Our Shared Shelf discussion

Hello! Still some 20% away from finishing the book and, just as many other readers here, completely floored and moved by Terese's great writing. However, there's something on my mind that I wanted to share here and just see what you folks think about.

First things first, a disclaimer: my writing this post is not meant at all as something I took offence at, but rather as something that I felt it was lacking, or perhaps not sufficiently explained, in my opinion only, throughout the book. I already feel kinda conflicted about even being somewhat critical about the book here because I know that, being white, I am often missing so much of the picture even when I don't think I am. All this goes to say, I will gladly stand corrected if my impressions aren't quite right. Oh, and I am not, hmmmm...scared of feeling uncomfortable when my ethnicity is called out in a text. :)

That being said...I feel like throughout the book there are several moments where the author opposes Indian thoughts and notions of life to white ones, or better said yet, the lack thereof. The author's mother taught her about 'the deficit that white people leave'. There are a few snide remarks on white people throughout the book, such as when the author sees C's alleged lover's dog and says that it reminded her of a white woman's dog. This one did make me roll my eyes a bit, because I truly can't really imagine what should the dog of a woman belonging to any given ethnicity look like (then again, I am so not a dog person, haha.)

...But the thing is, for all of this opposition between Indian identity and way of being and culture and, say, whiteness, I missed the former being more present in the text? Now, I know this is the author's book and she has no responsibility to also make it any sort of guide on Indian culture while she was at it. I know this book is not meant to educate anybody, let alone your random white girl. However...I still felt like Indian culture was not all that much there? So at some of her claims I would have to, hmmm, follow her because of the idea that she comes from a people that is outside the white mainstream that she describes, and to top it off *I* belong to that mainstream, so my duty is to listen and not question her? Which is healthy for a change for us white people, but I would have wanted to walk out of the text understanding the concrete why here? The context?

Hopefully I am making myself clear. I am just curious to know your thoughts. Particularly, if we were lucky enough to have members who are also Indian / of Indian descent. :)

That's a great topic. Thank you for writing out your thoughts and interpretation. I know how uncomfortable these sorts of questions can be but if you can't ask it here....where can you?

I'm going to add my thought below, and it's in no way a critique on yours or an answer. Just my reaction to your question.

-------

I think that's the constant issue poc in general have to face.

The "are you diverse enough" question

- Do you look the "part"
-Talk the "part"
- Sound the "part"

I think sometimes it's also a damned if you do damned if you don't answer, too. You are looked down on if you come off as a stereotype and then could be also looked down at for not being "authentic" enough.

I for one have my femaleness questioned for not wanting children. It's a sore spot between my family and me. But one that you cannot tell my stance of unless you ask. No judgement can be rendered - positive or negative unless you ask.

Poc on the other hand cannot. This is a continuous question on their identity. And just my interpretation, I think you'll find the spectrum of people who responsd to it. Those who take these questions as challenges and therefore have to "prove" their authenticity, those who denounce it, and everything in between

I’ve been waiting for this topic. I haven’t read the whole thing as I’m not feeling up to par but I will come back and read the entirety of the comments I just wanted to mark my place as this topic actually came up in another thread and I got very upset with people saying that certain behaviours were excuses so I’ll come back and comment fully a bit later I just wanted to mark my place.

This is an interesting concept that I think has two aspects; Firstly a reaction to appropriation "white" people have a particular group Identity to indigenous people because of the permanent harm that group did to there way of life. Secondly many like the author feel they are of two cultures the remnants of the original and the "white" that as is equated with the modern western world. I like the honesty of the author in reporting this and telling other peoples words true to how they said them.

There is anger at "the other" here and not without justification. But the light she shed on this may give us room to discuss it we indigenous or not, are not our past or our ancestors. We can be a new beginning not forget the past but move on. The first step is for each side to take responsibility. The Author does this I think another reason I loved this book.

Ross wrote: "This is an interesting concept that I think has two aspects; Firstly a reaction to appropriation "white" people have a particular group Identity to indigenous people because of the permanent harm t..."


Great points made here Ross. To answer the original post commenter though, I think a lot of it is we are still trying to find our way back to our nativeness, and this is because (especially in Canada) we had residential schools until 1997 so even in this present generation and many people just assume that white ancestors did this to us without realizing the damage was still happening even in this generation. So the anger is still very fresh in the minds of many indigenous peoples.

Okay, first things first!

I have not finished Heart Berries yet, so... that's that.
And I'm from Austria, so my culture is rather different from Canada and the US and even more so from Indigenous cultures...

What's important to realise (or if you've done already, remember) is that just because someone belongs to a certain group of people does not mean they have to write about anything that is related to belonging to this group. It's a conscious act to do so, and should never be demanded or expected.

The other important thing to realise is, yes, we are not our ancestors, but our ancestors have installed certain institutions, for lack of a better word, and we (meaning "white" people) still very much benefit from these institutions today.
So, I don't think we can say: Let's move on and forget it. We first have to dismantle these institutions and no, it won't be easy and comfortable, it will be a lot of hard work and uncomfortable, but in the end, if we really want to "move on", in the sense of that expression, we have to do it.

And this also goes hand in hand what Krystal said: No, it's not some "ancestors" who did this and now it's all over and better and can be forgotten, it happened in living memory, heck, happens in living memory, and so we have a long way to go.
It is on us to educate ourselves, not on Indigenous Peoples to do the emotional labour for us.

WE HAVE WORK TO DO!

That's a lot of nuance being shared. I took the liberty of jotting down a few questions that came out of the discussion.

- How much of the author's heritage colored the audience’s expectations of the novel? I.e. did knowing Mailhot was Indian affect your interest in the story? How so?

- What amount of cultural explanation is necessary in a poc writer’s work?

- POC Writers make up less than 10% of all the books reviewed by the New York Times in 2011. As such, it’s easy for white audiences to see one poc writer and believe they are THE voice of the entire population.
-- In what way does Mailhot act as THE voice for her community?
-- In what way does Mailhot not act as THE voice for her community?

- Does it take courage for a poc to write about their community?

- As a reader, how would you categorize Mailhot writing? Which comes first? POC, Indigenous, Mother, Child, Victim, Lover, Abuser, Depression, Mental Health, Feminism?

- As a collection of essays, Heartberries covers a lot of territory. Which aspect or theme resonated most with you?

- Contemplate Tony Morrison’s “The White Gaze” writing a poc story knowing that the main audience is going to be white. Does a good writer censor their stories in order to cast their poc characters in a better, friendlier, less stereotypical way? Does a good writer let their poc characters be themselves to the determinant of poc representation? (https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswit...)

- Does the Indigenous population deal with “The White Gaze”?

- As a white audience, what can we demand from poc authors and what can author’s demand from their audience?

- What do we the audience need to understand before reading a poc author’s book? Is it up to the audience to learn that or up to the writer to allude to it?

- In what ways does Mailholt’s work discuss indigenous troubles at the hands of white culture?

Do you have any other questions that we can add?

I'm so glad someone started this thread! I listened to the audiobook last week and recently was able to purchase a hardcopy that I'll be reading as soon as I finish my current read. I find it hard to focus on audiobooks, so I'm not comfortable saying "I've read it" yet, but I've grasped some concepts from the book and I had similar questions reading it. Disclaimer: I am a white American, so it could just be not having the whole picture, as Ana said.

I would like to add some questions about Mailholt's 'white inventions" like ego, though. I found it odd that she said she felt ego/self-esteem was a white invention and couldn't figure out how ego/self-esteem had anything to do with being white. I understand that coming from a culture that has been put down and attempted to be demolished and still being viewed by a lot of people as "less than" makes it hard to have a healthy self-esteem, but how does that make it a "white invention"? To me, self-esteem is about being happy with who you are and not constantly belittling yourself and your shortcomings. It's being able to criticize yourself and grow without feeling like you're worthless. don't most societies/cultures want their people to feel like they are worth something in their culture? If so, doesn't that make ego/self-esteem a human invention and not a white invention?

Pam wrote: "That's a lot of nuance being shared. I took the liberty of jotting down a few questions that came out of the discussion.

- How much of the author's heritage colored the audience’s expectations of..."

That are some very good questions you have there, Pam!

This statement in the book gave me a lot to ponder"


"(The counselor) explained self esteem and it's function, and I blame my mother for not saying these things. My mother wasn't big on self esteem for herself, let alone trying to foster that in me. I think self-esteem is a white invention to further separate one person from another. It asks people to assess their values and implies people have worth. It seems like identity capitalism."


For some reason it really resonates with me!

I just finished the book last night, and I'm really interested to see this thread.

Lots of good questions and discussion!

Some of the things that jumped out at me, the author alternates between calling herself an Indian Woman vs a Squaw. And she seems to use Squaw when she is at her most self-loathing.

White vs Indian aside, I think we all sometimes fall into self-loathing and a negative internal dialogue. I felt like that theme was universal regardless of race.

Another thing that jumped out at me was the author's distinction of White stories and Indian stories. I thought of the stories I was raised on - almost always a "happy ever after" at the end. But if I were a native living in America/Canada, would the stories passed down to me have "happy ever after" at the end? Probably not.

Ashley wrote: "I'm so glad someone started this thread! I listened to the audiobook last week and recently was able to purchase a hardcopy that I'll be reading as soon as I finish my current read. I find it hard ..."

Pam wrote: "That's a lot of nuance being shared. I took the liberty of jotting down a few questions that came out of the discussion.

- How much of the author's heritage colored the audience’s expectations of..."

Dear Ashley,

I've just finished the book.
I'm living in Belgium, and I'm a white female :-)
I only wanted to share this.
During my studies in Gent (History), I had a course "ethnology" (= a breef introduction to indigeanous history and cultures), and the professor was saying exactly what Therese is saying: some things that are evident for us, that look universal, are not. They are white "inventions" (but maybe very good inventions).
"ego" is one of them, but also "human rights"... Some concepts that we apply in order to understand the (=our) world are not applyable for other cultures. By doing this we would simply "pass by" or "look at it" in stead of entering the other culture. We have to cross a river and "forget" or "let go" some evidenties in order to get the real meaning. It is possible :-) Even for white people.

I have not read the book, and therefore cannot speak to the accuracy of your interpretation. However, I find myself nodding along when you describe the juxtaposition of Indian culture and white culture. The notion of "white-ness" permeates through more than the direct cultural sign-posters. I am not native American, however I can image a distinct "white woman's dog", not as a reflection of all white woman, but of a distinctly suburban culture (and stereotype). I never fit into those bounds. The best distinctions I can offer are those I internalized during childhood. School lunches were particularly painful. The clothes I wore always seem styled differently from the culture around me. My interpretation of your question is that the context is in the little things you never believed would make a difference, but some how did.