' Administration (VA). 11 In the 1960s as the African-American
civil rights movement changed the education landscape in Virginia, with public education
10 A detailed account of his efforts to involve federal authorities can be found in Rountree, 1990, Chapter 9. 11 Dr. Davis Y. Paschall was involved in Indian education during the 1950s as Director of Teacher Education and then State Superintendent of Education. His personal papers in the Wolf Law Library at the College of William and Mary include 1954 correspondence from J. L. Blair Buck, Coordinator of Teacher Education to Ms. Ida Hines of the Virginia Veterans Administration discussing why a possible lawsuit by the Association on American Indian Affairs would not be helpful. A copy of a 1952 letter from the Virginia American Association of University Women president concerns her visit to Samaria Indian School, the conditions she found, and the need for a better library there.
provided for Virginia Indians in Grades 1-12 (Library of Virginia, 201 0; Rountree, 1990, p.
242).
77
For many Virginia Indians, the Plecker years strengthened their determination to
endure and to maintain their community bonds; yet oral histories and official documents are
vivid, painful reminders of racism and its long-term effects on their peoples. Describing the
enormity of oppression that tribal communities, families, and individuals experienced to
outsiders is difficult. Rhy Curry noted:
I don't think just reading [the Racial Integrity Act of 1924] is enough. [The
teachers] are not going to understand the real ramifications that it had until
they really start knowing the communities. And that's a Catch-22 as well,
because you tell people to go out and get to know these communities, but
you've got communities that are so distrustful of outsiders that they aren't
going to tell these stories to just anyone, like Ms. Jones who comes down
there and wants to learn about them. So that's why I think these Institutes are
so important-because we give [the BJTI participants] those stories. We give
them the knowledge that, just because of the way the cards were dealt, they
might not have been able to get themselves.
In that sense, the Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute and its presenters brought a
Native perspective and discourse to program participants. Working within the 7-year cycle
of SOL review and implementation, the BJTI has supported the Standards ofLeaming-based
needs of the education community by instructing teachers in revisions about American and
Virginia Indians, and equally important, in the significance of these corrections. Authentic
representation has been growing through inclusion of Virginia Indian perspectives in
textbooks, lectures, conference panels, and scholarly publications nationwide. Upper
Mattaponi Chief Kenneth Adams (2007), a BJTI presenter, expressed the philosophical and
spiritual convictions underlying this resurgence (p. 5):
Our heritage is due respect as well as any other heritage. Our history needs to
be told as well as any other history. We cannot continue to be the forgotten
people in the history books or on the landmarks across this Commonwealth.
Our Creator placed us here as the gatekeepers of this land and our magnificent
story cannot and will not be buried.
The BJTI: A Virginia Indian-Directed Epistemology
78
BJTI teacher-participants learned about Web sites, lesson plans, and publications that
have been developed with a Native perspective and are now available as classroom resources.
They were introduced to significant revisions in the Virginia Standards of Learning about
American Indian and Virginia Indian history. In the 2007 and 2008 programs, BJTI
coordinator and lead scholar Karenne Wood and associate scholar Rhy Curry used class
discussions, activities, and assigned readings to bridge presentations by other faculty
members; some of these presenters additionally interacted with teacher-participants at
breakfast and lunch, depending on scheduled speaking times. Through these formal and
informal settings, the BJTI presenters oriented listeners to their views of Virginia Indian
history and cultures, and to modern issues such as federal recognition and persistent
stereotypes that modern tribes face.
In 2007 and 2008, the institute curriculum incorporated lectures by Virginia tribal
speakers, chiefs, and academic experts plus readings, instructional materials, discussions, and
field trips. The content for both programs focused on dispelling misconceptions and
79
historical errors about Virginia Indians in popular culture and classrooms. In light of the
previous silence and stereotypes in both, this curriculum has introduced important Virginia
Indian perspectives on the past especially through their oral histories and first-hand
experiences and has encouraged discussion of modem issues, such as federal recognition. As
noted earlier, it has brought attention to recent statewide archeological work conducted in
collaboration with tribal representatives, to language reclamation and heritage preservation,
and to the social and emotional impact of the Racial futegrity Act and other manifestations of
racial bias.
BJTI coordinator and lead scholar Karenne Wood explained her views on the
significance of oral history in teaching about the Virginia Indian experience:
I don't know that I can articulate it in words that would be used by someone
in the Department of Education. I think in this case, it was very important to
me to expose teachers to first-hand accounts of how that history had impacted
peoples' lives. Because what I have observed is that I can talk all day long
about theories of history and instruction of history and use academic words
that may or may not impress people. But it's not until we get the public or the
teachers exposed to the actual tribal members and they tell their stories that
the transformative moment occurs.
The "transformative moment" that Karenne described is "where the teachers leave
wanting to be part of the changing ofhow that story is reported and to educate their students
so that these stereotypes are not perpetuated." I suggest that within the context of the
Beyond Jamestown Teachers fustitute, the epistemology that is imbedded in the pedagogical
approach of personal and tribal oral history creates key relationships between those telling
80
stories involving historical grief and trauma and those hearing them, whether the listeners are
BJTI program participants or BJTI Native and non-Native presenters as observers. The
cultural and educational aspects of storytelling manifest in Native presenters' perceptions of
transmitting their heritage in this educational setting. Story and oral text function as major
influences on the program and its presenters, and contribute to a potentially transformative
encounter for the BJTI participants.
In their comparison of European-American and Indigenous research methodologies,
Moreton and Walter (2009) posit that Indigenous knowledge systems "remain intact and
continue to develop as living relational schemas" despite the disruption of European
colonization (p. 3). Rhyannon Curry's vision for the BJTI attests to the existence of the
power of descendant memory among Virginia Indian people:
[The institute] was a conduit where [tribal experts] would finally be able to
release all that knowledge, all those experiences, and all of that collective
memory that they've had. And it's something that is amazing about
Indigenous cultures. The collective memory is huge. And it's always there. It's
always been there, passed down for these generations. So the knowledge that
the elders have now is phenomenal.
Rhynoted:
And so I wanted those stories to be told in an audience that would be able to
take those experiences, take those stories, and take those hardships and those
victories and tell another group of people, and especially a younger group of
people about them. Because social justice, whether it's the Virginia Indians or
whether it's another group, is always there. And it's always the next
generation that is going to add to the successes that we've had in making these
changes. So I wanted to it to be this dialogue between cultures.
81
Native BJTI presenters' roles in the decolonization of Virginia education are explored
here as evidence of a distinct, evolving Virginia Indian epistemology with three interwoven
themes manifested within the institute. I discuss these as processes of decolonizing (Epstein,
2001; Morgan, 2003; Smith, 2008; Tejeda, 2008), historical trauma and historical
unresolved grief(Duran & Duran, 1995; Brave Heart & DeBruyn, 1998; Whitbeck, Adams,
Hoyt, & Chen, 2004), and sacred memory (Holm, Pearson, & Chavis, 2003).
I explored decolonization earlier in the review of literature as a process or series of
strategies that enable people to critically examine the assumption of European-American
knowledge as absolute and recognize the legitimacy ofNative knowledge systems and
worldviews. Recognition outside Native cultures of the historical and cultural significance of
sacred memory is a significant aspect of the decolonization process. So is the recognition of
historical trauma and historical unresolved grief, two related constructs that connect the
American Indian Holocaust to Jewish Holocaust survivor literature as a theoretical and
applied body of knowledge, with similar patterns of grief for survivors and their children
(Brave Heart & DeBruyn, 1998, p. 65). In both cases, the traumatic effects of genocide are
intergenerational and when not legitimized by society, lead to a sense of disenfranchisement
as well as loss. Brave Heart and DeBruyn suggest that events such as the 1890 Wounded
Knee massacre and boarding school placement of Indian youths, along with other cultural
losses, were not validated by society and Indians were denied the right to grieve. Duran and
Duran (1995) trace the pain felt by many American Indians and their communities directly to
the colonization process.
82
Sacred memory is one of four aspects of the Peoplehood Matrix, a descriptive model
of group identity encompassing sacred memory, language, place territory, and ceremonial
circle as interacting factors. Building on Robert K. Thomas's development of the
peoplehood concept (which distinguishes persistent peoples) in the 1980s, Holm, et al.
(2003) further expanded and applied the concept to American Indian studies. As they
explain, "A group's sacred history is told in the vernacular not only to give each member of
the group an understanding of where they come from, but also to impart to them proper
behavior and the ways in which they maintain group cohesion through ritualism and
ceremony" ( p. 13).
In Figure I, I show the three constructs of decolonizing, dealing with historical
trauma and historical unresolved grief, and maintaining sacred memory as elemental
activities ofthe Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute. As the program's presenters operate
within the BJTI framework, they in turn produce important outcomes: the correction of the
historical record, which promotes social justice; the sharing of stories between cultures,
which humanizes and enriches both, and the transmission of stories across generations, thus
preserving and protecting cultural identity and heritage.
When viewed as an interacting set of functions, this model suggests that the Beyond
Jamestown Teachers' Institute reflects and transmits an epistemology created by Virginia
Indians and to which presenters' roles are essential.
The three core BJTI functions, as reflected in the model in Figure 1, are 1) its
educational and decolonizing mission with regard to the teacher-participants, 2) the
maintenance of sacred memory originating in tribal communities, and 3) developing a pro-
active response through Native presenters to the historical trauma and historical unresolved
grief Virginia Indians experienced during the Plecker era.
Figure 1
A Model of the BJTI as Virginia Indian Epistemology
Correction of historical record as
social justice
nalingwith istorical trauma ------~'
Decolonizing
Virginia Indian epistemology operating
within the Beyond Jamestown Teachers'
Institute
Sharing of stories as humanizing process between cultures
Maintaining sacred
memory
Transmission of history
across Native generations
Three auxiliary activities emerge through the interaction of these core functions.
First, there is an inter-cultural sharing of stories and culture between the Native and non-
Native presenters and the predominantly White teacher-participants. Second, there is a
83
84
transmission of history taking place across three generations ofNative presenters recognized
as active agents within the Virginia Indian communities. Third, a public correction of the
historical record generated through the Institute's decolonizing role and the Native
presenters' approach to the memories, using teacher development as an instrument of social
justice. These interrelated aspects of the Virginia Indian epistemology are also inter
dependent. They advance the institutionalization of the Virginia Indian counter-narrative in
modem society, strategically locating it in the classroom to influence future generations.
This model provides the means to begin deconstructing the roles of BJTI presenters,
beginning with the 11 Native study participants and characteristics that emerged from
analyzing their interview responses relative to each other and to the non-Native faculty. I
first discuss group characteristics of education, family background, and tribal affiliation that
the Native presenters related and then consider the four distinct cohorts (three Native, one
non-Native) that emerged from preliminary and axial coding of themes. I primarily focus on
the Native presenters here, and address the non-Native presenters later as a separate cohort
with its own singular and shared characteristics.
Group Characteristics of Presenters
Native presenters view education as having been an historical tool of domination and
source of cultural conflict, yet they place high value on it as a catalyst for social change and
for increased economic opportunities for their people. Each individual has developed into a
Native advocate either as a tribal or an academically trained expert. Of the 11 Native study
participants, four completed high school education, one has a Bachelor's degree, five have
Master's degrees, and one has a Ph.D. degree. Of the four who completed high school, at
least three had college coursework. Five participants with Bachelor's and Master's degrees
have undertaken advanced graduate studies.
85
The frequency with which these presenters referenced cultural identity and heritage
reclamation points to both as foundational values. Without exception, those with
multicultural heritage expressed appreciation for what it gave them. From Deanna
Beacham's French Huguenot ancestors immigrating to Virginia during the colonial era to
John Milner's grandfather who was an Austrian army general who immigrated in 1902, these
European ties were integral to their identities as people ofNative descent. They did not
consider them mutually exclusive. Ashley Atkins explained:
Well, my father is of Italian and German descent. His mother's side is German and
his father's side is Italian, so I know a little bit about that family history, not so much
as my mom's .... My mom, her father is Pamunkey Indian, Native American, and her
mother is Scotch-Irish descent, grew up in North Carolina. My grandfather grew up
on the reservation - so did my mother. She was born and raised there, as well as was
her father [Chief Warren Cooke]. Then she moved off the reservation at the age of 18
and that's when she met my father. And here I am today, born and raised in Virginia.
Chronologically, the Native BJTI presenters connect to important historical periods in
modem history, specifically as witnesses to changing societal attitudes toward the Virginia
Indian community and to American Indians. As described, some in their 50s directly
experienced the fallout of the Racial Integrity Act's effect on Virginia Indians, particularly in
societal attitudes and government restrictions. Some grew up in the post-segregation era and
experienced the freedom of attending public schools unchallenged by law or social stigma.
Yet they inherited the pain of the previous Plecker era through their family and tribal stories,
and in tum committed themselves to preserving their heritage and transmitting it into
mainstream society through academe.
86
A middle group grew up in neighboring states (North Carolina and Maryland) and has
developed extensive personal and professional relationships with Virginia tribes in their
governmental and curatorial roles. Deanna Beacham and Gabrielle Tayac collaborate with
Virginia Indians and related constituencies on the state level in Richmond and on the national
level at the National Museum of the American Indian. Two younger presenters represent the
more recent era of Virginia Indian advocacy concerning both federal recognition for six
tribes and educational initiatives such as the previously noted Virginia Standards of Learning
revisions and the establishment of major inter-tribal and cross-cultural initiatives such as the
Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute.
The BJTI Presenters as Cohorts
Based upon their interview responses and insights, the BJTI teachers form four
distinct cohorts. Three cohorts are composed of the Native presenters and one consisted of
the non-Native presenters. Age is considered in all the cohort formations: overall, the cohort
members' ages range from their 20s to early 70s. However, the cohorts are more accurately
defined by era-related experiences of segregation. Several individuals have characteristics
related to another cohort; in those cases, I placed them according to how they primarily
described themselves and their experiences, and take responsibility for each person's
placement. For example, John Milner is part of Cohort One (the Keepers) because of the
teaching and advocacy partnership he shares with his wife Arlene for the Upper Mattaponi
Tribe, and because of his own experiences seeking education.
87
Cohort 1 (the Keepers) are in their mid-60s and above. They felt the effects of two
historically and culturally traumatic social shifts, Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 and
nationwide desegregation in 1968, and it significantly affected their life missions. As leaders
within the state, they have shared their stories within the Virginia Indian community and
increasingly with the public. Cohort Two members (the Bridge Builders) range in age from
mid-30s to early 60s. They are committed stewards of early-to mid-century 201h century
Virginia Indian heritage as well as earlier Native narratives. Through their educational
advocacy and scholarship, they have generated new discourse among the academy, other
social institutions, and other Native communities. The members of Cohort Three (the
Synthesizers), the youngest group, are in their 20s. They are direct recipients of the Keepers'
and Bridge Builders' efforts through the transmission of oral history, scholarship, and
activism. The Synthesizers are developing as mainstream, that is, university-educated Native
scholars and advocates.
Cohort Four (the Bridge Crossers) ranges in age from late 50s to early 70s. This
group is composed of the non-Native scholars who support and collaborate in Virginia Indian
empowerment through education, including the Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute.
These cohorts represent a series of related interfaces between the Native past and the general
non-Native public, which, for the BJTI, is directed to its target audience of Virginia
educators and ultimately, their students.
In Chapter 5, I explore the deeper implications of this knowledge sharing. First, I
consider the BJTI Native presenters who are telling their stories (the Keepers) as an initial
analysis. Second, I examine in what ways these interactions are vital not only in pedagogy
and curriculum, but also as the foundation and moral center of the Institute's epistemology. I
88
will show that in an ironic twist of fate, the virulent 201h century forces that targeted Virginia
Indians for eradication and educational disempowerment accomplished the exact opposite: to
bond Virginia Indian communities against oppression, inspiring new generations of
education advocates to bring this shadowed past to light.
Chapter Five
The Keepers: Surviving the Fallout of Racial Integrity Laws
The black and white perspective of Virginia's pre-Civil rights era was not isolated to
the Commonwealth, nor was it the product of one era. Virginia's racial policies and attitudes
in that time resonated with the nationalistic American mood in the early 201h century and with
colonial attitudes worldwide. In 1916, in the view of Malcolm Grant, author of The Passing
of the Great Race, "native American" referred to the genetically superior Anglo-Saxon
citizen and certainly included neither the immigrants overtaking New York or those people
who inhabited this country long before the Europeans arrived (Schrag, 2010, p. 73).
Walter Ashby Plecker's decades-long campaign to eradicate Virginia Indian identity
was in line with Grant's position that the "great race" had to be protected from unwanted and
undesirable intrusion; it moved inexorably from eugenics into the realm of White supremacy.
The destruction of rights, educational opportunity, and documents was so catastrophic that
more than 80 years later, many Virginia Indians still feel the effects of what Plecker wrought
in historical trauma and unresolved grief, and in the educational diaspora it spawned. For six
of Virginia's Indian tribes, Plecker's systematic elimination of original birth, death, and
marriage records with accurate Indian racial identifications has hampered the federal
recognition process, but generated considerable Native and non-Native effort to correct the
historical record. These factors are integral to the core BJTI pedagogical narrative and to the
Keepers' (Cohort One's) importance as representatives of a transformed and transformative
generation.
89
90
The Keepers
Kenneth Adams, Arlene Milner, Powhatan Red Cloud-Owen, and Gerri Reynolds
Wade share key understandings of the Plecker era and its aftermath as Virginia Indians.
They directly experienced segregation in the 1950s and 1960s as students who variously
went to school out of state, attended tribal or reservation schools, or attended Virginia public
schools immediately after desegregation. This group also includes John Milner, whose
background includes Cherokee heritage. John is very active in working together with his
wife Arlene on behalf of the Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe. All five represent a historical
link to the past for the Bridge Builders (Cohort 2) and the Synthesizers (Cohort 3), who look
to them for their leadership and their stories as important parts of the Virginia Indian
experience within the context of the Beyond Jamestown phenomenon.
Before proceeding, it is essential to note these individuals all placed themselves
within a traditional continuum of time and community. They did not single themselves out
as unique; instead. They consistently acknowledged the contributions and experiences of
their ancestors, elders, and peers who are not currently BJTI presenters but who also shared
the impact of segregation in Virginia. The Keepers also look to the next generation of
Virginia Indian leaders to further expand health, education, and welfare opportunities, and
support them through current educational advocacy initiatives such as the Virginia Indian
Nations Summit on Higher Education and the Virginia Indian Pre-College Outreach
Initiative. The next sections discuss the Keepers' tribal affiliations, experiences, and
education as related in interview responses, followed by descriptions of their teaching
methodologies and intentions regarding the Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute. Some of
the life experiences they shared with teachers in the Institute appear in this chapter.
91
Tribal Affiliations
All five Keepers proudly identify as Virginia Indian tribal members and uphold the
traditional beliefs and values of Virginia Indian cultures. All but one, Gerri Reynolds Wade,
presented in both years of the BJTI. All are active in multi-generational Virginia Indian
heritage events and organizations, are active presenters in other education settings, and are
committed to advocacy for their peoples and to their tribal communities. However, Keepers
are not all the same in some respects. Their education ranges from completing high school to
earning a Master's degree. Not all grew up in Virginia, and as stated, one is not a Virginia
Indian by birth. They have different tribal affiliations and heritage (Upper Mattaponi,
Cherokee, Chickahominy/Mohawk, and Rappahannock/Cherokee). These differences,
however, do not disrupt their group significance; instead, they mirror the diversity of
Virginia Indians.
Kenneth Adams is the current chief of the Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe and very
active in the federal recognition movement and related advocacy initiatives. He and Arlene
Milner are related to each other and to former chiefs of their tribe. Arlene and John Milner
together have served as education representatives for the Upper Mattaponi; like Powhatan
Red-Cloud Owen, a current representative of the Chickahominy Tribal Council, they
participate in the Virginia Indian Nations Summit on Higher Education. Gerri Reynolds
Wade also serves as a VINSHE representative for the Rappahannock Indian Tribe.
Childhood Memories and Parental Protection
In their interviews, all five Keepers recalled in depth what it was like to grow up
during Virginia's segregation era, beginning with their childhood memories of parents and
other elders who shielded them as much as possible from the realities of racism. In several
92
cases, their families moved or provided for educational opportunities out of state in response
to the oppressive atmosphere in Virginia. One Monacan Indian who left Virginia at 18
reflected, "We had three separate school systems in this county [Amherst], and I didn't even
recognize it. I didn't even recognize it. Because you know ... the elders kind of protected the
younger people coming up" (Cook, 2000, p. 111 ). Even so, the young learned about
prejudice and racial stereotyping as they matured, whether they were in Virginia or not. In
Arlene Milner's case, her parents decided to leave King William County for Philadelphia,
having heard of other Indian people who had done so because of the substantially better
educational choices. Her father got a job at Sears and her mother put the three children in the
public school system.
Arlene believes she did receive a good education there but observed that many Indian
survivors of segregation (and later, early integration in Virginia schools) do not
understand that Indian students in the North faced prejudice. People would come up
to you, and they would make the "war whoop" sound. They would say, "Where's
your pigtails, where's your braids? Things like that. My sister, having the middle
name Pocahontas, really bore the brunt [of] being tormented because she was an
Indian.
In contrast, Arlene recalled her childhood summers in Virginia with her extended
family as "heavenly, an Indian experience." Her grandfather was Jasper Lewis Adams, chief
of the Upper Mattaponi Tribe from 1923 to 1973, and her grandmother was Molly Holmes
Adams. 12 (The current chief, Kenneth Adams, is Arlene's first cousin and another of the
12 Molly Adams was posthumously recognized in 2010 as one of the Library of Virginia's eight Women ofthe Year.
93
Adams's grandchildren.) Arlene emphasized that none of the older relatives were willing to
talk about what happened in their lifetimes:
Children should be seen and not heard. That's how I grew up. But I did overhear a
lot of things that I wasn't supposed to. But [older relatives) never mentioned what
was going on with birth certificates and death certificates in front of the children.
They didn't want them to be hurt by it. I really don't know what it was. It was just
one of those things, you know. Indians have a lot of pride, and their pride was hurt
deeply.
From her aunts and uncles, Arlene learned what it was like to attend a one-room
schoolhouse, and these are stories she has shared with teachers and students. Her Virginia
relatives had to walk to their tribal school in King William County, while the White and
African American students rode on separate buses to segregated public schools:
And the kids who rode the buses would make fun of the kids that didn't ride the
buses, because most of the time, those kids [the Indian students) didn't even have
shoes on their feet. But my Aunt Eunice said, "We would walk with our heads held
high, and we would continue our walk to school."
Chief Jasper Adams and his wife Molly Holmes Adams were instrumental in the
purchase and construction ofthe first Sharon Indian School in 1919. Arlene's grandmother
did the cooking and cleaning at the Upper Mattaponi tribal school and the men of the tribe
raised money to pay a teacher, because their non-reservation school was not funded by the
state. Arlene recalled that the Department of Education would' always step in' to contest the
schoolteacher's credentials or documentation. "So there were always stumbling blocks that
94
were put in the path of my grandparents and the elders of the tribe at that time," she noted.
"But they took the stumbling blocks and made them stepping stones, and I'm proud of them."
Gerri Reynolds Wade's Rappahannock family heritage includes her grandfather,
Samuel E. Johnson, who was assistant chief, and her mother, Dorothy Johnson Richardson,
who was treasurer of the tribe for 57 years. Her mother and her grandmother Clara Fortune
Johnson taught at the Macedonia Indian School for the Rappahannock Indians, located in
Alps, Virginia. Her mother graduated from high school, but her father could only complete
seventh grade where he grew up in Essex County (on Virginia's Middle Peninsula). He
owned a lumber mill and acquired four farms during his lifetime with Gerri's mother
working as his accountant. All their children are college graduates, and Gerri commented,
"They did without so that they could see us come into our own, so to speak. And so, I have
this strong admiration and respect for my family because it was, 'You can do it. You are who
you are. Don't let anybody take that from you.'"
Gerri told 2008 BJTI participants about a day when she and her family were hungry
during a car trip and pulled up to a restaurant in West Point, Virginia. It was 1957, and they
were returning from the 300th commemoration of Jamestown's founding and from seeing
Queen Elizabeth II at the festivities:
There were four ofus in the car with Mom and Dad, and Dad said, "We can't go in
there." And we're going, "Why not?" And so he and Mom were talking in the front
seat and Dad said, "It's White only." Mom said, "I don't care, I'm going in there, and
the children are going with me." But he started driving and he said, "No, we're not.
We can't go in there."
95
Gerri wondered why they did not go into the restaurant, and the question stayed with
her while she and her siblings attended private schools in Maryland, New York, and Virginia.
When she asked years later about the restaurant incident, her mother said, "They didn't want
Indians or colored people in there." At the time, Gerri still did not understand what was
going on, but she later understood the full extent of racial discrimination and her mother's
protective attitude. Gerri passed through West Point in recent years and was "so delighted"
to see a McDonald's and a parking lot in place of that restaurant. Recalling the reactions of
BJTI participants, Gerri remembered one in particular. "She said, 'Did that really happen?'
She was probably in her 20s or early 30s. She couldn't imagine anything like that."
Powhatan Red Cloud-Owen agreed with Gerri's observation, saying, "It seems like in this
time era that some of the things I talk about, that a lot of them [the teacher-participants] can't
fathom it almost, or believe that these things happened."
The reticence of parents and elders to talk about segregation or its effects may in part
be attributed to protective instincts in an oppressive time. However, the reluctance of many
tribal members to talk outside their community about those years continues to this day.
Ritchie (2003) makes the point that oral researchers often find that survivors do not talk
about their experiences to their children, and that these individuals must move through shock
and denial as successive stages of grief:
People can stay in denial for a very long time. But as they grow older, and as people
who shared the experience die, the survivors will grant interviews as a way of
reconciling a haunting record, and also of ensuring that future generations do not
forget.
96
The Keepers share a commitment to relate their experiences and to put them into
perspective for diverse audiences in instructive ways. It should not be assumed that they find
it easy to do so, as I discuss later in this chapter. Significantly, these presenters indicated that
they were mindful of their stories' potential emotional effect on Institute participants. This
awareness did not deter Keepers from communicating what they consider essential truths and
also relates to bridging strategies described in Chapter 6.
Personal Experience and Education
Ken Adams grew up in King William County, Virginia, where both parents were
members of the Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe. In describing his Adams genealogy, Ken
began with William Adams, who was born about 1800. Ken estimated that about 90% of the
modern Upper Mattaponi tribal members are descended from William, who purchased a tract
ofland in King William County from the College ofWilliam and Mary in 1822. William
had two brothers named Thomas and Richard. "We were known as the Adams Town Band,
and later we officially became the Upper Mattaponi during the early 1920s." He noted that at
the time, the name change was part of a renewed interest in making the Virginia tribes
stronger, organizational structures, "maybe to fit into the concept" with Virginia state
~ 1 . . 13 government, county governments, as 10rrna orgamzatwns.
Ken's mother and father were both born in King William County, and had ten
children. Born after the end of World War II, Ken was a young boy when his older brother
Wesley left for Muskogee, Oklahoma, to attend high school and complete a two-year degree
at Bacone College. His oldest sister had gone to Bacone in 1949 for one year, and then went
13 As noted in chapter four, anthropologist Frank Speck was instrumental in helping tribes to organize in the early 1920s. However, each tribe had to focus on its own survival after 1923, as social and political pressures mounted in Virginia (Rountree, 1990).
to Michigan to earn her RN degree. Another older brother, Howard, and sister Emily also
went to Michigan to attend school. Ken commented, " ... Considering where we were and
how conditions were, we managed to do pretty well."
In those days, Ken recounted, children of the Upper Mattaponi tribe stayed with
families in Michigan:
97
A former pastor of Indian View [Baptist Church] had transferred to Michigan and he
arranged for children of Upper Mattaponi students to live with families in Michigan.
Those were in and around Flint, Michigan and Lapeer, Michigan. There were nine or
ten children that went, some as young as 12 or 13. The tribal member who later
taught in Sharon school was one of those who went.
When Ken went to the Sharon Indian School in the 1950s and 1960s, he learned from
the same reservation teacher that his mother had in the 1920s. He attended that school until
tenth grade, when he left for a year to attend high school in Richmond. The following year
(1965), the King William public schools opened their doors to Indian students and he
graduated from King William High School.
Being on the cusp of Indian and public school education after desegregation, Ken did
not graduate with the credits he needed to attend the Richmond Polytechnic Institute (RPI,
now Virginia Commonwealth University). Despite working fulltime and going to summer
school to earn the needed credits, he realized he did not have the funds to attend RPI and
instead entered the military. There, through evening and weekend classes, he completed his
B.A. in Industrial Technology from Southern Illinois University. In recent years he has taken
courses towards a Master's degree in Public Policy through Troy University.
As they grew to adulthood, each member of this cohort employed strategies that
advanced their education or helped them to achieve professional success. Entering military
service was also the choice of Powhatan Red Cloud-Owen, who was born in upstate New
York to a Mohawk Indian father and Chickahominy Indian mother
98
He lived in Long Island until the age of fifteen, and then returned to Virginia, where
he was in the next-to-last graduating class of Samaria Indian High School in Charles City
County. Back in Virginia, Ken said, "I thought it was going to be a breeze, but I was
unprepared for the racial discrimination still going on in this part of the country." He wanted
to further his education, "but when I got out of high school it didn't captivate me and didn't
hold me. So I left and didn't return. So I went in the Army instead."
John Milner entered military service, leaving home at 16 and completing his General
Educational Development tests (GED) in the Air Force. After leaving the military, he met
and married Arlene, who encouraged him to go back to night school. Once he had attained
his high school diploma, John was accepted to a university civil engineering program and
took classes for seven years before his job in the construction industry became too
demanding. 14 "With myself, I gave up a lot to go to school. My children had it a lot easier,
because they both graduated from college."
Transmitting Their Heritage
Diverse paths and accomplishments have brought the Keepers together to join in
common goals of educational advocacy for tribal youth and of teacher development in
Virginia. Both Arlene Milner and Gerri Reynolds Wade (along with Karenne Wood, a
Bridge Builder) contributed to the development of the revised Standards ofLeaming on
14 John asked that that the university not be named.
American Indian and Virginia Indian cultures and histories. All five individuals have
addressed controversial issues such as racism and stereotypes in many venues, from
elementary school classrooms to university lecture halls and Congressional hearings.
Through their testimony on the silenced history of the past, these individuals
challenge the dominant historical narrative regarding actual historical events related to the
Plecker era. Their knowledge and belief systems, together with their willingness to speak
through their experiences, have transformed them as authentic voices for that past.
99
Keepers carry and continue to create a sense of cultural identity, pride, and
continuance through story and narrative, and they believe these stories can make a difference.
Their presentations centered on tribally related topics such as federal recognition, embedded
stereotypes and myths, the Virginia SOLs, and most of all their personal experiences as
Indians during the segregation era. All are effective public speakers who told their stories
with acute awareness of their non-Native listeners' knowledge levels. Having spoken to
many non-Indian audiences in the past, they also are empathetic to the effect their narratives
had on the BJTI participants in crossing these cultural boundaries. Their interviews revealed
that they were very aware of their audiences' reactions and had specific goals they hoped to
accomplish in their talks. All crafted their BJTI presentations through these personal stories
and see them as part of the oral tradition of their tribes and the collective history of Virginia
Indian people. None used audio-visual technology when presenting at the Institute, although
one person shared family photographs.
ChiefKenneth Adams of the Upper Mattaponi Tribe spoke in both years on the issues
facing Virginia Indians today from his perspective as a tribal leader, and explained what
prepared him most to be a BJTI presenter: "I've lived the life of a Virginia Indian."
100
He continued:
Life experiences prepared me, as much as anything. I grew up in an Indian
community; I attended an Indian school; I attended an Indian church. All through my
childhood, all my friends were Indians. During the summer months, we would all go
to different Indian churches for their homecomings. So that was my life. I lived my
life as an Indian, but I did not really have any solid relationships with people other
than Indians until I was 16, 17, 18 years old. It was all I knew for a long period of
time.
Experience and Transcendence
Members of this cohort relate to the Virginia segregation era emotionally or
psychologically as direct survivors, but are not negative about transcending racial barriers.
Emotionally, they are able to share vivid memories with people outside their own culture and
demonstrate the transformative power of story and narrative as a two-way experience
between the storyteller and listener. Lakoffand Johnson (1980) posit that "what is real for an
individual as a member of a culture is a product both of his social reality and of the way in
which that shapes his experience of the world" (p. 14 7). When two or more cultures come
together, as in the case of the Beyond Jamestown program, the human connection made
through eyewitness accounts of the past creates a bridge between cultures and individuals'
personal worldviews or social realities. As I have discussed, the Keepers cohort bears
testimony to their elders and contemporaries who survived harsh pre-Civil Rights era
treatment as Virginia Indians. They share facts that generally are not known and believe that
in the long-standing absence of textbooks and public discourse on this history, they have a
responsibility to do so.
101
Telling the stories of what happened to her parents and grandparents as well as many
more Indian people has been an important part of Arlene and John's teaching mission, for the
Institute and in other settings, as she emphasized:
What we did was to tell the story of how the Virginia Indians had been denied an
education and how our parents had wanted us to get a better education, and moved us
north. And it [the BJTI] was a good experience. We believe it was a first experience
for the teachers. They volunteered to come out because they wanted to learn more
about what it is to be a Virginia Indian.
All of the Keepers demonstrate agency in telling and interpreting their life
experiences as well as the histories of their tribes. As tribal experts and leaders, they chose
their subject matter as speakers and are considered experts on the same level as other
scholars on the faculty. Further, they keep these and previous generations' stories alive
through word of mouth transmission across generations. They themselves experienced
storytelling as an integral legacy of their heritage that for many years resided within the
culture for safekeeping in an oppressive atmosphere. In the Virginia Indians' fight for
federal recognition in the last decade, they publicly have exposed the injustices of Walter
Plecker's campaign against Virginia Indians. Powhatan Red Cloud- Owen described his
purpose in sharing these stories:
I wanted [the BJTI teacher-participants] to take away a story that wasn't told or
written in books that you might read. It was touched on in newspapers and papers
written, but very few books were written, and I guess it was embarrassing to Virginia
that they treated people like this. And I wanted them to take away that sense of
learning firsthand from somebody who experienced something like this. And hope
they got the story right from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
102
Kenneth Adams has talked about his own education and the Sharon Indian School so
many times that it is "like talking about how to drive a car to me, any more," yet he
continues to share it as a vital part of the Virginia Indian narrative:
Most teachers didn't or don't realize that in Virginia, there were three separate school
systems. That's a fascinating subject. To imagine that instead of this massive
resistance that went on in the 191h century into the 1950s and 1960s, that the Virginia
School system had against desegregation, that same process was going on against the
Indians. Nobody knows that. There's nothing in the history books about that,
nothing in Virginia history at all that talks about the three separate school systems in
Virginia in some communities. So it's a history that hasn't been written. So I think
it's important for teachers to understand that part of history. And the only way they
can get that history is from the ones who experienced it. I think once this is
incorporated into the history books, they can get that history. But they will never get
the same type of history from a book as they can from listening to someone who
actually lived it.
In sum, because of the Keepers' advocacy and accomplishments, these individuals
represent a greatest generation along with peers who broke through Virginia's strict racial
barriers to greater recognition of their rights to identity and citizenship (although federal
recognition for the six tribes seeking it has not followed yet as of this date). Keepers
continue to advocate through education. They witnessed segregation as young people and
have contested it as adults; they share their experiences despite how it feels to relive them.
Their actions demonstrate historical unresolved grief and sacred memory and have been
significant influences on their teaching methodologies. When it comes to these painful
episodes and conveying them to an audience, particularly one unfamiliar with them, Gerri
Reynolds Wade feels that the telling must come from Native people:
103
Nobody but we Indians can explain that. It's very important when that is conveyed
that it is conveyed with all the emotion, with all the feelings, and everything that goes
into it or went into it for us. It's not something to be taken lightly, and so therefore, it
has to be written about in a very sensitive, caring way that's not just words on a page.
Because it's people's lives. If you haven't walked in our moccasins, you can't
understand. Sometimes, they don't come with Dr. Scholl's innersoles. You just have
to put [innersoles] in there.
"I think that is where things need to get managed very carefully," said Gabrielle Tayac in the
Bridge Builder cohort, who is a specialist in Native oral text and storytelling. "Where there's
trauma involved. Because in terms of classic situations, you want to be careful about re
traumatizing people every time they tell it."
She explained with a story about a National Museum of the American Indian session
where one Virginia Indian witness to the Plecker era was requested to speak about those
times. He commented, "I'm getting really sick talking about it. It hurts every time I have to
say this." Gabrielle concluded: "And I think he had just had it. People get maxed out. And
so that's something to be very careful about."
This statement foreshadows my premise regarding Bridge Builders, including
Gabrielle Tayac. Just as the Keepers tell the stories of survivance for their people in modem
times, the Bridge Builders protect and preserve these narratives-and honor these storytellers.
Chapter Six
Bridge Builders and Synthesizers: Sharing Pride, Pain, and Commitment
Chapter 4 outlined the implications of Dr. Walter Ashby Plecker's actions as registrar
of the Department of Vital Statistics and of strategies of resistance utilized by Virginia
Indians to gain education for their children. Some left the state to maintain their cultural
identities in more tolerant environments or to pass as White (Waugaman & Moretti
Langholtz, 2006; Cook, 2000, Rountree, 1990). Plecker barred a generation from state public
education and full citizenship through the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 and an active
campaign of enforcement, intimidation, and methodical alteration of state and county
records.
Until1972, the Bureau ofVital Statistics could legally send a warning with Indian
birth and death certificates that the individual was classified as "Colored" (Egloff &
Woodward, 2006). This was a legacy of the Plecker era aimed at eradicating Indian identity
in Virginia. Likewise, Indians could not legally marry in Virginia after 1924 and be recorded
as Indian, nor could they marry Whites in-state.
Tribal communities and their White allies in state and county government, academe,
and religious denominations opposed Plecker's policies (Rountree, 1990). As opposition
mounted against racial purity in the 1940s, Plecker's influence lessened; he finally admitted
his lack of evidence regarding Virginia Indians (Wood, 2009). His retirement in 1946 and
unexpected death in 194 7 removed the Virginia Indians' most infamous modern adversary
from power, but not from pervasive influence. The State Registrar's actions had irrevocably
changed Natives' lives across the state and denied their identities. Some hospitals and other
public institutions still enforced his racial classification policies into the 1960s (Cook, 2000),
104
105
and the Bureau of Vital Statistics could legally attach the designation of "colored" to Indian
birth and death certificates until 1972 (Egloff & Woodward, 2006). 15 Although Plecker' s
actions did extreme damage to Virginia Indian cultural identity and historical documentation,
he also accomplished something he had never intended: to create unity through adversity
among the tribes and enable Virginia Indians to forge a new identity (Rountree, 1990). In a
2000 newspaper interview, Monacan tribal activist and researcher Diane Shields said, "It's a
horrible thing, what he did to the Indian people. But you know what? It gives me a sense of
belonging- because I'm grouped with my own people. It kind of backfired with Plecker"
(Hardin, 2000).
Inroads in Public Education
By the 1950s, Indian students finally had greater opportunities to complete high
school coursework, as noted previously. The 1950s and 1960s were a dissonant time in
which social pressures for equity were met by deeply embedded resistance to changing the
status quo in Virginia. Yet Indians persevered. BJTI presenter Samuel McGowan's uncle,
Dr. Linwood Custalow, was graduated as the first Virginia Indian physician in 1964, while
other Virginia Indians of his generation were also advancing in higher education.
Meanwhile, Indian students entering Virginia public schools for the first time after
desegregation met with differing degrees of hostility and resistance in school settings.
Reactions by other races ranged from fights and name calling to White parents putting their
children in private schools to avoid integrated schools altogether (Waugaman & Moretti-
Langholtz, 2006; Tayac, Shupman & Simermeyer, 2006; Rountree, 1990).
15 After 1967's Loving v. Loving decision, Indians could obtain corrected copies of birth certificates filed before 1960, but had to pay for them until Virginia General Assembly legislation was passed in 1997 making such changes free of charge (Waugaman & Moretti-Langholtz, 2006).
106
In Amherst County, racial tensions were so extreme that bus drivers could refuse to
pick up Monacan students; some dropped out of school as a result, but others became the
first Monacan Indian graduates in the 1970s (Cook, 2000). Cook posited in his 2000 study
that race relations between Whites and Monacan Indians began to improve over the next two
decades because children of both races grew up going to school together. This hard-won
change underscores the vital nature of face-to-face contact in intercultural learning and
understanding, making the BJTI and other Virginia Indian initiatives in teacher education a
critical factor in their education advocacy.
Cohort Two
"When you tell a story, it happens over and over again."
-- Gabrielle Tayac
Karenne Wood, Deanna Beacham, Gabrielle Tayac, and Samuel McGowan did not
live through Virginia segregation in the Plecker era. Like others in their age group, these
individuals understand through elders' stories, but they, their families, and communities have
endured prejudice in their own lifetimes. Segregation shaped their elders and is part of the
historical narrative for Cohort Two members. Their era was marked by civil rights and
Indian activism, but they were privy to the stories from their elders' earlier resistance on
behalf of equal opportunity and Indian identity under the law. Public schools were not
opened to Virginia Indian students until1963. Civil rights for Virginia's Native peoples
were advanced by the US Supreme court decision in Loving v. Virginia (1967) and the
107
Virginia General Assembly's 1975 repeal of all state segregation and racial definition laws
(Rountree, 1990). 16
In addition to their support for Native peoples overall, Bridge Builders advocate for
two special constituencies: those who experienced oppression, whether in Virginia or
elsewhere in the generations before them, and the rising generation of future Indian leaders
and tribal members now in public schools and universities. Like the Keepers, these BJTI
presenters also accept the obligation to teach the public about their people, their heritage, and
the realities of the past. Like the Keepers, they also network effectively within the Virginia
Indian communities and with allied organizations and individuals. Unlike Keepers, however,
they started from a stronger position. Their agency originates in the previous generation's
resistance to colonialism and their own increased educational and professional assimilation
into mainstream culture as distinctly Native people.
Tribal Affiliations
Karenne Wood and Samuel McGowan are members of the Monacan Indian Nation
and Mattaponi Indian Tribe, respectively. Samuel's grandfather was Mattaponi Chief
Webster Custalow and his mother Shirley Custalow McGowan is a well-known Native
educator. Deanna Beacham is a member of the Weapomeoc Indian Tribe ofNorth Carolina,
and Gabrielle Tayac is a member of the Piscataway Indian Tribe of Maryland, for which her
uncle is the current chief. All four individuals connect to Virginia Indian history and to their
own cultural identities as educators through work in related fields such as museum education,
16 The US Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) made separate public schools for White and African American students unconstitutional. School desegregation was questioned as beneficial by some Virginia and North Carolina tribal communities with Indian schools on the basis that Indian schools helped them to maintain their cultures (Currie, 2005; Rountree, 1990). In Loving v. Loving (388 U.S. 1, 1967), the US Supreme Court overturned the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, specifically ending all legal bans on racial intermarriage in the nation .
108
archeology, and tribal education, and participation in Virginia Indian-related organizations.
Both Karenne and Deanna have worked in statewide tribal affairs through the Virginia
Council on Indians (VCI), which was established primarily to advise the Governor and
General Assembly on Indian affairs in the state. Deanna is the VCI Program Specialist, and
Karenne is the former chair of the VCI and the current director of the Virginia Indian
Heritage Program for the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities.
All the Bridge Builders have achieved significant educational empowerment and
more Native agency in European-American academic settings than the generations before
them. They interact with K-12 schools, universities, government, and museums as educators,
consultants, and public speakers. Karenne and Gabrielle have both authored or edited books
that present Indigenous viewpoints and curated major exhibits on Native history and cultures.
In all capacities, Bridge Builders aim to preserve the Keepers' oral histories and traditions of
the past for Native communities (together with other tribal members' eyewitness stories) and
to institutionalize this heritage within the dominant culture through their scholarship and
teaching, and through building collaborative networks with organizations and individuals in
the dominant society. This statement is not meant to suggest that these individuals escaped
the effects of colonialism; rather, their own experiences and education in Virginia, Maryland,
and North Carolina prepared them to appreciate the eyewitness experiences of the previous
generation and to bring attention to them.
Gabrielle Tayac is now a curator at the National Museum of the American Indian and
spoke in the 2007 BJTI program about Native history in the Chesapeake. Her father, a
member of Maryland's Piscataway tribe, took his family to Greenwich Village, New York as
a rejection of the harsh, racially related treatment he received from teachers growing up.
109
Stewards of Heritage and Identity
Preserving Native perspective and knowledge is important to this group. Karenne, a
first-generation college graduate, earned a Master's degree in Creative Writing and a
Bachelor's degree in English before starting her current doctoral studies in anthropology. As
coordinator and lead scholar for the BJTI, she saw its creation as filling several critical needs:
I would say that having been involved all this time in education and tribal history, it's
very obvious that people in Virginia don't know what they need to know about
Virginia tribes. It's something that has been on the minds of tribal leaders for decades.
And as a more educated person of tribal affiliation, I felt that it was my job, along
with other people of similar experience, to work with teachers to change what they
were teaching in public schools about Virginia Indians.
Karenne said that her extended family consists of 1,700 Monacan Indian Nation tribal
members: "I know that group intimately because I have been working with the tribe for 15
years." She also has been involved with tribes throughout Virginia and the nation through
her former position as chair of the Virginia Council on Indians and as current director of the
Virginia Indian Heritage Program.
Deanna Beacham works in the Virginia Council on Indians in the Governor's Office
as program specialist and as a consultant to archaeology-based organizations and major
institutions. She grew up in North Carolina with Weapomeaoc heritage; her family dynamic
resembled those of Virginia-born BJTI presenters in the storytelling sense, but mostly
centered on genealogy:
On [my] Indian side, it was a common topic of conversation in sitting around the fire
in the evening. I'm romanticizing here, actually it was sitting around my great-
110
grandmother's wood stove in her living room kind of thing, and relatives, great-aunts
especially, were really important in this.
Deanna recalls that most of the time, female relatives led the discussions of history
and genealogy with her as an avid listener. "Just taking it all in. I wasn't bored by it. Ever.
Even though I heard the same stories over and over again. And sometimes they were
censored because of the little ears in the comer."
Deanna described herself as largely self-taught on Virginia Indian and American
Indian history, immersing herself in the history of the Virginia and Carolina Indians. She
applies her knowledge of archeology and anthropology to analyzing primary source
documents and to combating associated stereotypes and historical fallacies. Her goal is to
examine these sources and re-interpret them from a Native perspective "that hopefully is not
so colored by the Eurocentric constructs" that she, Karenne, and other Native people grew up
with. "Because that's the way the academic background is, you don't have a Native academic
background, you just have an academic background and it's all Eurocentric. So you have to
fight that, and find ways to go around it. ... "
Connecting family narratives and tribal traditions, Samuel McGowan has taught
nationwide about Powhatan Indian history and heritage with his mother, Shirley "Little
Dove" Custalow McGowan, for most of his life. She attended the Mattaponi Indian School
on the Mattaponi Reservation, and shared memories of an Anglo teacher, Dr. Daniel Slabey.
He appreciated Native cultures, and encouraged students to perpetuate traditions such as
drumming and pottery making. Shirley told her son how it felt as an adult to be forced to
leave the state to marry, because Whites and Indians could not wed legally in Virginia. In
the mid-60s, Samuel's eldest brother attended a Christian school in Richmond where their
aunt and uncle lived, because it was during the transition period between the Mattaponi
reservation school closing and Virginia public schools admitting Indians.
111
In his own work, Samuel has utilized both traditional Native and European-American
methodologies in public school classrooms across Virginia as an Education Outreach
educator for the Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation and participated as a tribal historian and
expert in the 2008 Institute. During his interview, Samuel emphasized the importance of
teaching "through Native eyes, through Native mouths" rather than from a European
American Eurocentric perspective, to enable his listeners to better understand the resiliency
and richness of Virginia Indian cultures:
For a long time, we've taught things in the Western way, but the neat thing is, you
know, we always hear about how much Native peoples have lost. That's all you hear.
"Natives have lost out. I feel so bad, I feel so sorry, they've lost everything." ... I tell
people that my father is Scotch-Irish, his people have been here for a long time in
Gloucester, Mathews, King and Queen County. But do you know, I know far more
about my mother's people than I do my father's people. I know more of the
ancestors' names and surnames and everything, even though I am half Scotch-Irish
and half Mattaponi .... Being brought up on the reservation, I was brought up mainly
Native.
Bridge Builders carry their Native worldviews into their mainstream professional
activities as cultural representatives and as facilitators for cross-cultural interactions in the
academy, government, and other social institutions. While Keepers developed strategies to
gain education and empowerment despite racial barriers on behalf of the Virginia Indian
people. Bridge Builders have carried that empowerment forward in the development of a
112
distinct Virginia Indian epistemology. They teach, publish, and present within academe yet
work with tribal communities in distinctly traditional ways. Bridge Builders members use
their familiarity with dominant majority educational systems to articulate aspects of this
epistemology through websites, museum exhibits, higher education settings (classrooms and
distance learning) and global discourse with other Indigenous communities.
Gabrielle Tayac offered this suggestion, with that in mind:
I think some of the histories in the surrounding states, especially the Southeast,
would be very beneficial and maybe that would be a different institute, not Virginia
Indian, but the history of the Southeast. And it would help teachers in all of these
different states, because like I said, a lot of the laws that were passed, a lot of the
experiences were similar because they were all feeding off of each other. The states
were passing laws that were the same, which a lot of times resulted in similar
experiences and at times were dramatically different.
As one of the Native scholars and curators in the National Museum of the American
Indian, Gabrielle Tayac sees the BJTI and its significance within a larger framework of
national and international Native knowledge systems. Like the other Bridge Builders and
Indigenous experts worldwide, she also presents a compelling argument for the vitality of
oral tradition. Combined, these cohorts speak to oral tradition's strengths in helping people
to visualize and to relate to each other and to parts of Native culture that are distinctive, such
as storytelling: "The power of the word is very firm in oral sensibility. People often will
have an economy of speech because everything that's said really, really matters." Gabrielle
noted that Native people "have been part and parcel of all the mainstream things since 1607.
113
It's not saying that there's a pocket of Indians dealing with this Native tradition" but that
there have also been "pieces of culture that move along that are distinctive." She continued:
Everybody's been going along with every change, but there have been pieces of
culture that move along that are distinctive. So I think that with the storytelling, it
doesn't always transmit every detail of fact or figure, but it transmits value. It
transmits what is the most important thing."
Cohort Three: The Synthesizers
"We're still in the early stages."
-- Ashley Atkins
Within this study, the Keepers have been defined in part by the Racial Integrity Act of
1924 and the Bridge Builders by the advent of laws acknowledging their civil rights and
cultural identity under the law. I define the Synthesizers and their peers in this early stage as
witnesses to a collectively pro-active tribal and inter-cultural period marked by building
momentum for federal recognition. In 1983 the Virginia Council on Indian Affairs was
established and six Virginia Indian tribes gained state recognition through the Virginia
General Assembly, followed by similar recognition for the Nansemond Tribe in 1985 and the
Monacan Indian Nation in 1989 (Egloff & Woodward, 2006).
In 1999, the drive for federal recognition led to the establishment of the Virginia
Tribal Alliance for Life (VITAL) as an advocacy group that supports the introduction of
Congressional bills for recognition instead of the former path through the Bureau of Indian
Affairs. 17 Important Virginia Indian-related initiatives for education include the United
17 The US House of Representatives passed H. R. 1385, the Thomasina E. Jordan Tribal Recognition Act in June 4, 2009 extending federal recognition to six tribes, but to date, the US Senate has not voted upon this bill.
114
Indians of Virginia (1988), the Virginia Indian Nations Summit on Higher Education (2000),
the Virginia Indian Heritage Program of the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities (2005),
and the Virginia Indian Pre-College Outreach Initiative (2009). 18
Synthesizers represent the smallest sub-group of BJTI presenters, but are
disproportionally significant as recipients of the previous generations' actions and
achievements, and as the forerunners ofNative identity in the new millennium. Despite their
position as the youngest presenters, one, Rhyannon Curry, a Muskogee Creek Indian, was the
associate BJTI scholar and helped to envision the program with lead scholar Karenne Wood.
As a graduate student at the University of Virginia, Rhy was instrumental in developing
Virginia Indian-based content for public projects such as the international 2007 Jamestown
commemoration and the Virtual Jamestown Archives website at the University of Virginia's
Virginia Center for Digital Learning. Ashley Atkins worked extensively on the
Werowocomico archeological project in Gloucester, Virginia as a site-based educator and
currently is conducting archeological research on the Pamunkey Indian Reservation for her
dissertation at The College of William and Mary.
Rhy and Ashley, like other Native people of traditional college and graduate school
age, look to older tribal members as role models and carry their stories and traditions
forward. These rising professionals are gaining more educational empowerment through
European-American academic credentialing and opportunities made possible by those who
have paved the way. The students of this generation exemplify the further fulfillment of
18 VIP-COI is a joint collaboration between Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (which received a three-year grant to develop this outreach to Native students in middle school and high school), the University ofVirginia, and The College of William and Mary. Native students at all three schools staff booths at Virginia Indian powwows and help at tribal summer camps, providing easily accessible information on college admissions, scholarships, and other questions Native students and parents may have.
115
educational aspirations that Keepers fought for and Bridge Builders have advanced and
begun to institutionalize in the mainstream culture. They started challenging societal
conventions about Indians early in their lives and continue to do so by integrating Native
worldviews into academic and public discourse. Today, Ashley Atkins said, she is "really
focusing on the political implications of how we intyrpret and represent the past." "For
example, in my experience growing up, there was no representation, so how does that teach
people about Native people? There are none, because you're not learning about them.
They're not in your consciousness."
The Synthesizers' family backgrounds, coupled with growing up in a more global
society, have enabled them to synthesize multiple discourses and cultural viewpoints as
Native people. Rhy commented on the benefits of her "extremely mixed heritage," which
includes her father, who is Muskogee Creek and Romanian Jewish, a grandmother from
Texas, and a grandfather from Virginia whose ancestors immigrated there 400 years ago:
So we've been in this country for a long, long time. I grew up well aware of where
my family came from and the struggles on all sides ... .I think for me, I was in just a
really special place, because I have such a diverse background. I was blessed as a
child, because I was given amazing educational opportunities and yet I was always
reminded of who I was, where I came from, and who my people were, no matter
which people those were. So I was able to really kind of go in and out through
different cultures and understand different learning styles. For lack of a better
descriptor, it was kind of a bilingual or bicultural education and so I knew how my
family wasn't educated. I knew how they learned, and yet going through education
myself, I knew how people taught.
116
Connections between the Keepers, the Bridge Builders, and the Synthesizers
The centrality of family, tribe, and nation to identity for the Native BJTI presenters is
one aspect of the systemic beliefs and values that emerged during their interviews. The non
Native Bridge Crossers, while not affiliated by birth and cultural identity, work closely with
the other cohorts and provide another perspective. In tum, the audience of teacher
participants translates their new understanding of a Virginia Indian counter-narrative to
students in their classrooms. Chronologically, the Keepers are closest to the traditions and
heritage of previous generations and past historical events and transmit the essence of
Virginia Indian cultural identity as public figures. Next, the Bridge Builders have created an
academic platform within social institutions for the Virginia Indian narrative, particularly the
20th century, through the Keepers' eyewitness accounts as oral history. In tum, the
Synthesizers are merging the contributions of the previous two Native groups and preparing
to carry it forward as scholars and professionals within their own communities, academe, and
other social institutions.
These presenters accepted the challenge of contesting the historical narrative by
providing an effective counter-narrative using oral history, documentation, and archeological
evidence. In a deeper sense, these strategies derive from collective beliefs and values
described in Chapter 7.
Chapter Seven
Characteristics ofBJTI Native Curriculum and Pedagogy
I have drawn from related literature and fieldwork to construct my analysis of how
the BJTI presenters form distinct and complementary cohorts. This analysis is based in part
on varying degrees of their personal experience with 201h century resistance to Virginia
Indian identity, education, and citizenship, specifically the Racial Integrity Act of 1924.
European-American and Indigenous teaching methodologies guided my exploration of how
this study's participants view their roles in the 2007-2008 Beyond Jamestown Teachers'
Institutes.
In this chapter, I compare the three Native cohorts named in this process (the
Keepers, Bridge Builders, and Synthesizers), examining their paradigms, curricula, and
pedagogies in comparison to European-American and Indigenous models outlined in Chapter
3. The fourth BJTI cohort, the Bridge Crossers, is described separately in Chapter 8.
Table 4 summarizes my understanding of Native BJTI cohorts' paradigms related to
teaching within the program, based upon their responses to interview questions. Individuals'
phenomenological experiences differ within each group; their insights added substantially to
my understanding of each cohort's contribution to this teaching process and how each
complements the others. Their comments and reflections revealed significant characteristics
for each cohort.
I initially organized my data through collective themes revealed in the coding
process, using curriculum and pedagogy as primary units of analysis. Tables 5 and 6
deconstruct the Native presenters' teaching methodologies respectively as curriculum and
117
pedagogies and demonstrate the possibility of specific beliefs and intentions within each
cohort's instructional role.
The Native Cohorts' Paradigms
118
I have posited that as witnesses to the effects of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, the
Keepers cohort symbolizes the persistence of collective tribal memories and the resilience of
Virginia Indian cultural identity despite governmental and educational restraints. I argued
that the Bridge Builders followed in the post-segregation era, creating an academic platform
for the Virginia Indian narrative, particularly situated within the 201h century, and
institutionalizing the Keepers' eyewitness accounts as oral history. I identified the
Synthesizers as the inheritors of increased educational opportunities in part made possible by
efforts of the previous two Native groups. They in tum are preparing themselves to carry the
Virginia Indian historical narrative forward as 21st century Native scholars and professionals.
Central to the Keepers' identity as a cohort is their characteristic emphasis on both
personal and tribal struggles for education. This view resonates with the Virginia Indians'
community-based focus and their deep commitment to contesting Virginia's dominant
majority narrative with oral histories, oral text, and written state and local records. Beyond
educating teachers, this cohort signifies the increased agency of Virginia Indians regarding
their history and the rejection of past silences imposed by governmental and societal
restrictions. Further, they are the living proof of Virginia Indian cultural resilience as
survivors of historical trauma and educational diaspora. The table reflects accelerating stages
of Native agency in Virginia education that the Keepers helped to set in motion for the
Bridge Builder and Synthesizer cohorts, each of which has assumed its own role in teaching
about Virginia Indian history and cultures.
119
Table 4
Paradigms of Native Presenters
Paradigm Kee2ers Bridge Builders Synthesizers Ontology Whites controlled; Native knowledge is Native participation and
Indians were key in correcting understanding of Native marginalized; education current history and history is vital to opens doors; current gaining agency; decolonizing society; history is inaccurate educational assimilation continue cultures and and incomplete; Indians and collaboration continue traditions can and will correct the empowers Indians parts that involve them
Epistemology Family and personal Allied Tribal experts, Native participation and experiences vis-a-vis Native and non-Native understanding advances societal and legal scholars collaborate history and cultural controls are essential to through respect; they identity within tribes, maintain tribal history contest and correct educational arena and and to modify current history and are society dominant mainstream equally valued history
Methodology Keepers preserve Bridge Builders present Synthesizers are history through tribal Native knowledge preparing to help more members' stories of the within European- Native people to teach past and develop American education about Native history; collective histories; framework to extend its they want to use they tell stories across reach; they focus on technology to expand generations and Native perspectives and BJTI knowledge to cultures to correct perpetuate Native other states and the historical narrative history university level
Axiology Keepers cherish Bridge Builders esteem Synthesizers revere Indigenous knowledge; Indigenous knowledge Indigenous knowledge, their stories preserve and research; they articulating work of and communicate create Native agency other Native cohorts feelings of endurance and empowerment in and expanding it in 21st-and identity education by linking century society
cultures
The stories told by the Native presenters in this cohort are born of a larger group
history, in this case the Commonwealth of Virginia's mistreatment ofVirginia Indians during
120
the enforcement of the 1924 Racial Integrity Act and the exclusion of their people from the
mainstream historical narrative. Their experiences and descendant memories are the BJTI's
curricular cornerstone for the modem era. The alternatively harrowing and uplifting stories
they tell as survivors challenge a general lack of knowledge about the race-based
mistreatment ofVirginia Indians in the 201h century. Through their stories, the Keepers
reveal an alternate historical account with the capacity to change classroom instruction and
popular assumptions. Their teaching methodology, as described in the Keeper paradigm, is a
manifestation of Virginia Indians' growing agency in claiming Native space in mainstream
culture. It is a continuing and unfolding process through which heritage and identity are
inserted and then perpetuated through education within the Virginia Indian community and
validated externally in academe and other social institutions.
Inherent in this process and in the stories that the Keepers tell is an implied sense of
agency, empowerment, and access denied and achieved within their lifetimes. They shared
those stories in the BJTI, a space of Native-created intellectual sovereignty and a forum for
critiquing the dominant narrative and revealing the widespread oppression that Indians
experienced during the segregation era. Remenyi (2004) contends that story and narrative
deconstruct complexity; in this case, Virginia Indians' oral history and their perspectives on
the past previously were omitted in the mainstream narrative of oppressive treatment endured
by Virginia Indians, with resulting silences in that narrative.
By sharing their experiences and those of their parents, the Keepers in essence are
reliving the painful pasts that forged them as education advocates and leaders, validating the
Virginia Indian historical perspective through eyewitness history. "You know, being in the
presence of these stories and of these people should be a humbling experience," Rhyannon
121
said, stressing that that is true whether she and fellow Bridge Builder Karenne were hearing
these stories for the first or the hundredth time. "People lived this life. And they have
survived it by the grace of God, and are now able to tell their stories and perhaps have to tell
their stories."
"I believe my philosophy goes, I can't tell you about where I'm going, unless I tell
you where I've been, and it's a history in itself," said Keeper Powhatan Red-Cloud Owen.
He believes that people today find some things he talks about, like civil rights activism or the
Vietnam era, difficult to comprehend or even accept:
And when I speak to teachers, when I speak to students on a college level or
whatever, I tell them experiences that happened in my life and they look at me like,
"wow, did that really happen to you"? I would be so mad if someone did something
like that to me." And yeah, that happened, and I'm telling you this not because I'm
angry. I want to teach you and let you know we can make the world better."
Arlene Milner, another Keeper, reflected, "My husband and I when we speak, the last
thing we always say is- and we want everybody to take this away with them- is we're not
bitter, we're better. And we are better."
In comparison, the Bridge Builders' paradigm builds vertically upon the life
experiences and tribal knowledge of their colleagues, the Keepers. Through their own
academic connections, the Bridge Builders build the new narrative horizontally between
mainstream societal institutions, such as those in government and education, in making this
knowledge accessible to broader academic audiences. By adding their own research to the
expanding Virginia Indian knowledge base, this cohort demonstrates the advantage gained by
its members' experience in academe, which enables them to articulate key similarities and
differences between the BJTI experience in comparison to European-American and
Indigenous traditions.
122
The Bridge Builders' background in academe give rise to a different role and
dynamic for them, one in which they preserve knowledge by extending it to the social
institutions most responsible for controlling knowledge: educational institutions (including
museums as well as K-12 and higher education settings), mass media, and government.
Their goal is to educate and empower through the recognition of Indigenous knowledge,
using their academic credentials and professional affiliations to create a new non-Native
awareness of its significance to education and society. Karenne Wood noted:
What I've observed is that I can talk all day long about theories or history and
instruction of history and use academic words that may or may not impress people.
But it is not until we get the public or the teachers exposed to the actual tribal
members and they tell their stories that the transformative moment occurs, where the
teachers leave wanting to be a part of changing how that story is reported, and to
educate their students so that these stereotypes are not perpetuated.
Synthesizers share the commitment to expanding Native space in society through
decolonization and heritage preservation, and are prepared to advance Native presence in
other societal institutions as they develop their own identities as scholars. Although they
comprise the smallest cohort in my study, the members' views parallel closely in their strong
convictions about extending the teaching and training experience within Native communities
and expanding the work of the Native Keeper and Bridge Builder cohorts through
technology. In essence, they have synthesized the experiences of older generations through
123
the two Native cohorts with their own experiences as young 21 81 century scholars and tribal
members.
Ashley Atkins said, "It's unfortunate what I had to go through as a kid, but I
really believe that things have changed." She is synthesizing her professional and
academic expertise with the goal of greater Native involvement and collaboration in
archeology, as she described in her BJTI presentation about that topic and her own
research at the time (2008) on Pamunkey Indian pottery production:
Again, it's back to this issue ofNative people not being able to be included in the
representation of their own pasts. So that's why I'm coming from that perspective of
Native people being involved in archeology, able to really call the shots on how this
material that we're finding in the ground can be interpreted and how it can be
understood from a Native perspective: that my ancestors used this and how did they
use it, not just from an archeological-scientific perspective but a Native one as well.
The next sections on curricula and pedagogy delve deeper into the Native presenters'
responses.
Native Cohorts' Curricula
The BJTI curriculum for 2007 and 2008 offered an alternate Native perspective to the
historical narrative transmitted in popular culture and education. McKernan's 2008
definition of curriculum as comprised of knowledge intentionally valued, planned, and
offered as training or education is helpful in deconstructing the overall curriculum designed
by Karenne Wood and Rhyannon Curry as co-coordinators. Rhyannon said:
[The Institute] was an idea that was really spawned from everything that was going
on in the beginning of the decade, getting ready up to 2007, which was the 4001h
124
anniversary of the founding of Jamestown by the English. And so she and I worked
together to come up with the whole week, what was going to happen, who was going
to present, and what the presentations were going to be about.
"It seemed like there were certain holes in the curriculum that needed to be filled and
these were the topic areas," Karenne explained. "There were certain people whose expertise
matched up very nicely. For example, we would not not have done a segment on Virginia
history in the 201h century, because it was so critical." According to Rhyannon, "the
personal dialogue is so much more important than checking things off a list. So if the
teachers felt that they were really interested in Subject A, then we might spend more time on
that."
The knowledge presented about Virginia Indian peoples encompasses over 18,000
years from pre-history to today, and introduced the program participants to a series of
contested subjects such as the marginalization of Indigenous peoples, the validity of
collective memory, and stereotypical perceptions of American Indians. Karenne particularly
focused on types of knowledge unknown to the general public and not included in K-12
textbooks, and on resources helpful to teachers in the classroom. Karenne recalled:
We had been told before we began the Teachers' Institutes that resources were a
serious problem. Teachers couldn't get their hands on accurate information, and
when they did, they had to pay for it themselves. So we were trying to give them a
lot of free stuff that was good that they could take away.
The curricular planning was informed by feedback that came from tribal members
like Arlene and Jack Milner who frequently speak in schools. These speakers reported that
teachers were paying out of pocket for educational materials about Virginia Indians, a
125
situation confirmed to Karenne by teachers themselves. When Karenne was chair of the
Virginia Council on Indians (2003-2007), the Virginia Department of Education developed a
web site in partnership with the Prince William Network about Virginia's Indigenous
peoples. 19 Betsy S. Barton, elementary history and social science specialist for the Virginia
Department of Education, came to a VCI meeting in January 2005 to present the project. "So
that was the beginning of our relationship, which has become really helpful collaboratively."
Karenne said, "[Betsy] is the one through whom we have access to the Virginia Social
Studies Conference. "20 At this time, the Standards of Learning social studies revisions now
being implemented about Virginia Indians and American Indians were only a hope. "We
knew the SOL revision was scheduled but we had no idea how much impact we might be
able to have on the ultimate outcome," Karenne noted. However, the type of information the
BJTI curriculum provided foreshadowed recommended changes to those guidelines. "In
essence, [teachers] got that information much earlier than they would have otherwise."
As lead scholar for the program, Karenne said she felt that specific books, web sites,
and other resources were important for the teachers attending, such as Egloff and
Woodward's (2006) First People: The Early Indians of Virginia, an archeological overview
of Native cultures in Virginia that became the basis for the Virginia's First Peoples: Past and
Present web site. In the classroom, Karenne also utilized resources developed by the
Virginia Foundation for the Humanities including radio spots that highlight tribal leaders'
concerns. "I think we also used the In Our Own Words video in the Teachers' Institute
because it shows the then-current chiefs speaking on issues that were important to them,"
19 "Virginia's First Peoples: Past and Present" (http://virginiaindians.pwnet.org/) was copyrighted in 2005 as a joint effort between these two agencies. 2° Chronological information provided by Deanna Beacham, Program Specialist for the Virginia Council on Indians, January 13, 2011.
126
Karenne said. 21 She said that she and Rhyannon] pulled lesson plans from numerous sources
and then she reviewed them prior to the program. Rhyannon commented:
They're all teachers, so we wanted lesson plans that had been vetted by Virginia
Indians and the tribal communities that we knew were good, that would really help
teachers from [Grades] K through 12 teach, and that they could adapt to their own
classrooms.
For the BJTI presenters, Karenne chose presenters based on her knowledge of"their
ability to articulate the various concepts involved in their topic areas." She added:
So they were in my opinion the best people to talk about that area, whether they were
Native or non-Native. And we wanted a mixture of Native experts and academic
experts to show that both kinds of knowledge were equally valuable and weighted
equally in terms of our idea of that importance - the community-based knowledge
being equivalent to an academic degree, if you will.
Participants received thirty-two hours of curriculum development credit toward
Virginia re-licensure for attending the four-day program, which consisted of speakers,
discussions, readings, and media presentations in 2007 and an added reservation field trip in
2008. Karenne noted, "There was a more or less chronological sequence, because that's
what I understood the teachers to be familiar with."
Presenters said in their interviews that lead scholar Karenne Wood gave them a
general idea of what to cover in their talks, but left it open for them to decide the specific
content. Karenne explained:
21 "In Their Own Words: Voices of Virginia Indians" is a 2002 multi-media presentation on CD-ROM produced and copyrighted by the American Indian Resource Center at The College of William and Mary.
It was pretty much up to the individual presenter to decide whether to use
PowerPoint or talk about their lives. And in the cases of the Native experts, I
did say, "Please talk about your life or your community's experiences," so
they came into it knowing that's what we wanted them to do.
Therefore, curricular coherency is linked to the overall choice of subjects and of
presenters, and to each presenter's personal schema. "I think we knew who did what, who
was an expert in what, as we tried to, as much as possible, to marry the two," Rhyannon
Curry recalled. She and Karenne envisioned having academics "come in, talk about what
they do, and then have that supplemented by these living experiences. And they are not
necessarily mutually exclusive," Rhyannon noted:
127
Some of the people who came in both were academics and also had that life
experience. It was just perfect when we could get that. But it was also so much fun
to see how people think differently. All of these initiatives we've done, we bring in
Native and non-Native experts, and they are all experts in their own right. They
always learn from each other.
As a group, the Keepers tended to make deliberate choices in their decision to share
tribal and personal experiences. Within the framework of the BJTI, the Keepers primarily
taught using their own life experiences and those handed down to them from their elders.
John Milner, a Keeper, commented, "In our past, we knew how our ancestors lived, and we
wanted the truth spoken about us instead of getting it from just the White man's side of it. It
was time that we told our own story in our own words." Those stories differed according to
the curriculum of individual presenters and their life experiences.
128
Gerri Reynolds Wade said that Karenne told her about the makeup of the group and
that she could present what she wanted to:
So I chose to look at the SOLs [the recent Virginia Standards of Learning revisions]
because they are near and dear to my heart, having worked on that committee. And
then I decided to speak from the heart. I looked at a number of things, like what do
you want them to know when they leave there? How do you say that to them?
Gerri said that she decided to speak from the heart:
It was mainly, "These are the things that I experienced, and these are the things that
children need to know about Virginia Indians. And the old textbooks are inaccurate,
and I need for you to hear who I am from this perspective."
Powhatan Red Cloud-Owen's presentations in 2007 and 2008 also were deeply
personal to him:
Here I am with a high school education, but I believe my experience goes beyond
that. Some of this you won't read in text books. Just preparing myself in a way just
to let people know firsthand what I went through, what my siblings went through,
what my mom and dad went through, my aunts, and uncles, and such as that. People
I've learned from listening to them and their life experiences, because our lives as
Native peoples, it wasn't written a lot. Because no one cared about it a whole lot, say,
back in the day. So it was orally passed down. I was told by my mother what
tensions she had to go through.
Members of the Bridge Builders and Synthesizer cohorts addressed topics related to
their own areas of expertise. Deanna Beacham, for example, often speaks on archeology and
presented in 2007 with Jeff Hantman; he provided primarily academic content and she
contributed the Indigenous perspective on archeology. Samuel McGowan gave a brief
history of the Mattaponi Reservation during the teachers' 2008 fieldtrip in the session he
presented there, "talking about the importance of the water and land to my people."
129
Ashley Atkins, in the Synthesizer cohort, concentrated on the significance ofNative
participation and on the importance ofNative people as well as teachers and students
understanding Virginia Indian history from a different perspective. She used the example of
the Werowocomico archeological project in Gloucester County, Virginia "so people could
see how Native participation could be included productively and in a positive, successful
way":
So that's what I really wanted to foreground. That's how I prepared it. Me thinking
about me as an archeologist. For non-Natives and non-archeologists, thinking about
what's most important, and what do I want to get across?
Table 5 summarizes my analysis of how the three Native cohorts expressed their
views about their curricula according to core beliefs, knowledge sources, format, content, and
intended outcomes. I drew from my conceptual framework, from related literature, and
participants' descriptions of their teaching methodologies to identify essential components of
their curriculum development.
The core belief system construct identifies BJTI presenters' foundational beliefs as
expressed in their interviews. Knowledge integration defines the process through which they
utilize personal and tribal histories, primary sources, and related scholarship (both their own
and others). Format and content refer to their methods of transmission of specific knowledge
and resources within individual presentations.
130
Table 5
BJTI Native Presenters' Traditions: Curriculum
Keepers Bridge Builders Synthesizers Core Belief Place Native meanings Relate Native meanings Relate Native meanings System in Native context (I) to European-American to European-American
context (I) context (I)
Knowledge Primarily use oral Use oral history, primary Use oral history, Integration history (personal and sources, and related primary sources, and
tribal), and cite other scholarship (IlEA) related scholarship sources (I-IlEA) (IlEA)
Format Use stories as Restructure beliefs and Restructure beliefs and curriculum to make knowledge through knowledge through experiences, feelings, Native-led instruction Native-led instruction attitudes real and and class discussion and class discussion dramatic (I) (IlEA) (IlEA)
Content Use eyewitness Use text, objects, and Use text, objects, and accounts and tribal photographs to augment photographs to augment histories; may use text oral histories and support oral histories and and photographs as research (IC-EA) support research (IlEA) evidence (I)
Stress community- Set community-based Set community-based based knowledge and knowledge in European- knowledge in related research (I- American framework European-American IlEA) with research (IlEA) framework with
research (IlEA) Intended Transmit Native oral Institutionalize Native Advance Native Outcomes history (I) perspective (I) perspective (I)
Decolonize history; Decolonize history; Decolonize history; create shared meanings create shared meanings create shared meanings and conceptual change and conceptual change and conceptual change (IlEA) (IlEA) (IlEA)
Uphold Native Promote Native Advance Native identities, rights and identities, rights and cultures, rights and self-self-determination (I) self-determination (I) determination (I)
Note: I= Indigenous; EA =European-American; I/EA =Interface of Indigenous and European-American traditions.
131
Finally, the intended outcomes construct summarizes presenters' main goals in
teaching BJTI participants about their areas of expertise. Depending on the curricular
element, I assigned these cohorts to Indigenous or European-American curricular traditions
as identified in my conceptual framework, or to operating at an intersection of both
traditions. In some cases, elements were synonymous in tradition across all three cohorts,
suggesting that the BJTI synthesizes some characteristics from each cultural tradition.
Core Beliefs
Within the BJTI, each cohort's core beliefs and experiences contribute to the creation
of shared meanings between them and the teacher-participants who potentially have the
power to effect such change. The Keepers place their meanings squarely within a Virginia
Indian context in delivering their stories to the predominantly non-Native teaching audience,
by concentrating on stories of significance within their tribal communities and Virginia
Indian history overall. 22 Each person, like Powhatan Red-Cloud Owen, told family stories
that conveyed important cultural meanings.
Powhatan's mother left Virginia because of the Racial Integrity Act's restrictions.
Attending night school in New York, she was a married woman well in her twenties when
she completed her high school education, Powhatan's mother never returned to Virginia to
live; however, Powhatan did. He talked with the teachers about how it felt to encounter bias:
first, when he returned to the Commonwealth as a Native student and later, when he faced
additional bias as a Vietnam War veteran. Powhatan was wounded while in Vietnam, and
said, "I was proud and glad that I served with honor, and lucky to be alive, lucky to be back
here." He touched on what it felt like coming home. "I had a lot of strikes against me. First,
22 The 2007 and 2008 BJTI teacher-participant groups included a Native American educator and two African American educators.
132
I was Native and coming back into a community that really didn't favor Native people.
[And] being looked on as a warm-monger or baby killer. People used to call us those names."
Powhatan recalled, "I had just returned from a war-tom war zone area. I didn't want to put on
my Indian coat, so to speak. I just wanted to be mainstream and just get a job. I thought
that's what people did when they returned."
Other members of the Keepers cohort shared stories of their peoples' ordeals during
the enforcement of the Racial Integrity Act, their survival mechanisms, and their regard for
education. Arlene Milner emphasized that "It was very difficult, the prejudice that was
displayed to the people, and that's why the Virginia Indians kept to themselves. Their social
life was mainly with other Indians." Arlene also commented that "Teachers today don't
know that the education we received was substandard."
For Ken Adams, it was important to share with the BJTI audiences what it was like to
be denied education, not only for him but for his parents' generation. Ken said his father,
who grew up in King William County as one of 12 children, valued education highly. "He
could barely read and write. And it was very difficult for him to sign his name, because he
never went through enough education to do it in a natural way."
As a member of the Bridge Builder cohort, Samuel McGowan wanted to give his
presentation on-site at the Mattaponi reservation to give teachers a different experiential
perspective:
Most teachers look at past tense because of the SOL. They have to incorporate
Natives [culture and history] into their studies. I like to incorporate today that there's
still the same understanding of respecting the land, the earth, the surroundings, and
how those things that were important to use 400 years ago are important to us today.
133
Making those connections in academe has been the hallmark of the Bridge Builders,
who are primarily working from within European-American educational frameworks to
establish them. Despite the traumas of the past, they are assembling holistic modes of
teaching and learning that invite non-Natives to "think about Native peoples and their stories
being intertwined," according to Gabrielle Tayac, who curated the NMAI's exhibit on
Indians of the Chesapeake Bay region. "Even if you are a very recent immigrant to the
United States or this particular region, you step on the ground and you are part of it."
She envisioned addressing more key issues in future institutes, beginning with the complex
historical relationships between tribes beyond the Powhatan paramount chiefdom in the
colonial era:
I would want to start to deepen the complexity, saying, it's not just the Powhatan
tribes. To build on understanding the political relationships and the cultural meanings,
to go more in depth on the cultural traditions and understandings that people have,
and also to deepen the complexity of what was going on in England.
She also feels it is important to study race relations between Native Americans,
African Americans, and Europeans as colonial encounters, asking, "What was the landscape
ofNative relations and Native understandings of who is dealing with whom?" Gabrielle also
recommends adding important Native figures in history in the next stage, saying, "Let's start
to look at biographies rather than groups of people with a couple of key names."
Gabrielle believes this knowledge is essential to greater awareness. "Once [the BJTI
participants] get a sense of who's there and there's an understanding of who is in Virginia,
you can start to pad in a surround," Gabrielle emphasizes. "[They can] start to understand:
What are different languages we're dealing with? Who are these different people who are
interconnecting?"
134
In their core beliefs, Synthesizers mirror the norms and values of the other Native
cohorts. As rising scholars working within European-American academic systems, they not
only approach their research and teaching activities as Native people, but are intent on
bringing more Native voices into the discourse through diversity. As members of this cohort,
Ashley and Rhyannon also acknowledged the limitations of teachers' existing knowledge as
a critical factor in developing shared meanings. Rhyannon said:
It's not the teachers' fault that they don't know this stuff. It's a system that has been
set in place over 400 years that is specifically designed not to have this story told.
And so we talk about how it's not being taught, but intrinsically, they don't know
what they don't know, and you can't blame them.
Ashley also commented:
Our education system is embedded in our society, and the society tends to turn
a blind eye to Native America. So really, just opening their minds up and not
just about Virginia. There's a slew of issues in Indian country, I would say, in
Native America, and unless you're in tune with that, you're not going to know
about them.
Knowledge Integration
The Keepers cohort collectively shared stories of their own and their tribes'
persistence in combatting the racism Virginia Indians faced before and during desegregation
in the 201h century. Their knowledge base includes oral history, news clippings, and actual
letters in tribal archives, such as signed letters from Dr. Walter Plecker. "We have actual
135
handwritten letters, or that he had typed and signed, threatening our midwives that delivered
children that if they put Indian on birth certificates that they could be fined a thousand dollars
and put in prison for a year," Powhatan Red Cloud-Owen explained. Published scholarship
by Native but also non-Native authors was another important source. "We use the
information that Karenne Wood has put together, and the information [from] Helen Rountree
[and] Camilla Thompson," Arlene Thompson said. "We love their books, because it's as if
they are speaking to you. You know that these people have really done their homework."23
The Bridge Builder cohort members fuse tribal and family histories with their own
understanding of European-American educational methods and perceptions. Within this
cohort of four individuals, their backgrounds in anthropology, psychology, sociology,
museum education, and Native history help to frame the beliefs through which they transmit
and translate their own and other Native histories and cultures. In essence, they are
institutionalizing Indigenous knowledge on behalf of the tribal communities they represent
individually and collectively, with the assistance of those tribes and the Native and non-
Native organizations with which they interact.
As stated earlier, Gabrielle Tayac is a Maryland Piscataway scholar whose work for
the National Museum of the American Indian encompasses Indigenous peoples globally.
Karenne Wood served as the BJTI's coordinator and lead scholar and is director ofthe
Virginia Indian Heritage Program, while Deanna Beacham is the program specialist for the
Virginia Council on Indians and as a consultant in archeology and history. Samuel
23 Anthropologist Dr. Camilla Townsend authored Pocahontas and the Powhatan dilemma (New York: Hill and Wang, 2004); many of anthropologist Dr. Helen Rountree's works on the Powhatan Indians are cited as sources for this study.
136
McGowan's viewpoint as a tribal expert and museum educator enabled him to move between
cultures using both European-American and Indigenous perspectives.
Bridge Builders create and facilitate Native spaces in academe that honor tribal
experts as experts, empowering the Keeper generation to tell stories that contest and also
critique the dominant majority narrative. Bridge Builders have implanted Indigenous
knowledge in academe as Native scholars. They have challenged history as a colonialist
project by adding their own research to oral history and text, but retaining a European
American framework of inquiry.
As a member of the Synthesizer cohort, Ashley Atkins described another dimension
in the inclusion of Native voices that resonates with the perceived value of collective
memory and oral history. Ashley is a degreed Virginia Indian anthropologist collaborating
with tribal communities through the Werowocomico archeological project; her dissertation
research on Pamunkey pottery. She is a representative of Virginia Indian agency within her
discipline, which she feels has historically distanced and objectified Native objects, Native
peoples, and their past. In comparison to that systematic scientific method, she believes in a
deeper connection with- each object her ancestors made:
So I think with the Native way oflooking at it, it [an object] is a story. I feel like a
Native person doesn't look at it as objectively, they [sic] look at it through emotion
and there's nothing wrong with that. You know, there are different ways of knowing
the past and understanding the past, and that's one way to do that.
Format and Content
Karenne Wood and Rhyannon Curry developed the BJTI program's overall four-day
curriculum mainly from Native initiatives and resources in the United States and Canada, but
137
focused on Native life experiences. Besides identifying Native and non-Native presenters to
cover subject areas, planning the format meant following the type of curriculum with which
most non-Natives- specifically teachers- identify in classroom settings at two major
universities.
The chronological nature of the curriculum, the use of traditional European-American
"stand and deliver" lecture formats, and the use of assignments and readings were familiar
classroom components. However, the BJTI added Indigenous elements that ultimately
created a dynamic tension in teaching and learning. One of these was the content provided in
the Keepers' life experiences. Another, which I will address under classroom dynamics, was
the influence of the Institute's physical space.
The core belief system for all three Native cohorts corresponds to an Indigenous
curriculum (I), in that these presenters operate within a predominantly Native domain that
uses certain elements of European-American teaching tradition to bridge cultural differences.
With regard to the knowledge sources used by these cohorts, they form part of the interface
that defines the BJTI education dynamic. All the cohorts are conversant with Native and
non-Native scholarship outside of the narratives the Keepers present. However, because the
Keepers' role centers on oral history and collective memory, their curricular format differs
significantly, as does their content. Arlene, Jack, and Powhatan typically show or reference
documents, tribally-generated publications, and newspaper clippings when speaking to
classes to enhance students' awareness of racial inequities that Virginia Indians have faced.
Gerri Reynolds Wade also mentioned taking ceremonial regalia and photographs with her.
Although the Milners take period pottery and other objects when they visit schools, Arlene
knew that teacher-participants would be exposed to this auxiliary information during the
BJTI program so did not bring anything with her. For the 2008 panel, Powhatan showed
black-and-white family photographs from the segregation era, as he had during a previous
presentation.
Powhatan explained:
138
We say that a picture is worth a thousand words, and we showed expressions of
children that didn't have expressions. They were straight-faced and were puzzled that
someone would be taking their pictures. In the present day, some of my
grandchildren are full of laughter and life and all this happiness now. Because they
didn't go through what my parents went through or what my ancestors before them
had to go through.
In their discussion of Indigenous research methodologies, Moreton and Walter (2009)
posit that Indigenous knowledge systems "remain intact and continue to develop as living
relational schemas" despite the disruption of European colonization (p. 3). The Bridge
Builder and Synthesizer cohorts incorporate oral and tribal history as the keystones of their
curricula, connecting it to their own and others' research. For example, Bridge Builder
Gabrielle Tayac gave a detailed talk on the Piscataway Indians of Maryland, and referenced a
NMAI exhibition she curated (Return to a Native Place: Algonquian People of the
Chesapeake), thus provided another Native perspective on the past. She balances different
kinds of sources including documentary evidence and oral narratives, which she confirms
through her work with Native communities where they originate. For her BJTI presentation,
Gabrielle explained. She basically drew from her research and materials and thought about
how to translate it for teachers:
139
I figured that this was a pretty enthusiastic, open group who really wanted to be there
and really wanted to know. And also thinking about what kinds of long term impact
they would have because with teachers, it's not just for their own edification. It's
also because you're really thinking about this in terms of societal change. Long, long
term.
Intended Outcomes
Both the BJTI presenters and planners shared the goal of introducing teachers to an
inclusive Virginia Indian history and to how Indian peoples' lives have been affected by
institutionalized racism and stereotypes. Members of the Keepers cohort felt it was
important for teachers to hear stories that had not been written down in books, although they
may have read some newspaper articles and academic papers. Hearing about the Racial
Integrity Laws and Walter Plecker's legacy often affects listeners, as Arlene and John Milner
have observed. Arlene said:
It is with absolute disbelief that people come up to us and say, 'I didn't know that
happened. I didn't know that was going on.' There was no reason for them to know.
It didn't happen to them, it didn't happen to their families.
The Keepers cohort members are, in some cases, sharing stories that have not ever been
conveyed outside their Native communities, and sharing them with a constituency that is
unfamiliar with how segregation impacted Virginia's Indian peoples. Rhyannon Curry
commented:
We [she and Karenne] knew it would be hard for some people to think outside that
box, but I think we had to do it with enough of the traditional learning styles that
people would be only slightly uncomfortable. That's what we wanted. We wanted
140
enough "uncomfortable-ness" to be thrown in there to help people, really, to force
them to come to terms with what had happened in the history, but also their position
now as teachers. And force them to kind of make a decision about what they were
going to do with this new-found knowledge that they had.
Interview responses show that the intended outcomes across the three Native cohorts were
progressive. The Bridge Builders stand on the shoulders of the Keepers, in a sense, in
internalizing their history and treating it as a sacred trust. The Synthesizers in tum
demonstrate the potential to mainstream Native agency and knowledge even further into
societal institutions. The Native presenters in this study shared the goals of decolonizing
history as well as creating understanding and change through the BJTI program, as Powhatan
Red-Cloud Owen expressed it:
Our people have come a long way, and we still have a long ways to go, because we're
teaching people about racism and things. And another subject I touch upon when I
talk with people is the stereotyping of our people. I tell people, 'We don't want to be
your cars, we don't want to be your mascots, we don't want to be whatever you want
to label us, because we are human beings. We just want to be out there. I'm not
better than anyone else, but I'm just as good as anyone else.
Each cohort also had characteristic motivations and intentions within the BJTI
program. The Keepers want to transmit oral history. Through their academic and
professional affiliations and activities, Bridge Builders wanted to institutionalize the Native
perspective, while the Synthesizers, through their expanded educational opportunities, sought
to advance it. Similarly, the Keepers have consistently upheld Virginia Indian identities,
rights, and self-determination throughout their lifetimes, a mission furthered by the Bridge
141
Builders, and accepted by the Synthesizers as their own, in the collective belief that each
generation builds on the achievements of its predecessors. This sense of community, of a
holistic vision that embraces the past, present, and future, passes from each generation to the
next. Education is its conduit, manifested in the Beyond Jamestown Institute and in the
Native presenters' desire to preserve and transmit their heritage without a Eurocentric or
colonialist filter. In describing the BJTI planners' and presenters' roles, Rhyannon noted:
Nobody took ownership over anything and we weren't there to. That's traditional
learning. I'm not doing this for myself. I'm doing this for my ancestors because they
never were able to do this, and I'm doing this for the elders living today, because they
weren't able to. I'm doing it for the children and for my grandchildren so that that
knowledge is there."
Native Cohorts' Pedagogies
Just as oral history is essential to the BJTI curriculum, the presenters' ability to bridge
cultural differences is essential to the efficacy of BJTI pedagogy. The acknowledgement of
Virginia Indian acculturation over time reflects the history of Virginia's Indigenous peoples,
who first experienced English colonialism more than four centuries ago. Prepared to adapt
and change in order to survive culturally, many Virginia Indians avoided enforced
assimilation over time, refusing to relinquish their memories, their traditions, and in many
cases, the ties to their ancestral homelands. However, modem educational assimilation, in
the form of the high school and college educations once denied in Virginia, has been a
pathway for Virginia Indians to both educational advocacy and agency in today's society.
Karenne Wood noted the significance of assimilation in European-American
education as a key factor not only as an influence on presenters, but also on the BJTI as an
142
evolving cross-cultural interface. "Our instructors have been educated primarily Anglo,
whether they are Indian experts or not. They have not been, in some cases, immersed in that
Indigenous knowledge system. So even though they have cultural knowledge to pass on, they
struggle with the same kinds of concepts and compartmentalization that I'm talking about."
Bridge Builder Deanna Beacham recognizes the Eurocentric constructs inherent in
the European-American academic system in which she grew up. "So you have to fight that,
and find ways to go around it," she said, in learning more, in examining the original primary
sources from a Native point of view, and in presenting a different perspective. According to
Rhyannon Curry, organic learning is an alternative to European-American learning's use of
lectures with testing and assignments to demonstrate knowledge retention. "You hear people
talk to you, but it's a dialogue. And not necessarily in a Socratic method. It's learning from
each other and experiencing life together." She added that talking and listening to people,
particularly when heart-wrenching stories are involved, is a way of experiencing this mode of
learning.
So when you cry with people, when you laugh with people, that's what organic
learning is. You really understand what life was like, and it's sort of an empathetic
and sympathetic experience that is supplemented by what we as Westerners want to
have. We want to see what the proof is, but also supplement it with this idea of these
expenences.
According to Rhyannon, this construct is not necessary exclusive to Native cultures,
but may apply more to non-White than White communities. She explained:
... I think for so long, non-White populations were excluded from Western teaching.
And so they learned their own way of teaching it. And for Natives, that's how
teaching was. So yes, it is definitely in the tradition ofNative teaching, because it
happened after Americanization. You become an oral or aural culture because you
have to or because that's how things were always done and you were never taught
otherwise.
143
Deconstructing the fundamental components of the BJTI Native presenters'
pedagogies, I have categorized their methods as their objectives, techniques, technologies,
classroom dynamics, and goals (see Table 6). The combination of expertise, familiarity with
European-American teaching, public speaking experience, and respect for Native cultures
enables all four cohorts to work effectively in this teacher development program, despite
differences in their cultural backgrounds, educations, and experiences within tribal
communities.
As with Table 5, Table 6 represents a synthesis of constructs from my conceptual
framework, my review of related Native and non-Native literature, and insights from this
study's participants. I found that the cohorts had definite pedagogical objectives for their
teaching that were characteristic of each cohort's relationship to the others. Their techniques
variously incorporated Indigenous and European-American methods depending on the
paradigm of each cohort, as did the types of technologies employed by presenters. The
classroom dynamic construct described how presenters viewed the teacher-student
relationship from their perspective. Lastly, goals for audiences signifies the overall themes
presenters in each cohort used in expressing their pedagogical intentions.
Table 6
BJTI Native Presenters' Teaching Traditions: Pedagogy
Objectives
Techniques
Technology
Classroom Dynamic
Goals for Audiences
Keepers Present Native eyewitnesses as tribal experts in history and cultures (I)
Use stories to engage listeners; do not employ handouts or group work; encourage inquiry (I)
May use documentary evidence to support oral presentation
Monitor listeners' reactions to presentations but do not change approach; encourage discourse and conceptual change (I)
Increase participants' respect for Virginia Indian cultures and history (I)
Bridge Builders Establish tribal experts, Native scholars, and allied non-Native scholars as equal collaborators (IlEA)
Use presentations followed by discussion to place curricular content in Native context (IIE-A) May present orally or with electronic media to focus teaching points
Are aware of reactions; anticipate some cognitive dissonance and may mediate it; stimulate discourse (IlEA)
Empower participants with awareness and knowledge to inform their own teaching (IlEA)
144
Synthesizers Continue work of Bridge Builders and Keepers; work to advance multiple Native perspectives (IlEA)
Use presentations followed by discussion to place curricular content in Native context (IlE-A)
May present orally or with electronic media to focus teaching points
Are aware of reactions; anticipate some cognitive dissonance and may mediate it; stimulate discourse (IlEA)
Empower participants with awareness and knowledge; create new understandings (IlEA)
Note: I = Indigenous; EA = European-American; IlEA = Interface of Indigenous and European-American traditions. Participants may use alternative teaching methodologies in different settings, but they primarily referenced those cited here for their BJTI teaching
Objectives
Within the last decade, as Virginia's indigenous peoples have demonstrated the intent
to take control of their history and present it themselves, BJTI presenters have been among
the most visible Native spokespeople at media events, academic conferences, and
145
Congressional committee meetings during the ongoing effort to gain sovereignty for six of
the Commonwealth's state-recognized tribes. Education and learning have been major goals
in deconstructing the hegemony of the past; but more than that, as Arlene Milner said, "There
is this love ofleaming among all of us."
I identified the Keepers' BJTI objectives and collective pedagogy as Indigenous,
because they are initiating a conceptual shift in perceptions about Virginia Indians through
oral histories and teach using experience-based content rather than written sources. Their
colleagues in the other Native cohorts clearly acknowledge the authenticity of the Keepers'
knowledge and reference collective memory as a major knowledge base.
Although they did not directly address their objectives for negotiating stages of
student development, all three cohorts mentioned their awareness of audience reactions as a
factor in their presentations. With the Keepers, their narratives included episodes of racial
prejudice and even violence that they, their families, and communities endured - information
that few if any teachers had encountered previously. Their colleagues in the Bridge Builder
and Synthesizer cohorts also face the possibility of initiating cognitive dissonance in the
classroom in discussing prejudice, stereotypes, and examples of marginalization enforced by
society and education in particular. "You don't want people to be defensive, so it's really
about creating a dialogue, and I think that's what I tried to set up," Gabrielle recalled. "I do
talk a lot, so I did give a lot of information. But I was able to at least invite a sense of
approachability into the session." Ashley Atkins acknowledged that presenting the
"implications of how we interpret and record the past" can be a challenge:
Some people are going to understand what you are saying and go with it, and some
people are going to question it, which is fine. But I guess the best way I know to
breech that issue is, try to bring it down to nuts and bolts. Native people are here.
They have been here.
146
There is also another element, which is in Bridge Builder Samuel McGowan's
opinion, explains the needs to stick to basics. As he has found, in teaching this subject,
"People come in and instead of teaching the facts so that everyone understands, they lecture.
You can't lecture and you can't go over people's heads." What happens then, he says, is:
[People] are going to sit there and nod their heads and go "Yes, yes, yes" like they
understand. But, when they go away from there, you just spoke for an hour for no
reason, because some of them didn't get it all the way. They didn't understand, and they
didn't want to feel stupid by asking, "What does that word mean?'' or "Why is that?" So
I like to keep things pretty basic so that everyone can understand.
In the Keepers cohort group, John Milner questioned: "What's the sense of starting
anywhere else except in the beginning?"
Creating new awareness may involve all BJTI presenters sharing what prejudice and
bias mean to them on a personal level. This process of sharing experiences on a personal
level can be a cultural issue, in that according to several of the Native BJTI presenters, tribal
experts may not take a teaching role outside their communities for three major reasons. First,
age appears to be a factor. Second, some tribal members are reluctant to talk with strangers,
especially in academic settings. Also, inexperience in public speaking came up several times
in interviews as a significant factor.
As Karenne Wood explained:
There are people who are elderly and can't get around; there are people who aren't
comfortable, especially going into a university setting and talking with people they
feel are better educated than they are. That would affect their self-esteem.
147
In particular, Karenne said she was thinking of a Monacan tribal member close to 90
years old, a "wonderful person who has experienced some real hardships": "She's a tough
lady, and her story is incredibly interesting. But to get her to Virginia Tech or William and
Mary, that's not going to happen."
Rhyannon also commented that there are many other people who have stories to tell.
"And I don't think that they- and especially the elders- are going to feel comfortable
coming into a place like this and talking. And they are not going to be necessarily
comfortable talking to someone they don't know.
Ken Adams says that although the situation is not anyone's fault, "a lot is being left
out of the Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institutes, and a lot of it is because these people who
went through these experiences are not what you would think of as good presenters"
They're left out of the picture. But those experiences are just as important as the ones
I've experienced, my personal experiences. But you have to look for those people
who've experienced those, and right now, there's nobody who's doing that.
Deanna Beacham said that over the last ten years, she has watched some Indigenous people
evolve "from being terrified of public speaking to not having a problem with it. And they've
embraced different aspects of their lived to give them the strength to do this." She explained:
I don't ever remember having to conquer a fear of public speaking. But I have
learned from a colleague who would recognize herself if I said this, that she was very
much afraid of public speaking .... I asked her, "How do you get passed that?" and
148
she said, "I would call on the ancestors, because I feel like I am speaking for them."
Then when she got started, she was fine.
Deanna continued:
It occurred to me that I should always be checking in with the ancestors before I made
any kind of public comments, even these, because what I say carries the weight of
generations that were not allowed to speak. And I took that on advisement, even
though it wasn't advice, and I have done that ever since.
Gerri Reynolds Wade described how she spent time observing the teacher
participants prior to her own talk, jotting down a couple of notes and referring to a rubric she
developed after coursework in Gifted and Talented Education at the University of Virginia.
Gerri expressed specific goals for the teachers, which were for them to recognize and respect
Virginia Indians, to take away "at least one new thing about Virginia Indians", and to be
comfortable enough to ask her questions. One of her other goals was to steer clear of
offensive questions or comments, which she said can happen with people who do not mean to
be disrespectful, but are.
Time and again, presenters stressed that more speakers should add their stories to the
Native narrative in the BJTI program and in other venues. The Synthesizer cohort in
particular discussed bringing more Native voices into the public and academic discourse, and
it was also a concern to members of the Keepers and Bridge Builder cohorts. Ashley
emphasized:
We're still in the early stages. It's important to get multiple Native perspectives. Just
talking to one person is not going to give you the Native perspective. We're not a
conglomerate and we all don't have the same mind. Obviously, we all have different
149
experiences, we all have different backgrounds, we all have different opinions on
issues such as the educational system, on the history of our people, on archeology, or
whatever. So really having inclusion of multiple Native voices, I think, is really
important.
Members of all three Native cohorts shared the goal ofbringing more tribal members'
stories to light as major resources in education both for Native and non-Native students. As
mentioned previously, Ken Adams cited his older brother Wesley's ninth-grade schooling in
a woodshed outside the Sharon Indian School along with four or five classmates. "Today,
[Wesley] tells the story that Mr. Fox wasn't worth a hoot as a teacher, and he talks about how
disgusted he was about having to attend the ninth grade in a woodshed," Ken noted. Another
little-known part ofthis era is that a number of Upper Mattaponi and other tribes' students,
including one of Ken's sisters, attended Oak Hill Academy in Southwest Virginia in the
1950s, according to him:
Oak Hill Academy is one of the top prep schools in the United States. And yet, we
have students who went to Oak Hill Academy from these little small rural Indian schools,
and they succeeded in a highly competitive environment. To Ken, these and other stories are
part of the "real nitty gritty" that in many cases is still being left out of the BJTI curriculum.
In Chapter 9, I address this as part of the BJTI presenters' envisionings and recommendations
for the future of the Institute. Stories have been, and will continue to be, the heart of the
program.
Techniques and Technology
The Keepers' stories and direct approach are their primary teaching tools, with
objects, documents, and photographs sometimes used as supporting evidence for their
150
statements. Ken Adams emphasized that "Life experiences prepared me, as much as
anything" to address the teachers about issues affecting Virginia Indians, particularly
education and advocacy, from his perspective as a tribal leader. Arlene and Jack Milner
spoke, John said, "from our hearts and our own life experiences" so that the BJTI teacher
participants better understood Virginia Indian history: "It's not what we think to be the truth;
it's what we know to be the truth." For educator Gerri Wade, "First of all, [my presentation]
was based on experiences over time and knowledge over time, and working with teachers
over a number of years. And I don't need a book or something in front of me to tell you my
story and experiences."
In comparison, Bridge Builders and Synthesizers often choose to incorporate various
other media such as PowerPoints, video, and audio recordings to place the information they
are transmitting in a familiar European-American context. Gabrielle's slides ranged from
showing archeological or ethnographic objects to current photos, in order to transmit an
Indigenous perspective and a connection between past and present. "Not to imply people
today are living in a frozen time machine from 400 years ago," she said, "But to convey that
sense of continuity."
These two cohorts also move between the Indigenous and European-American modes
of presentation depending on the audience. Although these Native presenters used
PowerPoint presentations in the BJTI, the same individual will speak extemporaneously in
tribal meetings where the atmosphere is informal and the listeners' knowledge base on
Virginia Indian history more extensive. "I would say I don't need [PowerPoint], because I'm
more in my element, because half the people I'm talking to are my family members," said
Ashley. "So it has to do with context and it has to do with environment."
151
The Keepers indicated in their interviews a pattern of Indigenous pedagogy; some
intersection across both Indigenous and European-American pedagogies were reported by the
other two Native cohorts (see table 6). This distinction derives from the singular role of the
Keepers as voices for their generation and its resistance to oppression. This role emerged as
a factor in interviewees' responses related to their BJTI teaching intentions and self
reflections. In their conceptions of pedagogical techniques, technology use, classroom
management, and goals, the Keepers are much closer to traditional Indigenous teaching than
they are to European-American methodologies with their storytelling. According to Ken
Adams, audience reactions, while valid, are not cause for editing his presentation but even
more reason to relay it without modification:
... Sometimes it's obvious that someone is upset. Sometimes it's obvious that
someone may not be in agreement with some of the things I've said. Sometimes it's
obvious that I've angered someone by some of the things I've said. But with that in
mind, looking at those reactions, I'm not going to change my presentation. I will still
provide what I think, what I believe to be what these teachers need to know to
understand what has happened. They'll never be able to fully understand, but at least
be able to have a grasp of something that has happened which until this point, they
probably haven't had any interest in or even thought about.
This sense of responsibility toward both Virginia Indian history and their listeners' access to
it pervaded all the interviews with members of the Keepers cohort. Some, like Arlene Milner
judged whether they were effective by audience responses. "The people would come up to
us afterwards and thank us for telling our stories, and I would think, 'We must have done
something right. We must have touched a nerve."'
152
Powhatan also watched for audience reactions, but for a different reason. "I like to
see the expression on their faces; I like to see them be attentive. I hope I never put anyone to
sleep. And I don't think I ever have, because they want to take this knowledge or this story
that I give them."
Another element for the Keepers is their ability to vary their presentations based on
audience requirements. They rarely speak from prepared notes. In the case of Ken Adams,
he tends to draw on what is happening at the time: "[So] where we are today and what's
happening politically and emotionally, that has to drive the elements of the conversation."
From his former work as an aircraft maintenance instructor, Ken is familiar with technical
training accomplished in a series of detailed steps. He viewed his BJTI presentations as more
general discussions focused on 201h century events affecting education in Virginia, as told
through his life experiences and those of other Virginia Indians. As Ken summarized it:
The only way I can do that is through my experiences. I try to get them [BJTI
participants] to understand what happened specifically to Indian students in the
classroom in Virginia and some of the life experiences of those students.
As the recipients of educational advancements pioneered by their elders, the
Synthesizers advocate even more Native agency in the classroom and in society. Both the
Bridge Builders and Synthesizer cohorts consistently adapt European-American
methodologies and technologies according to their audiences and intentions, which represent
additional examples of an Indigenous-European-American interface within the BJTI program
and their own instructional skill sets. All members of the three Native cohorts have
experience speaking in academic settings; within the Bridge Builders and Synthesizer groups,
some invited presenters from both incorporated Power Point presentation technology, such as
153
Bridge Builder Gabrielle Tayac and Synthesizer Ashley Atkins. In comparing pedagogies,
Karenne sees the power in different methods such as PowerPoints and telling stories. "The
PowerPoint does give you a trajectory as you talk, and I like it for that reason, because I do a
lot of presentations and I don't want to go off wandering into the ether when I talk."
However, she says, "When you're talking from your heart about something that has
happened in your life, you can't use PowerPoint. It's just totally ineffective." One exception
she makes is for photographs, which she acknowledges as useful in presenting a pictorial life
history. "But when you're dealing with an emotional rendering of experience, the only way
to do that is face-to-face in a story, I think." Therefore, she deems both to be valuable under
different circumstances. Bridge Builder Samuel McGowan, a tribal expert with extensive
classroom teaching experience, chose in his fieldtrip presentation to use storytelling, the
physical landscape around him, and museum exhibits to convey information to participants.
In the future, with BJTI-trained teachers' greater understanding of Virginia Indian
cultures and history, Rhyannon Curry, as a Synthesizer, foresees the possibility of utilizing
technology as a classroom resource about Virginia Indian people. She explains:
I think maybe not necessarily in the Institute but outside of it and sustainable and a
continuation is to have weekly or monthly Webcasts with the chiefs. That way,
nobody has to leave anywhere, but you're in school, you can talk with them, and say,
'Hey, what's going on with this?' and not just the chiefs but the other elders. Get
everybody in a room and continue these conversations over the miles. We've got
technology, and I don't think we've realized how good it's going to be for us as
Natives, how we can really use this to get these ideas and these stories and these
connections and these dialogues started and continued.
As Karenne Wood and Rhyannon Curry indicated in previous statements and below, they
considered multiple methods of student participation in developing the overall BJTI
curriculum.
Classroom Dynamic
154
As the BJTI's lead and associate scholars, Karenne and Rhyannon were constantly
present in the classroom, overseeing and facilitating the program, and leading discussions
based on readings and audio-visual resources. For that reason, their descriptions of the
Institute include the handouts, group activities, and general discussions that were not part of
the invited presenters' functions, although those presenters frequently participated longer
than scheduled as listeners and discussants.
Karenne recalled:
We [she and Rhyannon] also tried to do things like break it up and have the teachers
in small groups at certain points, so it wasn't a uni-dimensional, "sit-and-absorb" like
a sponge at a desk. Even so, I felt like we left them sitting more than they were used
to, so that was a challenge for them. But we were trying to get conversations going at
lunch and dinner, and I think we were successful with that. The teachers continued to
talk about what they had learned into the night, in some cases.
Both Karenne and Rhyannon noted significant differences between the 2007 and
2008 BJTI programs in terms of teacher response. "The first year was an absolute
transformation in almost every teacher," Karenne said. The teachers' evaluations were "off
the charts, wonderful. She continued, "They all talked about how this had transformed their
lives, not just their teaching but their understanding - that they wished this was available to
every teacher for years and years to come." In comparison, Karenne observed, "The second
155
group of teachers seemed more practically oriented, and although many of them also
indicated transformation happened to them personally as well as professionally, there wasn't
the same degree of emotion in the evaluations."
Although Karenne is not sure what factors were involved in that difference, one
element may be the program's physical space and how that space is used. In 2007 at the
University of Virginia, the program took place in a typical academic classroom with
windows, blackboards, and tile floors. On the first day, the student desks were rearranged
from rows into a large circle that included the program coordinators at the front of the room.
The open circle arrangement was constant throughout the week except for one activity when
teacher-participants moved into small groups. Presenters either stood or sometimes sat as
they presented or answered questions; at lunchtime and breaks, the participants often went
outside to sit and talk on the steps.
In 2008 at The College of William and Mary, the program was held in the Board of
Visitors board room rather than in a classroom, due to its availability during a busy week of
conferences. Participants sat in padded chairs on the outside of tables joined into a large U
shape. Presenters sometimes stood in the open area at the front of the room, sat where they
could be seen at the front, or stood behind a lectern. Lunch was served in the private dining
area adjoining the board room. Unlike the previous classroom location at the University of
Virginia, the board room was not designed for flexibility. "It was a formal space, and in
some ways, an intimidating space," Karenne said. It may not have been comfortable for
tribal speakers as well as participants. "Sometimes, in providing the ultimate level of
comfort, we take away the casual nature of the interaction. And I think in the first instance [at
the University of Virginia], it was absolutely right to have people in chairs in a circle."
156
Karenne continued:
In the second instance [at William and Mary], we were trying to force a circle out of a
rectangle that was too big, so you almost couldn't hear the people across the room.
And those tables made you feel like you were at a board meeting [rather] than in a
classroom ... It was something that we absolutely would not have foreseen. We said,
"Oh, this is great, let's use the big comfy room."
Rhyannon also saw a contrast in the location, although it was a university setting both
times. "I felt that the first year when the presenters came in was much more of a dialogue
setting and the second year was much more of a teaching-lecturing setting. We didn't mean
it that way, but it was just the way the room was set up." Because the sessions were
conducted in a circle at UV A and speakers often sat with the participants, Rhyannon said,
"The only thing that separated us was air." She also had observations about both years,
saying that although the second year is closer and she should remember it more, she
remembers the 2007 program and participants more. Rhyannon said:
That first year, I think that definitely in the last few days, it was "Okay, I think I've
got it, I think I'm starting to get it, and I think I kind of know what I've got to do, and
how I can do it with this stuff in the classroom. It may have happened the second year
and I just don't really remember it.
Rhyannon thought that another factor might be involved in the change between the
2007 and 2008 classroom dynamics, in that the first year was a totally residential program
and the second year, one in which half the class - those within commuting range- left at the
end of each class day. Because the first group of teachers stayed together, it created
additional opportunities outside the classroom. "We'd go out for dinners together. We'd see
157
each other at breakfast, do different things during the day to create those bonds, and continue
those discussions outside the classroom," Rhyannon remembered. "I don't feel that
happened the second year at all. And again, I don't know whether that's setting or
personalities, or if that's just the way the cookie crumbled the second year."
Because she connects through experience to both educational and Native
perspectives, Gerri Reynolds Wade's recollections of her BJTI experience provided
additional pedagogical insights into how the BJTI operated as a cultural and educational
interface in 2008. Gerri noticed a difference between the younger teachers, who were
"incredibly focused" and more seasoned teachers who often had a different historical
perspective. With some of the older teachers, Gerri said, "Sometimes I didn't feel like they
were with me, but I felt that they heard me." She continued, "Basically what I was feeling is
that they grew up in the same era I did, when we didn't exist. So I let that go and saw the
other part, all the others, the faces and the questions."
Outcomes for Audiences
I have proposed that all BJTI Native cohorts describe their curriculum and pedagogy
in ways that can be compared to Indigenous and European-American teaching traditions, but
can differ depending upon the cohort and the specific function in question. Despite
education's historic role in promoting subaltemity in their own and Native peoples' lives, the
BJTI presenters choose to collaborate with European-American education and effect change,
rather than demonize it as a societal tool that enforced colonialist attitudes in the
Commonwealth. They are modem survivors and descendants confronting stereotypical
portrayals of Virginia Indians and American Indians in the classroom, and seeking to open a
new critical discourse between teachers and students on the master historical narrative of
158
Virginia. Karenne Wood expressed the hope that participants take away a sense of "personal
connection" to Virginia Indian history, along with greater confidence and awareness of this
history's importance- "So they don't just gloss over it and move on to the next unit," as she
says.
Native people in Virginia, especially, have a sense of how much has been taken from
them. And when someone comes, they say, "what are you going to take, and what are we
going to get out of it?" Or a less selfish way to think about it is, "How is our community
going to benefit from your work?" And if they're able to make that relationship work, they
become our friends, not someone who's "studying" us. That's a huge difference, and I think
that's something we wanted the teachers to go away with absolutely, was the notion that
American Indians are not "the Other"- you know, the guinea pig that you study like some
species.
"I really believe that teaching has to inspire people to make the right choices," said
Gabrielle Tayac. She added:
I'm not saying that there is only one way to think that, but I think that in the sense of
creating openness and an intensity for wanting to know the truth. So I think a lot of it
has to so with truth seeking, and fearless truth seeking. Because it doesn't feel so
good to find out the things you find out, and sometimes it doesn't feel so good when
you question a status quo.
In transcending painful aspects of their history and the tradition narrative offered by
teachers, the media, and popular culture, all the Native presenters in the study demonstrated
three important goals: For the Keepers, to empower Native tribal experts; for the Bridge
Builders, to empower Anglo teachers to respect and tell those stories as part of a balanced
159
historical narrative, and for the Synthesizers, to expand this interface even more through the
inclusion of more Native experts' voices from within the tribal communities.
In Chapter 8, I describe the non-Native Bridge Crossers' comparative roles in
curriculum and pedagogy. Some contemporary K-12 and museum educators also belong in
this category of friends, as do some well-remembered educators of the past. Ken Adams and
Samuel McGowan specifically named two teachers in the segregation era: Mrs. R. C. Hill
and Dr. Daniel Slabey. Mrs. Hill taught many family members from the Upper Mattaponi,
Mattaponi, and Pamunkey tribes in her work with the Upper Mattaponi Indian school. Ken
Adams commented on the teaching abilities of Mrs. Hill, who taught his mother in the 1920s
and taught students ofhis generation in the 1950s and 1960s. "She was a good teacher. As I
went to other schools later on, I didn't have a problem completing my education because of
Mrs. Hill. I owe that to her." Dr. Slabey, a retired teacher, instructed Mattaponi and
Pamunkey students in the Mattaponi Indian reservation school, including Samuel's mother
Shirley. Samuel described Dr. Slabey as "wonderful" in that he was "understanding and
appreciative of Native cultures versus those previously who did not want you to talk about
your traditional culture." He recalled:
[Dr. Slabey] was excited about everything. And they used to have school groups here
in the local counties come down to the reservation. And the children on the
reservation, they would get their regalia and drum and dance for the local school
groups. They'd be making baskets and pottery and everything.
These proponents have become part of the oral history of Virginia's Native peoples,
remembered across several generations of tribal members.
Chapter Eight
Characteristics ofBJTI Non-Native Curriculum and Pedagogy
I have proposed thus far that four distinct cohorts operate within the overall group of
BJTI presenters, forming a cohesive whole. In chapters 6 and 7, I described the 2007 and
2008 Institutes' Native presenters and their teaching methodologies within the paradigms of
the Keepers, Bridge Builders, and Synthesizers cohorts. In this chapter, I discuss the three
non-Native academicians in the fourth cohort, the Bridge Crossers, who were invited to bring
their specific areas of expertise to the Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute. I compare
their concepts of curricula and pedagogy to those of their Native BJTI colleagues from
Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina.
Drs. Jeffrey Hantman and Helen Rountree of Virginia and Dr. Kent Mountford of
Maryland comprise this cohort. Helen holds the rank of professor emerita of anthropology at
Old Dominion University and Jeffrey is a professor of anthropology at the University of
Virginia. Kent is an environmental historian and estuarine ecologist in Maryland who
frequently lectures in higher education and public settings. The trio has taught, published,
and conducted in-depth research in their disciplines. Helen and Kent gave a planned joint
lecture in both years of the Institute. Jeffrey presented on archeology in 2007, with a Native
perspective provided by Deanna Beacham; his 2008lecture was followed by Ashley Atkins's
presentation on Pamunkey pottery.
Why were these particular scholars chosen for the BJTI? Unlike education
environments where Eurocentric or European-American constructs dominate the curriculum,
the overall BJTI curricular framework was developed by Native scholars Karenne Wood and
Rhyannon Curry. In discussing the characteristics she felt all the non-Native lecturers
possessed, Karenne said:
160
161
The one thing I believe they all share is a respect for Native experience and culture, a
desire to know more. No one came into it with the notion that their knowledge was
superior to anyone else's, and they were all eager to learn from one another. So that
was really the basis. That was another part of selecting the presenters that I didn't
mention. They inherently are people who are friends of the Indian community. We
wouldn't have picked them otherwise.
Rhyannon described the high regard in which these presenters are held and their
relationship to the BJTI program, saying, "Some of the non-Natives you work with, that
Karenne and I know, are among the most humble people who realize that they know a lot,
but they don't know everything." She added, "And they always learn. And this is an institute
in which we have taught not only the teachers, but ourselves. And that's how everything
should be."
The Bridge Crossers' Paradigm
The Bridge Crossers' personal histories suggest ways in which they developed
research interests, cultural sensitivity, and advocacy in relation to Virginia Indian
communities and the BJTI. Helen and Jeff's paths parallel through anthropology and
previous fieldwork with tribes in the Southwestern United States, while Kent's association
derived from his joint research interests with Helen.
The Bridge Crossers' Backgrounds
Jeffrey Hantman was raised in the New York City region as the grandson of
immigrants fleeing religious persecution. "My grandparents and 11 great-aunts and great
uncles left Russia for NYC in the late 1890s and early 1900s, escaping Tsarist anti
Semitism," Jeffrey said, adding that he was very close to his extended family, who kept alive
162
the "old country's" language and traditions, "Not that hard to do in New York City, of
course."
Until his undergraduate college years, Jeffrey was unaware of the Indian cultures
surrounding him in New York State. "This was despite growing up in a landscape with
names like Manhattan, Hauppage, Massepequa, Ronkonkoma, and Shinnecock," Jeffrey said,
"And despite being urged by a wonderful teacher in high school to think about why Walt
Whitman, a New Yorker, called that part of New York "Paumonauk" to honor the Algonquin
history and presence." He added:
I am reasonably certain I did not think often, if ever, about the local Native
Americans in New York while growing up, a subject which now fascinates me. My
teacher's suggestion sank in a few years later, and a visit to the Hopi Pueblos in the
1970s got me out of a parochial New Yorker's view to which I hope I haven't
returned. Though New York is still home to me, I do see it differently now.
Following his graduation with a BA in anthropology from Binghamton University in
New York, Jeffrey earned an MA and PhD in anthropology from Arizona State University.
His focus on late prehistoric and early historic era events and interactions of Southwestern
Indians expanded when he joined the anthropology department faculty at the University of
Virginia, which is near the traditional homeland of the Monacan Indians in Amherst County.
Jeffrey's interests also broadened to the 19th century and beyond to the battle for cultural
identity that Monacans were forced to wage in the Racial Integrity Laws period, and to the
long term impact of colonialism.
Helen Rountree grew up in tidewater Virginia. She considered herself a "honkie", in
her words, until learning that her predominantly English heritage also includes African, Irish,
German, and Dutch roots. After completing an undergraduate degree in anthropology at The
163
College of William and Mary, Helen spent two years at the University of Utah, doing
linguistics work with the Shoshone Indians and earning her MAin anthropology. After
leaving Utah, she taught at Old Dominion University (ODU) and visited the Virginia Indian
reservations for the first time. "I listened to the people talk, especially Mattaponi, and they
sounded very similar to the people I worked with in Nevada, who were only two generations
away from aboriginal tribes, unlike the Mattaponi," Helen said. Her initial discoveries in
archives and interviews encouraged Helen to complete a doctorate in anthropology before
returning to ODU to teach and continue her Virginia Indian-related research.
Kent Mountford grew up in New Jersey. An avid sailor, he planned to study civil
engineering at Rutgers University in order to become a naval architect, but finished with a
degree in business and economics. Although he did not have a background in science, his
interest in studying plankton ecology in drew him into graduate coursework and research in
marine ecology, and he holds Master's and PhD degrees from Rutgers University. He
worked as a graduate teaching assistant and became Research Assistant Curator at the
National Academy of Sciences after completing his doctorate. Eventually, he became the
Senior Scientist for the Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program. He left
the EPA in 2000 and now writes, lectures, and works for Cove Corporation in Calvert
County, Maryland, where he continues his study of the Chesapeake Bay not far from where
Captain John Smith sailed four centuries ago.
"My family, like Helen's, is Anglo. My paternal grandparents came from England as
immigrants on a sailing vessel in the 1870s," Kent said. His great-grandparents homesteaded
in Canada at Brandy Lake, where his three-year-old grandfather slipped off a rock. " ... [He]
was saved by a Native American from the local tribe. Something also happened to one of his
sisters, and they named her Weinona, which is not an uncommon name, but it had
164
significance in their language," Kent said. His connection to the Institute enabled Kent to
develop new relationships. "I feel I've made friends in the Native American community as a
result of having those experiences."
I previously proposed that the Native cohorts' BJTI curriculum displayed elements of
Indigenous and European-American curricular traditions and in some cases operated at an
intersection of both traditions, depending upon the cohort. With the non-Native cohort, I
found that there is a similar intersection based on the inclusion of Indigenous content within
a European-American pedagogical framework. Table 7 shows how the non-Native BJTI
presenters form a distinct cohort on the basis of their personal schema and experiences.
Table 7
BJTI Non-Native Presenters' Paradigm
Paradigm
Ontology
Epistemology
Methodology
Axiology
Bridge Crossers
Native peoples and perspectives are a valued source of knowledge; colonialist knowledge appropriation and domination comprise half the story
Education is a joint and mutual venture; White knowledge workers contribute as allies respecting Native cultures and norms; both cultures benefit from collaboration
Use European-American accepted authority to empower Virginia Indian narrative; use European-American methods of research and presentation in collaboration with Native communities
Respect Native knowledge; incorporate oral history and Native perspective into scholarship to validate the perspective
The Keepers represent the greatest degree of Indigenous alignment in their
curriculum and pedagogy, whereas the Bridge Crossers are closest to the European-American
tradition. However, the Bridge Crossers directly support aspects of Indigenous knowledge
165
and Native perspectives individually as scholars, and in collective ways as a cohort. Whereas
insights on racial oppression and bias consistently were volunteered by the Keepers, Bridge
Builders, and Synthesizers as an essential, deeply felt part of their core beliefs, intentions and
goals as presenters, Bridge Crossers tended to focus on teaching methodologies and student
comprehension in their interviews; however, the ways in which they described their
presentations offered insights into what Helen, Jeffrey, and Kent believe is most important to
convey to teachers in their pedagogies and curriculum.
The Bridge Crossers' Curricula
In Chapter 7, Karenne Wood explained that she felt it was vital to include both
academic and tribal experts in the BJTI curriculum to acknowledge that both were equally
valued, and also to obtain the most knowledgeable and articulate presenters in each subject
area. The Bridge Crossers synthesize the Indigenous and European-American teaching
traditions through their academic support for Native perspectives on the past and present. I
found that while the three Native cohorts demonstrated that the experience of being Indian
was central to what they taught in the Institute, the Bridge Crossers valued Native history and
Native perspectives and incorporated both into their presentations.
Core Beliefs
The core belief system construct identifies BJTI presenters' foundational beliefs as
expressed in their interviews, with the Native BJTI presenters accentuating aspects of the
Virginia Indian experience that they, their elders, and communities have felt were most
important to convey to teachers. In comparison, the non-Native presenters developed their
presentations based on academic research and data that substantiates the Virginia Indian
narrative and enhances it. Their main teaching points signal specific core beliefs. They
correct the traditional master narrative of Virginia by rejecting a longstanding dependency on
colonial English historical. Instead, they promote emerging archeological data, scientific
evidence, and historical documentation that validate alternative Native perspectives on the
past.
166
Jeffrey pointed out that most Virginia histories have ignored Indian cultures in favor
of the need to place the Powhatan Indians in "a larger temporal and geographic framework"
with the interior cultures living in Virginia in 1607, a significant teaching point that has been
overlooked in the majority of Virginia textbooks and classrooms. He explained to the
teachers about the Jamestown effect:
In Quebec, in Santa Fe, Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous scholars are always
creating regional pictures - Taos ties to the Plains, the Quebec area to Algonquins
and Iroquois and others. The Chesapeake is really odd in the way we keep our focus
traditionally on the local theater of interaction between Powhatan and the English.
This is true historically as well. While the numbers have changed over the years it is
still usually a new insight for the teachers to think about Spanish presence in
Chesapeake in 161h century and the failure, not disappearance, of the Roanoke
Colony.
Contesting prevailing assumptions and knowledge gaps was also important to Helen
and Kent. Because of his background is in the physical sciences rather than the social
sciences, Kent's presentations with Helen both years presented an interdisciplinary view of
the Chesapeake Bay to their audiences. "I brought to that not only this ecological history
background, but also my background as a sailor," Kent said.
Kent's subject was the Chesapeake Bay as it was in the early colonial era when
Captain John Smith explored it. The foundations of his talk came from a conversation 25
years before, when some DC wastewater treatment plant facilitators spoke with Kent. "They
167
told me that the river was perfectly healthy, the Potomac River was perfectly fine," he
recalled. "It was, indeed, extremely polluted. And they said, 'We'll never know how it was
in John Smith's time."'
That prompted Kent to read Smith's writings for the first time, to begin in-depth
research, and to tie the Bay's history to the condition of the Bay and its surrounding regions
today, "in the hope that they will provide some kind of lesson or object lesson for instructing
modem Chesapeake Bay residents." Through his presentation he showed that because of the
impact of colonization and English resource use, it became very difficult for the Native
peoples to maintain their own cultures.
"Kent was much more specialized than I," Helen said. "His topic was actually
narrower, because I could have taken off in 18 different directions." Therefore, Helen
directed her commentary to the ecological history that Kent was addressing, focusing her
remarks on how Indians fit into ecology. As the author, co-author, or editor of a significant
body of work on the Powhatan Indians and their descendants, Helen Rountree's research has
supported Virginia Indian initiatives for federal recognition, particularly in the absence of
records altered in the Plecker era that would document tribal continuity in the last century.
She has testified on these tribes' behalfbefore the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.24
Knowledge Sources and Knowledge Integration
Where did the Bridge Crossers gain the knowledge they shared with the BJTI teacher
participants, and how did they integrate that knowledge into their presentations? These non-
Native presenters are content specialists recognized in academe through their published
scholarship and professional activities. Their areas of knowledge inform and support the
Virginia Indian historical narrative by using primary sources, fieldwork, and scientific
24 Testimony before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition ActS. 480, June 21, 2006, http://www.indian.senate.gov/public/ _files/Rountree062106.pdf
168
analysis to contest Eurocentric assumptions within the European-American teaching tradition
or lecture format. Jeffrey Hantman noted that he has researched and written about Monacan
Indian archeology since about 1990, adding, "I have worked collaboratively with the
Monacan Museum and individuals - Karenne Wood, Diane Shields, and Phyllis Hicks - on
research, publishing, and public presenting."
In her 2007 and 2008 presentations, Helen relied on an extensive database she has
developed on Virginia Indian historical and cultural studies, a database that supports what is
in the traditional Indian culture with "what was actually out there in the records." Her first
BJTI invitation was to participate in the 2007 Institute at the University of Virginia and the
request, she said: "was fairly specific. I was supposed to do Indian ecology, and how they
lived close to the land. Until I had done about 35 years of intensive study, I couldn't have
done that subject because I had to reconstruct Powhatan ethnobotany. So I was there because
of my scattergun approach. And it was even clearer in 2008 when essentially Karenne said,
"I've got the following speakers, can you fill in?" And I said, "Sure, whatever the gap is, I
may be able to fill it, and ifl can't, I'll shut up."
Helen began her research related to Virginia Indians in 1969, and said that through
using what she calls a "scattergun approach," she then found herself covering "a tremendous
amount" of information both historically and culturally. She organized the materials and
prepared a Power Point for her presentations both years but was prepared to add more
information from her database as additional relevant comments. Helen commented, "I'm
continually working over my database and continually adding to it, so I'm staying current in
an awful lot of stuff."
All three experts have collaborated through scholarship as well as the Institute with
each other as well as Virginia Indian tribes, museums, and organizations. Jeffrey contributed
169
a chapter to Powhatan Foreign Relations 1500-1722, which Helen edited (Rountree, 1993).
Kent co-authored John Smith's Chesapeake Voyages 1607-1609 (Rountree, Clark, and
Mountford, 2007).
Table 8 summarizes my analysis of the three non-Native presenters' views of their
curricula according to core beliefs, knowledge sources, format, content, and intended
outcomes, as based on their interview responses and compared to those of the Native cohorts.
Table 8
BJTI Non-Native Presenters' Teaching Traditions: Curriculum
Bridge Crossers
Core Belief System Integrate Native history and European-American academic approach (IlEA)
Knowledge Integration Use primary sources, oral history, and related scholarship (IlEA)
Format Restructure beliefs and knowledge through collaborative research-based instruction (IlEA)
Content Use text, objects, and photographs plus oral histories to support research (IlEA)
Intended Outcome
Set collaborative research in European-American framework (IlE-A) Transmit collaborative history (IlEA)
Decolonize history; create shared meanings and conceptual change (IlEA)
Corroborate Native cultures, rights, and self-determination (IlEA)
Note: I= Indigenous; EA =European-American; I/EA =Interface of Indigenous and European-American traditions.
I found that just as the oral history dimension and traditional ways of knowing are a
common denominator between the three Native cohorts, traditional European-American ways
of teaching and learning are the common thread between the non-Native Bridge Crossers
Rather than using these methods to marginalize Native knowledge, this cohort employed
them as a form of empowerment for that knowledge.
Format and Content
170
The Bridge Crossers' BJTI presentation content was based upon their expertise and
research in subject areas contributing to teachers' understanding of Virginia Indian history
and culture. In addition to covering subject matter not addressed in detail by other speakers,
their subject areas covered three state regions important to the Virginia Indian narrative: 1)
the Piedmont and European-American Virginia, 2) the coastal plan, and 3), the Chesapeake
Bay. They shared an emphasis on factual knowledge derived from their research, and either
expanded or contested the traditional historical narrative.
In outlining his 2008 presentation, Jeffrey Hantman noted that he "lectured on the
contributions of archeology to learning about and documenting who the Monacans were in
history and are today," adding that there was "some emphasis on teachers' appreciating
cultural difference across Virginia, and some emphasis on Monacan history in the colonial
era." He contended there was bias in colonial records, whether intentional or not, stemming
from missing Indigenous perspectives, unexplored territories, and second- or third-hand
information in that era. For example, he stressed to the BJTI participants that archeological
data has refuted Captain John Smith's limited descriptions of the Monacan Indians.
Jeffrey also explained how both the written record and archeological data confirm
that the Monacans had not disappeared by the late 1 ih century, but instead chose not to trade
with the English. He gave the BJTI participants a deeper understanding of how archeology
functions in present day Monacan Indian politics and culture, specifically the repatriation of
artifacts to the Monacan museum in Amherst County, and the need to assist with such efforts
to return artifacts and rebury Native human remains. He concluded, as he said, by making
"the case for why we must look Beyond Jamestown to truly understand the past and the
present for Native people."
Intended Outcomes
171
The BJTI presenters and planners actively sought to expose their audience of
educators to a Native perspective on Virginia Indian history as part of their intended
outcomes in teaching about their areas of expertise within the program. There is a difference,
however, in how the Native cohorts and non-Native cohort viewed that responsibility in
terms of outcomes. The Keepers shared stories of major import regarding their own and
others' stories of endurance and survival, particularly in achieving education. The Bridge
Builders tried to institutionalize that oral history within society and especially within
education. The younger Synthesizers sought ways to essentially globalize that history.
Although the Bridge Crossers cohort adopted the primary BJTI goal of decolonizing
the mainstream historical narrative, their methods and intentions for creating change and
understanding centered on the cognitive rather than the affective domain. Their overall
responses did not address emotional reactions by the teachers; rather, they concentrated on
listeners' degrees of attention and comprehension regarding their subject areas.
Helen Rountree did not adjust her presentation style or content in advance for the
BJTI participants, working from an outline but spontaneously adding to it:
I taught freshmen for decades, usually at eight o'clock in the morning, so I know
what it takes to keep people interested even if they don't initially have an
interest. ... And the same kind of ad-libbing, throwing in wiseacre comments to keep
people awake, all that sort of thing, that's worked with so many different age groups,
I figured it could work with teachers as well. And that if they wanted the nitty-gritty,
they could ask me. But keep it general, and let them come up with more specific
questions later. That was the only strategy I really had.
Bridge Crossers' Pedagogy
172
Substantive interaction and shared knowledge based on research and collaboration
with tribal communities were foundational to Helen and Jeffrey's curricula, but their
instructional techniques and those of Kent Mountford were those they would use in university
settings. Their goals for their audiences typically centered on traditional European-American
goals of sharing factual knowledge and of ensuring the comprehension of that information.
Helen Rountree described how she adjusts to different levels of comprehension and interest.
I'm inclined to start off general for everybody. And then if I find out that they
actually know more or want to know more- and it would have to be the majority of
people in the room that did -okay, then I'll ratchet it up. I'll start talking a bit about
what evidence I have for what I'm saying.
At that level, Helen said, she would explain the difference between primary and
secondary sources and why primary sources are eyewitness accounts. "And then I'll say,
'Here's what the primary sources say."'
Table 9 summarizes how these non-Native components compare to those of the
Native cohorts. In sum, I found that the identifiable pedagogical objectives for their teaching
were based on years of teaching in the classroom, as were the ways they described their
techniques, use of electronic technology, and observations on classroom dynamics. Helen
also points out that the myths associated with history are usually entirely different: "I'll get
technical to that extent." At the next higher level, Helen said, "I'll start arguing about
different primary sources, which are more reliable, and which John Smith is more reliable
because of the year in which it was written. I ratchet things up." In the case of ecology, she
will go further into how scholars know how ecology works because of hard science, or
providing a more advanced look at how Native peoples in Virginia used resources. She
begins by telling students, "I'm dealing with people who were very busy, had limited time,
and would pick out certain plants because their edible parts were easily processed to make
food for the kids. And then I'll start going more specifically into plant species."
Table 9
BJTI Non-Native Presenters' Teaching Traditions: Pedagogy
Objectives
Techniques
Technology
Classroom Dynamic
Bridge Crossers
Reinforce Native perspectives by imparting academic knowledge and theories (VEA)
Use lectures followed by discussion to augment oral histories, text, and other resources (EA)
Use electronic media in BJTI to focus presentation
Do not deliver emotionally-charged content but may adjust for listeners' awareness and attention; stimulate discourse (EA)
Outcomes for Audiences Empower participants with awareness and knowledge; dispel stereotypes and validate collaboration(VEA)
Note: C = Curriculum; P = Pedagogy; I = Indigenous; EA =European-American; VEA = Interface of Indigenous and European-American traditions.
Objectives
173
In Chapter 7, I identified the Keeper's BJTI objectives and pedagogy as Indigenous in
their teaching through oral history, with the Bridge Builders and Synthesizers demonstrating
Indigenous characteristics in their own use of story and their commitment to it as a major
knowledge base. For all Native cohorts, audience reaction was described with an awareness
of the guilt, shock, or disbelief that listeners might feel learning about the racial prejudice
and violence directed at Virginia Indians in the 20th century, or being confronted by the
174
realities of racial stereotyping. Rather than basing their objectives on a purely Native
perspective, these three academics sought to demonstrate to the teachers certain fallacies or
shortcomings implicit in the accepted narrative. Each seemed to have an objective for
intellectual growth based on the discipline represented.
For Jeffrey Hantman, it was important to stimulate new awareness in the teachers of
connections between Native history and European-American thinking. He wanted to convey
the advocacy role of archeology in dispelling outdated theories and concepts, and in forging
mutual understanding. Jeffrey commented:
I think I try to convey that what they think of as archeology - finding things - is a
part but a small part of the contributions archeology can make to writing social
histories. And, that we need to listen to Native voices, Indigenous perspectives, in
our interpretation of the past. Material culture - artifacts - don't speak for
themselves and I hope to convey how European-American scientific thinking affects
most textbook archeology. We need to do something different here with the lead of
the VCI [Virginia Council on Indians], the tribes, and tribal leaders, and I hope to
convey that to the teachers.
That cross-cultural theme was applied by the Bridge Crossers in varied ways
individual to their disciplines. As a scientist, Kent Mountford said,
... When other cultures come in and march over the existing culture, regardless of
which culture it is- if it's our culture and the Zodiacans come in their rocket ships,
these interlopers are usually taking out a resource that they will use differently than
the Indigenous people. For example, the English came along and they said, "Wow,
walnut, let's cut the trees down for the lumber and make furniture." And that took
away from the natives the potential for having the nuts, the potential for making a
175
popular beverage that they concocted from that resource, and the potential for making
dyes that they needed, maybe for basket fibers or whatever.... So it became very
difficult for [the Natives] to survive using their traditionallifeways.
Helping the teachers to move beyond accepted Eurocentric assumptions about
indigenous cultures was another key point. "I taught [the BJTI participants] that American
Indians were not only human beings, they were human beings with ingenuity," Helen
emphasized. "So they had to know their world and they used it very, very cleverly." Helen
added that human ingenuity is worldwide: "You just don't find people smart enough to
domesticate animals and plants in one or two parts of the world. It wasn'tjust the Fertile
Crescent, and it certainly wasn't Europe."
Techniques and Technology
In their interviews, the Bridge Crossers were much more specific about their content
and their presentation methods than any specific pedagogical technique or philosophy. They
did not voice any concerns about how listeners received the information they presented on a
moral or developmental level, but did watch for audience attention and interaction rather than
cognitive dissonance. Helen said that she has a general philosophy of teaching:
I'm not sure how to articulate it. Actually, keep 'em awake is a great deal of it. I'm
sorry, but it's so easy for people to be distracted nowadays and their attention is
getting ever shorter. It was already bad in the Sixties when I started out. Keep their
attention, and then you can pound things in. But you've got to keep their attention
short of getting up and dancing on the table.
Jeffrey Hantman's response to the same question about his teaching philosophy was,
"Not that I can articulate. I love teaching." Kent Mountford said, "I'm not a teacher, and I
176
don't think that way." However, he went on to say, "I'm not a trained teacher; I think I'm a
teacher in the wider sense, I teach a lot, all the time."
Helen was not sure how to describe how she decided on her teaching methods, and
said, "I'm not sure not sure I know how to answer that one. I'm doing something; I just
haven't verbalized that particular thing. That's why I'm not into pedagogy, see. I do it, I
don't think about it."
In describing his methods, Jeffrey Hantman said,
I think that with teachers, I try to engage them in my own research path - the first
questions I asked, why I asked them, and how I went about trying to answer them.
The results seem to mean more and the teachers learn a specific but generalizable
lesson on how to approach colonial history (documents) and archeology both with
caution.
The specialized content that each of the Bridge Crossers brought to the overall program
content was delivered through the medium of Power Point presentations, and visuals were
important resources. Jeffrey Hantman explained: "I make an outline of the key points and do
my best to prepare a PowerPoint slide show- good graphics are hard to find for the Virginia
interior, and I talk about what that is, and how it affects teaching this material. He singled out
the 1612 map attributed to John Smith as reflective of his teaching practices in the Institute:
With that, I can say very positively what we learn, and I can show as well what is
missing on that map and how it can't be put in textbooks without comments. The
Monacans are mentioned, but they were always beyond were the English dared to go.
Thus, much of what we have been traditionally taught as fact from the written
observations of Smith is second and third hand information.
To Kent Mountford, his presentation was "about as much technical information as
you can throw at a relatively lay audience." He does not work from outlines, using the
PowerPoint format instead as an organizing strategy:
177
I think the bringing together of the images, the verbal - I originally used to script all
of my presentations so even the pauses and the sort of side comments were pre
planned in a written text. I got beyond that with the convenience of Power Point. I
think the presentations are less eloquent as a result of that. They flowed better when I
actually had preconceived the story, the jokes, the bullet points and such. But it's
become too time-consuming to do it. Lecturing's not really what I'm about. So they
get what comes out. I just do it the way it feels.
Helen also observed that PowerPoint lends itself to a linear style. "With Anglos, but
also with people who have to deal with Anglos, it gets you through the subject in an
organized way, without too many digressions that actually obscure the point that you're
trying to make at any given time."
What all three presenters agreed on was the importance of visuals to their narratives.
For Helen Rountree, the more striking the image, the better. "I want them to be pretty,
because people won't pay attention to them ifthey're ugly or badly focused or if they're not
centered," she emphasized. Further, she wants several shots of any point she makes:
I never wanted anything up longer than 20 seconds when I was teaching in the
classroom. And even that proved to be too long toward the end of my teaching
career, because people are used to changing images, and MTV has made it infinitely
worse. So multiple images, preferably of the same thing from different angles.
In her lectures, Helen used verbal imagery, drew on the blackboard and copied her
outline there before the advent of slide projectors. "People see better than they listen. So yes,
visuals are necessary," Helen said. "If you can keep them interested with the visuals, they
will also take in the things they are hearing."
Classroom Dynamics
178
Each non-Native presenter acknowledged variables that concern many educators in
21st century classrooms, including their listeners' attention spans, comprehension levels, and
degree of engagement with what they were presenting. Each worked from factual content as
their starting points and structured it within a guided presentation that was visually rather
than orally oriented.
This approach is not very different from those Native presenters who used
PowerPoints to convey information. Karenne Wood and Rhyannon Curry have developed
and used digital media methods with students in teaching college coursework and for
Karenne, other professional development seminars for teachers. Also, Gerri Reynolds
Wade's professional education experience allowed her to move between European-American
and Native teaching styles. She continually assessed her listeners' receptivity and
engagement, but employed an oral rather than visual presentation style in keeping with her
content. I found that in a similar way, the non-Native presenters structured their curriculum
and pedagogy as they would in higher education settings; they tended to assess listeners'
responses to their content and presentation styles and then adjust appropriately.
In speaking of her presentation style, Helen Rountree explained, "I always watch
faces. I don't watch any one individual and I only glance at people, because if you focus on
one person, then you start directing everything toward the one person." She continued:
So I glance, and I'm careful to look at both sides of the audience, and that sort of
thing. I try to make visual contact at least in one part of the lecture with everybody in
179
the room. And I know that it works because people come up to me afterwards, and
from what they say or ask, I know that they feel I've been talking to them personally.
However, she is not looking for any particular type of response with her strategy, "just
looking to see what they're doing." Both Helen and Kent spent time with the teachers
informally during meals, as did other presenters when their schedules permitted. Those
exchanges, like the question and answer sessions after each lecture, were important
components to Kent and an opportunity to gain knowledge himself:
I always try to keep the talk short enough that I can get responses from the audience,
and that will often teach me more than I think I taught them in the lecture, whether
it's true or not. Sometimes, people come up with anecdotes, historical insights,
experiences they've had, people they know- I'll end up writing down names and
email addresses, or the persons themselves may be a resource. And that's very
instructive, particularly with adult audiences.
Outcomes for Audiences
Previously in this chapter, the non-Native presenters' descriptions of their
backgrounds, experiences, and intentions as BJTI instructors helped to illustrate their how
their disciplines connect with Virginia Indian history and also with aspects of advocacy. For
Kent Mountford, expanding teachers' knowledge on ecological history was clearly important
to him in developing their appreciation for the Chesapeake Bay and eco-system, and to
knowledge of the basic components of that system: "Like the relationships of forest soils to
the moisture balance and streams, and things like that," he said, adding that such knowledge
could be added to over time to the curriculum. "There is a list of 20 objectives or bullet
points that you could eventually put on there."
180
In sharing his hopes for what teachers took away from his BJTI presentations, Jeffrey
Hantman said:
... I hope that teachers take away a history of the Monacan people, an understanding
of their continuing presence in the state, a critical look at how biased, intentionally or
not, colonial documents can be, how pernicious they have been to the Monacan
people from John Smith's misconceptions [onward], and how archeology can play
some role in helping to balance the written record.
Along with Jeffrey Hantman, Helen Rountree stressed the continuity oflndian tribes
in Virginia, commenting:
If I am doing a historical presentation, I've got one overall aim, and I learned it from
my teacher, Nancy Lurie, on the doctoral level. She worked with the Winnebago
Indians since the year I was born, which is now 65 years ago. She said, "Always get
across to your audience that the Indians are still here, even if it is a plug at the end.
Always get it across to people that Indians are still here, that it's a continuous
existence.
Jeffrey and Helen's goals suggest why they have successfully bridged cultures as
European-American-based academics, in that they have taken on advocacy roles through
their personal beliefs and disciplines. They are, in a sense, accepted based on years of
collaboration with tribal communities. During this study, the Institute's Native presenters
consistently referred to important relationships within families, within tribes and nations, and
between individuals. Such trust relationships have sustained their communities and their
cultural identities through extremely difficult times.
During the era in which the Racial Integrity Laws were in effect, some non-Native
advocates working in the spheres of education, religion, and government contested the
181
treatment Virginia Indians received. Anthropologist Frank Speck, for example, publicly
challenged Walter Plecker and his contention that Indians did not exist in Virginia. Speck
documented tribal continuity through his fieldwork within tribal communities, much as Helen
Rountree and Jeffrey Hantman have done in recent times. And Helen and Jeffrey are not the
only modem anthropologists to advocate for Virginia's Indigenous peoples' heritage
preservation; within this study though, they represent an academic community of
anthropologist-educators whose teaching, publications, and collaborative projects have
benefited the tribal communities in recognized ways.
Although he has not worked extensively with the Virginia Indians or other Native
peoples, Kent Mountford's expertise as an environmental historian is valued for several
reasons. He conveyed scientific concepts in non-technical language during his presentation,
which in part emphasized the Chesapeake Bay that John Smith, other English colonists, and
the Indigenous peoples lived with and utilized four centuries ago. His ecological concerns
about the effects of exploitation and overcrowding in the Chesapeake Bay basin resonate
with the sense of land stewardship that the BJTI tribal experts such as Samuel McGowan and
Ken Adams expressed in their interviews. In this sense, Virginia's land and waters are a
connecting link for Kent and other higher education faculty in related disciplines who work
with tribes in state.25
Another critical factor is the absence of education and citizenship rights Virginia
Indians before the 1960s made terminal teaching degrees in higher education extremely
unlikely given the lack of funding and accessibility. Therefore, non-Native scholars such as
Helen Rountree, Jeffrey Hantman, and Kent Mountford support the Plecker era generation in
25 For example, in the Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Dr. Jeffrey Kirwan currently works with tribal communities on an Indigenous ecology initiative.
terms of academic credentialing and filling in the research gaps that their Virginia Indian
peers might otherwise have filled.
182
By achieving higher levels of education particularly at the doctoral level, the Cohort
Two members (Bridge Builders) are acculturating and working in larger numbers within in
the European-American academic system as Native scholars. Cohort One (the Keepers)
model the persistence of their generation. Cohort Four members (the Bridge Crossers) show
us what might have been, had Virginia Indians not been barred by law from public schools
for decades and effectively for centuries by societal norms. They show us the promise of the
future, as Native educators increasingly take on these roles in the Commonwealth's
universities and K -12 classrooms. They also show us the possibilities of interdisciplinary
and cross-cultural collaboration.
In part due to Virginia Indians' pre-desegregation education hurdles, the Bridge
Crossers currently expand the professional ranks that Virginia Indian academics will fill as
more gain terminal degrees, teach, and in tum mentor junior Native scholars. I contend that
the acceptance of these non-Native experts as filling a critical need in the development and
transmission of a Virginia Indian epistemology occurs because of their beliefs and values are
compatible with those of their Native colleagues. In Chapter 9, I discuss the broader
implications ofthis academic interface in the Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute.
Chapter Nine Conclusions
This research study began as an exploration of pedagogy and curricula developed by
a specific community of invited scholars and tribal experts for the Beyond Jamestown:
Virginia Indians Past and Present Teachers' Institute in 2007 and 2008. These tribal and
academic experts, both Native and non-Native, collectively presented a Virginia Indian-
centered counter-narrative that was revisionist in its approach to educational assumptions and
to biases originating in Virginia's colonial history.
I have suggested that this counter-narrative is a unique phenomenon in Virginia by
virtue of the critical roles played by program coordinators and presenters as four distinct
groups: 1) the Keepers, whose stories of tribal survival during the Racial Integrity Act era
(1924-1967) are at the heart of the BJTI curriculum; 2) the Bridge Builders, who through
their greater post-segregation access to education and terminal degrees advance the
recognition of Virginia Indian perspectives in European-American academic settings; 3) the
Synthesizers, who as rising scholars and professionals will carry these stories further into the
21st century, and 4) the non-Native Bridge Crossers, whose bonds of trust and friendship in
the Virginia Indian communities have gained acceptance for their scholarship within the
BJTI, allowing them to contribute new interpretations of the Virginia Indian narrative within
that curriculum.
The relationships among these individuals, their characteristics, and their experiences
inform my analysis of their teaching methodologies as European-American, Indigenous, or
an interface of both paradigms. Contextually, the literature and historical background
described in this study suggest that lack of agency silenced Virginia Indian voices for
183
184
generations, hindering education for and about their peoples. This silence was enforced
through societal sanctions and power alliances within the dominant majority society that
denied full citizenship to Virginia's Native peoples, including the right to education and
cultural identity. Indian identity disappeared from birth and death certificates and marriage
licenses at the behest of Dr. Walter Ashby Plecker, director of the Bureau ofVital Statistics
from 1912 to 1946.
Within living memory, many Virginia Indians were impelled to leave the
Commonwealth in order for their children to gain a high school education, or forced to enroll
them in-state in private schools that welcomed Indian students. Some tribal communities
supported their own elementary-level schools and teachers in response, with the State
Department of Education providing elementary grade-level schools and teachers on the
Mattaponi and Pamunkey Indian reservations.
These ethnic-based sanctions within Virginia society produced historical unresolved
grief and trauma that have been expressed only recently outside tribal communities or
publicly acknowledged as an injustice. At the same time, Virginia Indians have continually
encountered popular misconceptions, stereotypes, and historical inaccuracies about their
cultures and history while Native viewpoints were ignored. By bringing Native and non
Native experts with recognized knowledge and presentation skills during the Institute's
formative years, the Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute signaled change in three vital
areas: collaboration, transformation, and education.
Collaboration
The BJTI demonstrated effective collaboration among educators who are influenced
by two different teaching paradigms, Indigenous and European-American. These Indigenous
and European-American paradigms produce distinct elements of pedagogy and curriculum
185
that in this study's analysis helped to identify characteristics of each of the BJTI presenters'
cohorts.
Based on the BJTI coordinators' and presenters' comments, the elements of both
paradigms were valued in the program's overall curriculum, and that these elements exist in
individuals' individual teaching methodologies to some degree based on membership in one
of the cohorts and its' characteristics. The tribal experts and academic experts contributed
important elements to the BJTI in each year. The tribal experts shared eyewitness stories that
simultaneously critiqued and expanded the master narrative. In each year's program, the
Native academic experts presented a Native perspective on the past and present,
incorporating European-American elements. The non-Native academic experts presented
supporting evidence for Native history and perspectives working within a European
American framework, but did so as collaborators familiar with Virginia Indian history,
cultures, and communities from their research and interactions with Native communities.
In the case of the current non-Native academicians who were Institute presenters,
Karenne used a very visual metaphor, saying, "These are people who have been invited
across the bridge because they came to the tribal communities with the right kind of respect."
Her comment indicates a crucial element: how Native peoples view non-Natives' academic
study and teaching. This perspective is a complex and sensitive issue. In many cases,
Virginia Indians and American Indians have been excluded from academic discourse except
in the third person, or misrepresented from their perspective. The scars created by
segregation and by centuries of colonialism have not disappeared. Thus, tribal communities
have often chosen not to collaborate with European-American researchers; yet, they have
collaborated with scholars who received legitimate entry into their communities through the
building of trust relationships of the kind Karenne described.
186
The absence of citizenship rights and the limited access to segregated education
foisted on Virginia Indians before the 1960s made the acquisition of terminal academic
degrees in higher education extremely unlikely. By achieving higher levels of education
particularly at the doctoral level, the Bridge Builders (Cohort Two) represent the first
collective Virginia Indian generation to acculturate and work in the European-American
academic system as Native scholars. Cohort One (the Keepers) model the persistence of
their generation. Cohort Three (the Synthesizers) and Four (the Bridge Crossers) confirm the
promise ofthe future as Native educators increasingly join the ranks of scholars in the
Commonwealth's universities and K-12 classrooms. They also reveal the potential of cross
cultural collaboration.
Additionally, the BJTI's development offered Native and non-Native educators a new
medium for discourse in an increasingly global society and parallels scholarship honoring
Native worldviews elsewhere. For the Native BJTI cohorts, particularly the Bridge Builders
and Synthesizers, global connections to Indigenous initiatives and scholarship link their
communities to a larger dialogue.
When cultural mediators work jointly as they did in the Beyond Jamestown program,
it moves Virginia Indians and all Native peoples from the "Other" or marginalized position in
society to an equal place in the classroom. In New Zealand, British rule and Indigenous
sovereignty were historically in conflict as in Virginia, an earlier English colonial project.
Yet there is a modem parallel between Maori scholar Mason Durie's vision of a mutually
respectful interface between Maori and Pakeha (non-Maori) knowledge workers in scientific
research, and the dynamic in operation between the BJTI's tribal historians, Native scholars,
and non-Native scholars. To apply this collaborative construct to education is a logical
progression. It has the capacity to engage Virginia teachers and students as agents of change
187
who move beyond understanding social reality to critically questioning its past and present
legitimacy.
Transformation
Within the BJTI program, Virginia Indians are transforming a painful past into a
healing history by telling stories of the Plecker era's impact, engaging teachers as potential
change agents to inform new generations of students. The BJTI presenters exposed the
programs' teacher audience to a little-known period in Virginia history-the era of Racial
Integrity Laws in effect between 1924 and 1967-and some experiences of Virginia Indians
who lived through it. Karenne Wood sees the telling of these life stories as restoring Indian
voices to the narrative:
Yes, that is the transformative moment, and that's something that you can't capture in
the textbook. You can show pictures of community life, you can show the grandma
sitting there showing the child how to make a basket or whatever. But until you
encounter that person's experience, and especially the ways in which they may have
suffered because of their identity- that's what people relate to. And it's kind oflike
when I was studying psychology in school. I would skip past the theoretical material
and go to the case study, because that's what's interesting. You want to hear about
the person, and what happened to the person, not the contextual stuff, [not] the big
words that interpret that experience.
By sharing this history, the BJTI's presenters demonstrated the continuity of Virginia
Indian heritage and memory within tribal communities. They overcame some of the silences
of the past, revealing the existence of aspects of modem Indian history that have been
overlooked-or ignored-in Virginia classroom instruction and in textbooks. In doing so, they
shed light on stereotypes and social injustice, foster a new awareness among their listeners
that then may be communicated in classrooms, and in tum encourage a new awareness in
their students that history is an amalgam of multiple voices and viewpoints.
Education
188
The tribal experts identified in the Keepers cohort are skilled presenters familiar with
European-American education from their own backgrounds and advocacy activities, but who
used an Indigenous story-telling style for their presentations. Native academic experts in the
Bridge Builders and Synthesizers cohorts typically incorporated planned curricula, lecture
formats with audio-visual resources that are part of their own European-American-based
education. All three Native cohorts were aware of audience reaction to their presentations,
but adjusted in some cases and not in others for shock, disbelief, or similar responses from
teacher-participants. The Bridge Crossers incorporated European-American elements into
their presentations as non-Native scholars, but focused on evidential rather than experience
based knowledge. Both are foundational systems with the potential to decolonize history and
to privilege Native ways of knowing. Both were of value to the BJTI's central goal, which
was to introduce educators to a Virginia Indian perspective on history.
A distinct Virginia Indian epistemology emerged within the BJTI in its first two years
as a teacher development program; the epistemology surfaced, particularly in the curricula
and pedagogies of its Native presenters. The core of the program focused on the Keepers'
stories as modem oral history, presented in tandem with related teaching points on Native
issues today, cultural stereotypes, academic research, and the updated information teachers
received on related discoveries in ecological-history, ethno-history, and archeology from
Native and non-Native presenters.
As a case study, the BJTI demonstrated that through the institution of education,
Virginia Indians are reclaiming the place of their heritage and identity in Virginia's master
189
historical narrative. Vine DeLoria Jr. (2009) noted that cross-cultural exchanges, particularly
in the United States, are not balanced dialogues; rather, the larger culture controls the
exchange. He cautioned that:
Cross-cultural work, if it is to prove useful and ethical, should also subject the
ideas of the larger culture to critique by those of the smaller in such a manner
as to help create a new intellectual framework that partially transcends each
culture. (p. 2)
Through the pedagogies and curricula its presenters have offered, the Beyond
Jamestown Teachers' Institute was, in fact such a transcendent concept in action. It was a
deliberate reclamation of heritage and identity from the majority culture. It demonstrated
teaching effectively at a cultural interface between two cultures that historically were not
equals. This program, in its first two formative years, also demonstrated Virginia Indians'
agency in inviting non-Native presenters and the BJTI teacher-participants "across the
bridge."
In part due to Virginia Indians' pre-desegregation education hurdles, the non-Native
scholars currently expand the professional ranks that Native academics will fill as more gain
terminal degrees, teach, and in tum mentor junior Native scholars. These non-Native experts
answer a critical need in the development and transmission of a Virginia Indian
epistemology; within the BJTI, their research and knowledge areas, along with those of the
tribal experts, completed the curriculum. Their acceptance by various tribal communities has
occurred because their beliefs and values are compatible with those of their Native
colleagues.
190
Recommendations
The Beyond James town Teachers' Institute illustrated the power of shared
experiences and relationships to become a decolonizing force in education. Throughout my
interviews with the BJTI coordinators and presenters, I found that this potential existed in the
strength of their commitments and in the knowledge they brought to their roles. I do not
presume to share their informed insights in envisioning what the BJTI may become;
however, I would like to suggest two potential lines of research. Each by rights should be
conducted in collaboration with Virginia Indians and allied organizations.
1. Further study of the BJTI as a learning community. The BJTI is poised to
continue to be a significant and evolving resource in teacher development. After a one-year
hiatus due to economic conditions, the BJTI resumed in Summer 2010 in a new higher
education venue, the School of Continuing Studies (SCS) at the University of Richmond,
where 15 local teachers participated in a different format. Karenne Wood explained that in
comparison to the funded 2007 and 2008 programs, the 2010 program participants paid a
reduced SCS fee to take the course and earn graduate credit. Karenne noted that she and
Wayne Adkins, assistant chief of the Chickahominy Indian Tribe were the 2010 presenters:
"Wayne spoke about [the] 20th-century Indian experience. This summer, it will probably be
me and Powhatan [Red Cloud-Owen]. Pow has been to speak at my UVa class and will
probably do that again this semester."
It is highly possible that such modifications will occur as the BJTI responds to
educational needs and economic conditions in the state, and its own funding capabilities.
Currently, Virginia Indian resources vetted by Native educators are available through the
State Department of Education and the Virginia Indian Heritage Program web sites, and
support the major Standards of Learning revisions implemented in 2010. As Freire (1994)
envisioned it, education is potentially emancipatory in theory and application.
191
It would be worthwhile to study the participants' views in relation to Freire's
construct, in addition to those of those program's presenters, to determine if the Beyond
Jamestown Teachers' Institute program and presenters indeed brought participants to that
stage of inquiry. Such a transformative learning environment has the potential to lessen the
impact of cognitive dissonances that both the Native presenters and the non-Native BJTI
students may experience from stories of past oppression or frank discussions of the impact of
stereotypes. It may also bring people together in advocacy; Rhyannon Curry saw indications
of this happening in the first year of the Institute:
I think [the teachers] realized what an awesome position, and what a position of
responsibility, that they were in. And that was part of our goal, to get this feeling
across that here's this history that is so messed up, so full of oppression and
exclusion. Where do we all-not just you as teachers, but we as co-coordinators, as a
non-Native organization, as a Native organization-where, as a community and as a
group of humans, do we go from here? And I remember leaving that week with a lot
of hope.
Karenne Wood also noted that in the post-program evaluations for both 2007 and
2008, many participants indicated that transformation happened to them personally as well as
professionally, especially in the first year: "[The teachers] felt there was a passion that they
captured and took with them. And in that way, they were hugging and almost crying when
they left."
More may be learned about the institute from research focusing on the educators
participating in future programs, given the coordinators' observations of both years and data
192
available through program evaluations. Such research may take the form of pre- and post
institute surveys on a year-to-year basis, with follow-up questionnaires to learn how past
participants implement what they learned in their own classrooms, to what extent their BJTI
participation affected their knowledge of Virginia Indians, and whether the program
enhances their pedagogy and curricula at different grade levels. However, I believe that there
is added value in conducting qualitative research that explores these issues with in-depth,
open-ended questions. I often found during my interviews for this study that my initial
questions led to new questions and significant new insights that I did not foresee, and this
may well be an outcome of similar research with the BJTI participants. Such research
combined with evaluation and survey data would offer a deeper look into the dynamics of the
institute from the learners' perspectives.
2. Support for further study of Virginia Indian education agency during the
Racial Integrity Act period in collaboration with Virginia Indian tribes and related
organizations. One of the most inspiring aspects of conducting this research was talking
with those who have felt the effects of racism yet have transcended it to teach with tolerance
and dedication. Like many teachers attending the BJTI programs, I previously was unaware
of the extreme severity of the laws affecting Virginia Indians, the sacrifices that families and
tribal communities made in providing educational opportunities for their youth, and their
extraordinary resilience in the face of oppression.
I contend that it is vital to support the collecting of personal histories from tribal
members and other witnesses to the segregation era. These histories document the
determination ofNative people in Virginia to secure education despite legal, social and
economic hurdles, and should be recognized as part of the Commonwealth's state history.
For example, the Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe is actively compiling such materials in
193
connection to the Sharon Indian School located in King William County. The school was
built in 1952 on the foundation ofthe 1919 one-frame schoolhouse originally constructed by
members of the Upper Mattaponi tribe. Tribal members have restored the brick building and
their preservation efforts have resulted in the school building being officially recognized as a
state and national historic landmark, with a highway marker also marking its history. The
school is now the focus of an extensive oral history project as collaboration between the
Upper Mattaponi tribe, Virginia Commonwealth University, and the Virginia Foundation for
the Humanities. There are other schools' histories that could be documented, educational
advocacy efforts by organizations and individuals during segregation that should be
recognized, and official records to study in connection with the Virginia Department of
Education and county governments-both of which interacted with Indian schools during the
era when the Racial Integrity Laws were in effect.
The Beyond Jamestown program and its presenters signify an important shift toward
giving voice to the silences of the Virginia Indian past and in encouraging a cross-cultural
interface through education. Although Virginia Indians historically have been marginalized
by education, the institute was an important step in transformation to empowerment and
enlightenment.
The BJTI Native presenters continually demonstrated an acceptance of current
realities in K-16 education; but as was the case during in the 201h century, they feel education
is a keystone to maintaining and advancing Virginia Indian cultural identity and rights in the
larger society. Karenne Wood said:
Over time, I would love for the whole institute to become unnecessary, because there
will be so many people who are aware of the Virginia tribes that they wouldn't need
194
this information. And I could imagine that in my wildest dreams, I guess. I think it's
going to be more than ten years coming, unfortunately.
When asked how long it would take for Virginia Indian history to become
institutionalized in school curricula, Karenne responded:
I think it will be more than a generation, because we're presenting the new
information year by year, but the children's parents have that old mindset. And the
children themselves come equipped with their stereotypes. They've already seen
Disney's Pocahontas by the time they get to kindergarten. They've already had the
comments of their parents and friends, and they come with this mindset of what is a
real Indian surprisingly young.
Despite their collective opinion that such deeply embedded beliefs within education
and society cannot be overcome soon, Native presenters are prepared to persist. "The
teachers have a great interest in what we have to say, the things we bring to them, and they're
the ones who will have the one-to-one contact with the children," Arlene Milner noted. "And
I guess we're just going to have to wait and let time tell the story."
From her vantage point, Rhyannon Curry made this statement about what lies ahead
for Virginia Indians and education initiatives like the Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute.
Her statement epitomizes the tenacity of the BJTI Native presenters' commitment to their
people's making history in addition to teaching it:
We're starting to come into a time of empowerment. And it's not total empowerment
yet, but we're starting to get there. And maybe we'll eventually get there.
Everything's cool and groovy. It won't be in my lifetime, but it's something to work
towards. And every little step helps.
195
In his 1956 book Segregation: The Inner Conflict in the South, Robert Penn Warren
wrote, "We are the prisoners ofhistory. Or are we?" Through this study, I have come to
believe that the Virginia Indian people's answer to that question is, and will always be, "No!"
The pain of the past is countered by the pride of the modem Indian peoples in Virginia, and
by the joint commitment that tribal experts, Native academics, and Anglo academics have to
teaching- at the interface of cultures.
Dear [Title] [Last Name]:
Appendix A Participant Invitation Letter
I am conducting a study involving faculty members of the 2007 and 2008 Beyond Jamestown: Virginia Indians Past and Present Teachers' Institute summer seminars. This study is part of the requirement for completion of a Doctor of Education degree in the Educational Policy, Planning, and Leadership Program at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. The purpose of the study is to document curriculum and pedagogical practices of the Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute's Native and non-Native faculty members, in order to explore differences and similarities in how they teach. The term "faculty" defines individuals who are recognized within and without the Virginia Indian communities as experts in related fields and as such were invited to teach in one or both of the Beyond Jamestown program's first two years (2007 and 2008).
I believe that in its development and first two years of operation, the Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute presented significant innovations in cross-cultural education that deserve study and documentation. Its faculty members represent a crucial link to understanding the program's effectiveness. This study follows a 2008 quantitative study of measureable gains by Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute teacher-participants. I presented those findings from that study at the 2009 Virginia Indian Nations Summit on Higher Education (VINSHE), and results of the 2010 study are available for distribution to all interested stakeholders.
If you consent to take part in this study, I will ask you questions about your teaching methodology, life history and cultural background. This will enable me to gain insights into the worldviews and experiences that you and other Beyond Jamestown faculty members hold. I will schedule an initial interview of approximately one to one-and-a-halfhours for each participant at a convenient time and a follow up interview as needed.
At the beginning of the interview, I will review the study's purpose, also reviewing its confidentiality and consent perimeters. You may select a pseudonym if you wish, and may elect not to answer particular interview questions. If you request that certain information remain confidential and not used in the study, I will abide by your request. I will safely secure all transcripts and related materials in a locked file box during the study.
If you have electronic or written documents related to the Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute that you feel reflect your teaching methodologies, I will ask you to share them with me. However, this act is voluntary. I will ask you to review interview transcriptions to check and correct any factual errors, and to clarify any misunderstandings. There are no foreseeable risks associated with participation in this study. You may discontinue participation in this study may withdraw at any time during interviews or by notifying me by email or telephone.
197
198
The anticipated benefits of this study will be to expand the knowledge base regarding faculty pedagogy and curricula in the Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute that may transfer to other cross-cultural education settings and to document the Beyond Jamestown program's value as a significant example of Virginia Indian educational innovation that has implications in other cross-cultural settings. In addition, you may gain insights into your own perceptions and experiences.
Thank you very much for considering this request. If you are willing to participate, please contact me at 757-810-2525 or lisaheuvel@cox.net. You also may contact Dr. Dorothy Finnegan, chair of my dissertation committee, at definn@wm.edu with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Lisa Heuvel Ed.D. Candidate, School ofEducation The College of William and Mary
Appendix B
Participant Informed Consent Form
I, , agree to participate in a phenomenological study involving faculty members of the 2007 and 2008 Beyond Jamestown: Virginia Indians Past and Present Teachers' Institute summer seminars. This study is part of the requirement for completion of a Doctor of Education degree in the Educational Policy, Planning, and Leadership Program at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. The purpose of this study is to document the curriculum and pedagogical practices of the Native and non-Native faculty members who taught in the Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute in order to explore differences and similarities in the content and techniques of these teachers. The term "faculty" defines individuals who are recognized within and without the Virginia Indian communities as experts in related fields and as such were invited to teach in one or both of the Beyond Jamestown program's first two years (2007 and 2008).
As a participant, I understand that I will be asked questions related to my life history and cultural background, my views and experiences concerning how I integrate curriculum and pedagogy into my teaching and my perceptions of the Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute from my perspective as a faculty member. I also understand that honesty and accuracy in my responses is critical to this study.
The estimated time commitment expected of me is approximately one to one-and-ahalf hours for the initial interview in which I agree to participate, and approximately one hour if a follow up interview is needed for clarification or expanded topics. In the interest of confidentiality, I understand that I may select a pseudonym. The Virginia Foundation for the Humanities, the Virginia Indian Heritage Program, and the Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute will be identified by name in the study with permission from these organizations.
I understand that I do not have to answer all the questions asked of me during either interview. I understand that ifl have electronic or written documents that I feel reflect my teaching methodologies, I will be asked to share one or more that are specific to the Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute, and that this is voluntary. At the conclusion of the study, any artifacts will be returned to me if I request them or will be destroyed. I agree to read and review the transcriptions generated during each of my interviews to check and correct any factual errors and to elaborate on any misunderstandings.
There are no foreseeable risks associated with participation in this study. If for any reason I wish to discontinue my participation in this study, I understand that I may withdraw my consent at any time during the interviews or by notifying Lisa Heuvel by email or telephone. Anticipated benefits of this study are to expand the knowledge base regarding faculty pedagogy and curricula in the Beyond Jamestown: Virginia Indians Past and Present Teachers' Institute and for participants to gain insights into their own and others' perceptions and experiences in this area. The completed study will be available to all participants.
199
200
I have been informed that any information obtained in this study will be recorded with a pseudonym of my choosing, so that only the primary researcher is aware of my identity. At the study's conclusion, the key linking me with the pseudonym will be destroyed. I acknowledge that individual discussions will be audio taped to ensure the accuracy of the data analyzed, and that the tapes will be safely secured for the duration of the study. At its conclusion, the tapes will be erased and will no longer be available for use. All efforts will be made to conceal my identity in the final report if requested and to keep my personal information confidential.
If I have any questions related to my participation in this study, I may contact Dr. Dorothy Finnegan, chair of the researcher's dissertation committee, at definn@wm.edu. I understand that I may report any problems or dissatisfaction to Dr. Thomas Ward, chair of the School of Education's Internal Review Committee at (757) 221-2358 or tward@wm.edu, or Dr. Michael Dechenes, chair ofthe Protection of Human Subjects Committee at the College of William and Mary at (757) 221-2778 or rnrdesc@wm.edu.
My signature below signifies that I am at least 18 years of age, that I have received a copy of this consent form, and that I consent to the conditions outlined above.
Date Participant
Date Investigator
THIS PROJECT WAS FOUND TO COMPLY WITH APPROPRIATE ETHICAL STANDARDS AND WAS EXEMPTED FROM THE NEED FOR FORMAL REVIEW BY THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE (Phone 757-221-3966) ON March 25,2010 AND EXPIRES ON March 25, 2011.
Appendix C
Presenter Interview Protocol
I. Introduction A. What is your educational background? B. What is your family background? C. What has been your role in the Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute? D. In what years have you been involved with the institute? E. What in your background prepared you to take on this role? F. Please describe your BJTI presentation as much as possible.
II. Curriculum
A. How did you go about planning your presentation content for these teachers? B. Why did you choose your topics over other topics? C. What resources are important to you, and why? D. What were your goals for developing your curriculum or presentation content? E. What kinds of things do you hope teachers take away from your presentation?
III. Pedagogy
A. Did you have a general philosophy of teaching? B. How did you decide on the pedagogy or teaching methods to use in your
presentation? C. How did you choose these methods over other strategies? D. In what ways do you feel that these teaching methods were effective in achieving
your student learning goals?
IV. Artifact
A. Is there a document or other artifact you wish to share that relates to your teaching methodology? Please describe it in your words.
B. How does this artifact reflect your teaching practices in the Institute?
V. Conclusion
A. If it was ten years from now and the Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute had continued, the Virginia Standards of Learning were revised again, and textbooks also had additional updated content on Virginia Indian history and cultures, howor would you-change the way you presented in the Institute? Why or why not?
B. Is there anything else that you consider important or would like to add?
201
Appendix D
Interview Codes and Descriptions
Advocacy/Empowerment: Forms of decolonizing and desensitizing as well as promoting Native Identity
Ancestors:
Beliefs:
Bias:
BJTI:
BJTI Gaps:
BJTI Participants:
BJTI Presenters:
Bridging:
Change:
Collective Memory:
Colonialism:
Community:
Decolonizing:
Education/Teachers:
Environment:
References to generations past in Native participants' families and tribes
Relates to attitudes and belief systems
Examples of prejudice
Relates to BJTI program in general
Omissions in program noted by participants
Educators participating in BJTI program
Presenters' educations, family backgrounds, and multicultural connections
Everything related to bridging cultures through BJTI and other channels
Descriptions of change and empowerment
Preserved past experience of Native American tribes and nations
Related to attitudes, actions, and policies stemming from governmental control of Indigenous peoples
Reference to group with regional, social, and cultural connections; in this case, American
Any action that resists or disempowers imperialist behaviors, policies, and actions
Perceptions of education and teachers
Climate or setting
202
European-American:
Experience/Stories:
Fear:
Formal Education:
Future:
Refers to European, also Western points of view and knowledge
Narratives, oral history, and text; perceptions of storytelling
Apprehension of possible outcomes or changes
Presenters' formal schooling backgrounds
203
Participants' thoughts and opinions about BJTI and education in years ahead
Hopes: Wish or expectation of certain outcomes
Indigenous: Native points of view and knowledge
Knowledge Preservation: Sustaining traditional beliefs and information
Multicultural Background: Participants' descriptions of diversity within their families
Native Presenters:
Non-Native Presenters:
Pedagogy:
Perspective:
PresentationNisual
Presentation/Oral
Pride:
Processes:
Racism:
Segregation:
Self-Reflection:
BJTI participants with American Indian and Virginia Indian heritage
BJTI presenters with heritage other than American Indian
BJTI pedagogy and other teaching described by participants, including intent and goals
Point of view
Presenters' descriptions of presentations, primarily visual, with PowerPoint or other images
Presenters' descriptions of their teaching styles as primarily oral, not visual
Feelings of self-respect, or esteem for something or someone else
BJTI-related sequence of actions
Examples of prejudice
Virginia policies concerning Virginia Indians following enactment of Racial Integrity Act of 1924
Presenters' views of their teaching, attitudes, and beliefs related to interview process
SOLs:
Spirituality:
Teaching Skills:
Teaching Background:
Pertaining to Virginia Standards of Learning
Beliefs of a spiritual nature
Presenters' descriptions of their skill sets
BJTI participants' and coordinators' backgrounds in formal teaching in the classroom
204
Teaching Goals: Presenters' expressed learning goals for BJTI participants, their own teaching goals
Teaching Philosophy: Participants' stated concept of their teaching missions
VA Segregation/Family: Related to family experiences of segregation in Virginia
VA Segregation/Personal: Related to individuals' experiences of Virginia segregation
Values: Worthwhile principles
Appendix E
Researcher as Instrument Statement
I first became aware of Virginia Indian history and cultures as a museum educator in 1998. Although I had written about colonial Virginia, I was more attuned to English history. In the course of my museum education work and Master's studies over seven years, I gained an elemental knowledge, enough to sense disconnects in how Virginia Indians, historians, educators, students, and the general public perceived the colonization of Virginia and its subsequent development. During my doctoral studies, I progressed to a much deeper appreciation of the complexities of this contested historical narrative, especially Virginia Indians' cultural survival through specific strategies such as education. I also began to teach teachers about the history of colonial Virginia. My intention is to explore the teaching of the presenters of the BJTI, and on a deeper level, to explore the program's worth and meaning in 21 81-century Virginia. I want to understand my biases as they affect the development of my dissertation. I have had to learn to confront my own emotions about past and current injustices to American Indians in Virginia, particularly as I acquired a deeper knowledge of Virginia history, and so have a deep interest in the dynamics involved in the Beyond Jamestown: Virginia Indians Past and Present Teachers' Institute.
As a museum educator, I began with minimal knowledge of the history and the cultures of Virginia Indians, past and present. I accepted Eurocentrically-based historical interpretation and then began to question it in my readings and studies. I realized that interpretation is prone to both deliberate and unintentional bias; as I met Virginia Indian people, I realized that there an alternative narrative existed and began to quest for new sources. This led to active collaboration with members of the Virginia Indian community and non-Native scholars working with them, and to an active phase of study and community service in higher education for teacher development and Native college student recruitment. During this time, I attended the first Beyond Jamestown Teachers' Institute as a participant and returned the following year to coordinate the 2008 Institute at The College of William and Mary while conducting a quantitative study measuring participants' gains. I have since continued to work in higher education initiatives and teacher development related to the Virginia Indian people. I am still pondering the threads of research and responsibility inherent in my research. However, I know that I wish to open a window into the compelling and complex epistemology of the educators both Native and non-Native that I interview, and to show the education landscape from their perspective.
205
References
Abu-saad, I., & Champagne, D. (2006). Indigenous education and empowerment:
International perspectives. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.
Adams, K. (2009). Foreword. In The Virginia Indian heritage trail (3rd ed.), 12-23. K.
Wood (Ed.). Charlottesville, VA: Virginia Foundation for the Humanities.
Adams, M., Bell, L.A., & Griffin, P. (2007). Teachingfor diversity and social justice (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Ah Nee-Benham, A., and Cooper, J. (2000). Indigenous educational models for
contemporary practice: In our mother's voice. Mahweh, NJ and London, England:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Alaska Native Knowledge Network (2003). Guidelines for cross-cultural orientation
programs. University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AL, 2-12.
Ambrosio, A. I., Sequin, C. A., & Hogan, E. I. (2001). Assessing performance-based
outcomes of multicultural lesson plans: A component within a comprehensive teacher
education assessment. Multicultural Perspectives, 3 (1), 15-22.
Asher, N. (2007). Made in the (multicultural) U.S.A.: Unpacking tensions of race, culture,
gender, and sexuality in education. Educational Researcher, 36, (65-73).
Axtell, J. (1988). After Columbus: Essays in the ethnohistory of colonial North America.
New York, NY and Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.). Annals of child development, I
Six theories of chil4 development, 6, 1-60. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Retrieved from
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Bandura1989ACD.pdf
206
Barnhardt, R., & Kawagley, A. 0. (2005). Indigenous knowledge systems/ Alaska Native
ways ofknowing. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 36 (1), 8-23. Retrieved
from
207
http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/Curriculum/Articles/BarnhardtKawagley/Indigenous Know
ledge.html, ~ 20).
Banks, J. A. (2001). Citizenship education and diversity: Implications for teacher education.
Journal ofTeacher Education, 52 (1), 5-16.
Banks, J. A., and Banks, C. A. (Eds.). (1997). Multicultural education: Issues and
perspectives (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Barr, R. B. & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning--a new paradigm for undergraduate
education. Change Magazine, 27 (6), 12-25
Bataille, G. M. (200 1 ). Native American representations: First encounters, distorted images,
and literary appropriations. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Bell, L.A. (2007). Overview: Twenty-First Century Racism. In M. Adams, L.A. Bell, & P.
Griffin, (Eds.). (2007). Teachingfor diversity and social justice (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Routledge, 11 7-122.
Bess, J. L. (1998). Teaching well: Do you have to be schizophrenic? The Review of Higher
Education 22 (1), 1-15.
Beverly, J. (1999). Subalternity and representation: Arguments in cultural theory. Durham,
NC: Duke University Press.
Bigge, M. & Shermis, S. S. (1999). Learning theories for teachers (61h ed.). New York, NY:
Longman.
Blu, K. (1980). The Lumbee problem: the making of an American Indian people. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
208
Bogdan, R. C., and Biklan, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction
to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bolinger, K., & Warren, W. J. (2007). Methods practiced in social studies instruction: A
review of public school teachers' strategies. The International Journal of Social
Education, 22 (1), 68-84. Retrieved from Education Complete database.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. The Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. California: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Brave Heart, M. Y., and DeBruyn, L. M. (1998). InS. M. Manson (Ed.). American Indian
and Alaska Native Mental Health Research: The Journal of the National Center,
Vol. 8, (2), 60-82.
Brinkley, A. (2008). Unfinished nation: A concise history of the American people (5th ed.)
Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
Brown, J. E., & Cousins, E. (2001). Teaching spirits: Understanding Native American
religious traditions. Oxford, England and New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bruyneel, K. (2007). The third space of sovereignty: The postcolonial politics of
U.S-Indigenous relations. Indigenous Americas Series, R. Warrior and J. Weaver
(Eds.). Minneapolis, WI and London: University of Minnesota Press.
Cajete, G. (1999). The making of an indigenous teacher: Insights into the ecology of
teaching. In J. Kane (Ed.), Education, information, and transformation:
Essays on learning and thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, 1999, 161-
183.
Cajete, G. (2004). Look to the Mountain: An ecology of Indigenous education (5th printing).
Skyland, NC: Kivaki Press.
209
Calloway, C. G. (1999). First peoples: A documentary survey of American Indian history.
Boston, MA and New York: Bedford/St. Martin's.
Cardinal, P. (1999). Aboriginal perspective on education: A vision of cultural context within
the framework of social studies, 2-42. Alberta Learning, Edmonton (Canada).
Curriculum Standards Branch.
Carter, R. T. (2000). Reimaging race in education: A new paradigm from psychology.
Teachers College Record, I02 (5), 864-897.
Case, K. A., and Hemmings, A. (2005). Distancing strategies: White women preservice
teachers and antiracist curriculum. Urban Education, Nov. 2005 (40), 606-626.
Chabbott, C., & Emerson, E. J. (Eds.). (2003). Understanding others, educating ourselves:
Getting more from international comparative studies in education. Washington, D.C.:
National Academies Press.
Champagne, D. (2007). In search of theory and method in American Indian studies. The
American Indian Quarterly, 31 (3), 353-373. Retrieved from Academic OneFile via
Gale.
Chubbuck, S.M. (2004). Whiteness enacted, whiteness disrupted: The complexity of
personal congruence. American Educational Research Journal, 2, 301-333.
Consedine, R., & Consedine, J. (2001). Healing our history: The challenge of the treaty of
Waitangi. Auckland: Penguin Books (NZ) Ltd.
Cook S. R. (2000). Monacans and miners: Native Americans and coal mining communities in
Appalachia. Lincoln, NE and London, England: University ofNebraska Press.
Cook, S. R. (2003). Anthropological advocacy in historical perspective: The case of
anthropologists and Virginia Indians. Human Organization, Summer 2003, 191-201.
210
Cook, S. R. (2008). "You can't put a price on it": Activist anthropology in the mountaintop
removal debate. Collaborative Anthropologies 1, 138-162. doi: 1 0.1353/cla.O.OO 14
Christensen, C. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the
world learns. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cottrell, S. A., & Jones, E. A. (2003). Researching the scholarship of teaching and learning:
An analysis of current curriculum practices. Human Sciences Press, Inc., (2 7) 3, 169-
180.
Darder, A. ( 1991 ). Culture and power in the classroom: A critical foundation for bicultural
education. Critical Studies in Education and Culture Series, H. A. Giroux & Paulo
Freire (Eds.). Westport, CN and London: Bergin & Garvey.
Davis Y. Paschall Papers. Special Collections, Wolf Law Library, The College ofWilliam
and Mary.
Deloria, V., Jr. (2009). C. G. Jung and the Sioux traditions. P.J. Deloria & J. S. Berstein
(Eds.). New Orleans, LA: Spring Journal Books.
Deloria, V., Jr. (1994). God is red: A native view of religion. Golden, CO: Fulcrum
Publishing.
Deloria, V. Jr. (1995). Red earth, white lies: Native Americans and the myth of scientific fact.
New York: Scribner.
Deloria, V., Jr. (1972). Custer died for your sins: An Indian manifesto. New York: Avon
Books.
Deloria, V. Jr., and Lytle, C. M. (1983). American Indians, American justice. Austin, TX:
University of Texas Press.
Deloria, V., Jr., and Wildcat, D. (200 1 ). Power and place: Indian education in America.
Golden, CO: Fulcrum Press.
211
Dewey, J. (1938, 1969). Experience and education: The Kappa Delta Pi lecture series. (First
Collier Books edition 1963, eleventh printing 1969). New York: Collier Books.
Diamond, R. M. (1998). Designing & assessing courses & curricula: A practical guide. (2nd.
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Driscoll, A., & Wood, S. (2007). Development outcomes-based assessment for learner-
centered education: A faculty introduction. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Drucker, P. F. (1994). Knowledge work and Knowledge Society: The Social Transformations
of this Century. The 1994 Edwin L. Godkin Lecture, delivered May 4, 1994, John F.
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Retrieved from
http:/ /cmap.bradercomm.net: 8001 /servlet/SBReadResourceServlet?rid= 11683085233
70 415312417 40162 - -
Duran, E., & Duran, B. (1995). Native American postcolonial psychology. Albany: State
University ofNew York Press.
Durie, M. (2000). Ngii tai Matatu: tides of Miiori endurance. Melbourne: Oxford University
Press.
Edgerton, G., & Jackson, K. M. (1996). Redesigning Pocahontas: Disney, the "white man's
Indian," and the marketing of dreams. Journal of Popular Film and Television. (24)
2, 90-99. Retrieved from http://www.odu.edu/allknichola!web/pocahontas.html/
Egloff, K., & Woodward, D. (2006). First people: The early Indians of Virginia (2nd. Ed).
Charlottesville and London: University of Virginia Press.
Ellingboe, B. J. (1998). Divisional strategies to internationalize a campus portrait: Results,
resistance, and recommendations from a case study at a U. S. university. In J. A.
Mestenhauser & B. J. Ellingboe (Eds.). Reforming the higher education curriculum:
Internationalizing the campus, 198-228. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
212
Epstein, T. (2001). Interpreting national history: Race, identity, and pedagogy in classrooms
and communities. New York: Routledge.
Evans, R. E. (2006). The authentic leader. In The Jossey-Bass reader on educational
leadership (2nd ed.), 135-158. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Fear, F., Doberneck, D, Robinson, C., Fear, K., Barr, R., Van Den Berg, H., Smith, J., &
Petrulis, R. (2003). Meaning making and "the learning paradigm": A provocative
idea in practice. Innovative Higher Education, (27) 3, 151-168.
Fenelon & LeBeau (2006). Four directions for Indian education: Curriculum models for
Lakota and Dakota teaching and learning. In I. Abu-saad, I., & D. Champagne (Eds.)
(2006). Indigenous education and empowerment: International Perspectives.
Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 21-68.
Fiske, W. (2004). The black and white world of Walter Ashby Plecker. The Virginian Pilot,
18 August 2004.
Foucault, M., & Gordon, C. (1977). Powerknowledge: Selected interviews and other
writings, 1972-1977 (1st American ed.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Fox, M. J. T., Lowe, S.C., and McClennan, G. S. (Eds.) (2005). Serving Native American
Students (1 09). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fraser, S. P., & Bosenquet, A.M. (2006). The curriculum? That's just a unit outline, isn't it?
Studies in Higher Education, 31 (3), 269-284.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogia do Oprimido [Pedagogy of the Oppressed]. (23rd ed.). Sao
Paulo, Brazil: Paz e Terra.
Freire, P., Freire, A.M. A., & Freire, P. (1994). Pedagogy ofhope: Reliving pedagogy ofthe
oppressed [Pedagogia da esperan9a.]. New York, NY: Continuum.
214
Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Grande, S. (2004): Red pedagogy: Native American social and political thought. Lanham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Guba, E. G. (1990). The Paradigm Dialog. Newbury Park, CA.
Gustavsson, B., and Osman, A. (1997). Multicultural education and life-long learning.
Walters, S. (Ed.). (1997). Globalization, adult education & training: Impacts &
issues. London, England and New York, NY: Zed Books.
Hall, C. (Ed.). (2000). Cultures of empire: Colonizers in Britain and the empire in the 19th
and 20th centuries: A reader. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hardin, P. (2000). Documentary genocide: Families surnames on racial hit list. Richmond
Times-Dispatch, 5 March, 2000. Retrieved from Peter Hardin website,
http:/ /peterhardin.com/?p=97
Harvey, K. D., Harjo, L. D., & Welborn, L. (1995). How to teach about American Indians: A
guide for the school library media specialist. Westport, CN: Greenwood Press.
Greenwood Professional Guides in School Librarianship.
Hollinger, D. A. (1995). Postethnic America: Beyond multiculturalism. New York, NY:
BasicBooks
Holm, T., Pearson, J.D., & Chavis, B. (2003). Peoplehood: A model for the extension of
sovereignty in American studies. Wicaso SA Review (Spring), pp. 7-24/
Huhndorf, S.M. (2001). Going native: Indians in the American cultural imagination. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
Kanungo, R. N., & Mendonca, M. (1996). Cultural contingencies ofleadership. In Ethical
dimensions of leadership, 106-126. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
(R. A. Giacalone, Series Ed.) SAGE Series in Business Ethics.
Kawagley, 0. (1995) A Yupiac worldview: A pathway to ecology and spirit. Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.
215
Kelly, T., Meuwissen, K., & Vansledright, B. (2007). What of history? Historical knowledge
within a system of standards and accountability. The International Journal of Social
Education, 27 (1), 115-145.
Kidwell, C. S. (1999). The vanishing Indian reappears in the college curriculum. InK. G.
Swisher & John W. Tippeconnic, III. (Eds.) (1999). Next Steps: Research and
Practice to Advance Indian Education. Charleston, WV, 272-292.
Kidwell, C. S., & Velie, A. (2005). Native American studies. Lincoln, NE: University of
Nebraska Press.
Kincheloe, J. L., & Steinberg, S. R. (2008). Indigenous knowledges in education:
Complexities, dangers, and profound benefits. InN. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln& L. T.
Smith, (Eds.), 135-156. Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies. Los
Angeles, LA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Klug, B. J., & Whitfield, P. T. (2003). Widening the circle: Culturally relevant pedagogy for
American Indian children. New York, NY and London, England: RoutledgeFalmer.
knowledge. (2010). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knowledge (n.pag.)
Kozma, R. B., Belle, L. W., & Williams, G. W. (1978). Instructional techniques for higher
education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Kuhn (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Lacroix, C. (2004). Images of animated others; The orientalization of Disney's cartoon
heroines from The Little Mermaid to The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Popular
Communication 2 (4), 213-229. Retrieved from
http:/ /staff. washington.edu/auv /3 89/Lacroix%20-
%200rientalization%20of0/o20Disney%20cartoon%20heroines.pdf
Lassiter, L. E. (2005). The Chicago guide to collaborative ethnography. Chicago, IL and
London, England: University of Chicago Press.
216
Levine, A. ( 1981 ). Handbook on undergraduate curriculum. San Francisco, CA: J ossey-Bass
Publishers.
Library ofVirginia (2010). A Guide to Department of Education R. G. 27 Indian School
Files, 1936-1967. State Department Records Collection, Ace# 29632.
Loewen, J. W. (2007). Lies my teacher told me. New York, NY: Touchstone.
Lomawaima, K. T., & McCarty, T. L. (2006). To remain an Indian: Lessons in democracy
from a century of Native American education. New York, NY and London, England:
Teachers College Press.
Magolda, P. M. (2000). Accessing, waiting, plunging in, wondering, and writing:
Retrospective sense-making of fieldwork. Field Methods, 12, (3), 209-234. doi:
10.1177/1525822X0001200303.
Mannheim, K., & Kecskemeti, P. (1952). Essays on the sociology ofknowledge. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Mannheim, K. (2001). Sociology as political education. D. Kettler & C. Loader (Eds.). New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Manitoba Education. (1998). Aboriginal perspectives for the social studies. Winnipeg,
Canada: Manitoba Education and Training.
217
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd. Ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA and London, England: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Martin, K. L. (2008). Please knock before you enter: Aboriginal regulation of outsiders and
the implications for researchers. Teneriffe, Australia: Post Pressed.
McGovern, S. (1999). Education, modern development and Indigenous knowledge: An
analysis of academic knowledge production. New York, NY and London, England:
Garland Publishing, Inc.
McKernan, J. (2008). Curriculum and imagination: Process theory, pedagogy and action
research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Merriam, S. B. (Ed.). (2008). Third update on adult learning theory. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., & Kim, Y. S. (2008). Non-Western perspectives on learning and knowing. In
S. B. Merriam (Ed.). (2008). Third update on adult learning theory. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass, 71-81.
Miller, R. J. (2008). Native America discovered and conquered: Thomas Jefferson, Lewis
and Clark, and manifest destiny. London and Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Miller, S. L. (1995). Accelerating minority educational advancement: An American
imperative. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.
Morgan, D. L. (2003). Appropriation, appreciation, accommodation: Indigenous wisdoms
and knowledges in higher education. In M. Bray (Ed.). Comparative education:
Continuing traditions, new challenges, and new paradigms. Reprinted from
International Review of Education, 49 (1-2), 35-49 (2003). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands, Boston, MA, and London, England: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Morrison, D. (Ed.). (1997). American Indian studies: An interdisciplinary approach to
contemporary issues. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
218
Moreton-Robinson, A, & Walter, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies in social research. In
Social research methods. (2"d. ed). Ed. M. Walter. South Melbourne, Vic: Oxford
University Press, Australia and New Zealand.
http:/ /www.oup.com.au/_datalassets/pdf _ file/0005/198284/Chapter _ 22.
Nabokov, P. (2002). A forest of time: American Indian ways of history. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
O'Leary, C. E. (1999). To die for: The paradox of American patriotism. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Painter, N. I. (2010). The history of white people. New York, NY and London, England: W.
W. Norton & Company.
pedagogy. (2010). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedagogy
Pentecost, J. (Producer), & Gabriel, M., and Goldberg, E. (Directors). (1995). Pocahontas
[Animated feature]. United States: Walt Disney Feature Animation.
Pewewardy, Cornel. (1997). The Pocahontas paradox: A cautionary tale for educators.
Journal of Navajo Education Fall/Winter 1996/97,20-25. Retrieved from
http://www.hanksville.org/storytellers/pewe/writing/Pocahontas.html
Pfeus, Mrs. F. (1949). The Indians of the Old Dominion. N. F. Weeks (Ed.). Baptist Foreign
Mission Board (reproduction pamphlet).
219
Phuong, C. (2000). Multiculturalism in a top-ranked elementary teacher preparation program.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University ofVirginia: Charlottesville, Virginia.
Rappaport, J. (2008). Beyond participant observation: Collaborative ethnography as
theoretical innovation. Collaborative Anthropologies, 1, 1-31. Retrieved from Project
MUSE database.
Reagan, T. G., & NetLibrary, I. (2005). Non-Western Educational Traditions: Indigenous
approaches to educational thought and practice (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Ritchie, D. (2003). Doing Oral history: A practical guide. (2nd ed). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Ritchie, J. (1995; 1992). Becoming bicultural (Reprint). Wellington, New Zealand:
Huia Publishers: Daphne Brasell Associates Press.
Rossato, C. A. (2005). Engaging Paulo Freire's pedagogy of possibility: From blind to
transformative optimism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2003). Learning in the field: An introduction to
qualitative research. (2nd ed. ). Thousand Oaks, CA and London, England: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Rountree, H. C. (1989). The Powhatan Indians ofVirginia: Their traditional culture.
Norman, OK and London, England: University of Oklahoma Press.
Rountree, H. C. (1990). Pocahontas's people: The Powhatan Indians through four centuries.
Norman, OK and London, England: University of Oklahoma Press.
Ryan, G. W., and Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15
(1) 85-109. doi: 10.1177115258.
220
Schrag, P. (2010). Not .fit for our society. Nativism and immigration. Berkley, CA University
of California Press.
Shanley, K. (2001). The Indian America loves to love and read: American Indian identity and
cultural appropriation. In G. M. Bataille (Ed.). (2001). Native American
representations: First encounters, distorted images, and literary appropriations.
Lincoln, NE: University ofNebraska Press, 26-51.
Sheers, R. H. (2003). Competency vs. good intentions: Diversity ideologies and teacher
potential. Qualitative Studies in Education, 16, 11-12.
Shor, I. ( 1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago, IL and
London, England: The University of Chicago Press.
Shoemaker: M. (Ed.) (2002). Clearing a path: Theorizing the past in Native American
studies. New York, NY: Routledge.
Shklar, J. N. (1991). American citizenship: The quest for inclusion. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Smith, L. T. (2008). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. (II th
ed.) London, England and New York, NY: Zed Books
Solorzano (2000)
Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Strickland, R. ( 1997). Tonto's revenge: Reflections on American Indian culture and policy
(1st ed.). Albuquerque, NM: University ofNew Mexico Press.
Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Swisher, K. G. & Tippeconnic, J. T., III (Eds.). (1999). Next Steps: Research and
Practice to Advance Indian Education. Charleston, VW.
221
Szasz, M. C. (1988). Indian education in the American colonies, 1607-1783. Albuquerque,
NM: University of New Mexico.
Tarter, B. (2007). Making history in Virginia. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography,
115 (1 ), 3-55.
Tayac, G., Schupman, E., & Simermeyer, G. (2006). We have a story to tell: Native peoples
ofthe Chesapeake region. A guide for teachers grades 9- 12. Education Office of
the National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
Tejeda, C. (2008). Dancing with the dilemmas of a decolonizing pedagogy. Radical History
Review, 102 (27), pp. 27-31. Retrieved from
http:/lrhr.dukejoumals.org.proxy.wm.edu/cgi/reprint/2008/102/27
Thirunarayann, M. & Perez-Prado, A. (Eds.). (2005). Integrating technology in higher
education. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Tillema. H. H., and Imants, J. G. (1995). Training for the professional development of
teachers. In Professional development in education: New paradigms & practices. T.
R. Guskey and M. Huberman (Eds.). New York, NY and London, England: Teachers
College Press.
Tomlins-Jahnke, H. (2006). The development of cultural standards in education: What are
the issues? To Mata o Te Tau Hokowhity Lecture, School of Maori and Multicultural
Education, Massey University, August 23. Retrieved from
http:/ /www.review.mai.ac.nz/index.php/MR/article/view/1 00/107
Trachtenberg, A. (2004). Shades of Hiawatha: Staging Indians, making Americans, 1880-
1930. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.
Trent, S. C., Kea, C. D. & Oh, K. (2008). Preparing preservice educators for cultural
diversity: How far have we come? Exceptional Children, 74 (3), 328-550.
222
Trimble, C. F., Sommer, B. W., & Quinlan, M. K. (2008). The American Indian oral history
manual: Making many voices heard. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Van Hover, S., Hicks, D., & Irwin, W. (2007). Beginning teachers thinking historically?
Negotiating the context of Virginia's high-stakes testing. The International Journal
of Social Education, 19 (1), 85-11. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
Valaskakis, G. G. (2005). Indian country: Essays on contemporary nature culture. Canada:
Wilfred Laurier University Press.
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A coherent
approach. Albany, NY: State University of New York.
Virginia Council on Indians. Retrieved from http://indians.vipnet.org/.
Virginia Council on Indians. (2005). Annual Executive Summary on the Interim Activity and
Work of the Virginia Council on Indians. Retrieved from
http:/ /leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/0/6a0 11 03b6a79d0d185256f81 006ad5a9?0pen
Document
Virginia Department of Education (2008). History and social science standards of learning
curriculum frameworks for 2001 and 2008. Virginia Department of Education.
Retrieved from
http://www .doe. virginia. gov /VDO E/Instruction/History/hist ss framework.html
Virginia Indian Heritage Program Foundation website (2010).
http://www. virginiafoundation.org/VIHP /program.html
223
Virginia General Assembly (1910). Acts and joint resolutions of the general assembly of the
state of Virginia. Session which commenced at the state capitol on Wednesday,
January 12, 1910. Richmond, VA: Davis Bottom, Superintendent of Public Printing.
Virginia General Assembly (1924). An ACT to preserve racial integrity. HeinONline (1924
534 1924) Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Mon
Nov 15 09:18:14 2010
Vizenor, G. ( 1998). Aesthetics of survivance: Literary theory and practice. In G. Vizenour
(Ed.) Survivance: Narratives of native presence. Lincoln, NE and London, England: '
University of Nebraska Press, pp. 1-24.
Warren, R. P. (1987). A Robert Penn Warren reader. New York, NY: Random House.
Walker, M. (2006). Higher education pedagogies: A capabilities approach. New York, NY:
Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Warrior, R. W. (1995). Tribal secrets: Recovering American Indian intellectual traditions.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Waugaman, S. & Moretti-Langholtz, D. (2006). We're still here: Contemporary Virginia
Indians tell their stories. (2nd ed.). Richmond, VA: Palari Publishing.
Whitbeck, L., Adams, G., Hoyt, D., & Chen, X (2004). Conceptualizing and measuring
historical trauma among American Indian people. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 33(314), 119-130.
Wildcat, D. R. (2001). Indigenizing education: Playing to our strengths. In V. Deloria, Jr.,
and D. R. Wildcat, Power and place: Indigenous education in America. Golden, CO:
Fulcrum Press, 7-20.
Wilkerson, C. (2005). Blood struggle: The rising of modern Indian nations. New York, NY
and London, England: W. W. Norton & Company.
Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Halifax, Nova
Scotia and Winnipeg, Canada: Fernwood Publishing.
Wood, K. (2009). A place for the native voice. In The Virginia Indian heritage trail (3rd
ed.), K. Wood (Ed.). Charlottesville, VA: Virginia Foundation for the Humanities
224
Vita
Lisa L. Heuvel
Birthdate: January 30, 1952
Birthplace: Charleston, West Virginia
Education: 2006-2011
2002-2005
The College of William and Mary Williamsburg, Virginia Doctor of Education
The College of William and Mary Williamsburg, Virginia Master of Arts
1970-1974 The College ofWilliam and Mary Williamsburg, Virginia Bachelor of Arts
225
Recommended