“Under the Blood-Red Sun, or Under the Blood- Red Son”

072011ed641litcirclereflectaguon.r

“Under the Blood-Red Sun, or Under the Blood- Red Son”

“Meaning is not fixed; message never transparent; audience active at receiving meaning”

(“Encoding & Decoding”, 1973; Stuart Hall)

Literacy learning through cooperative learning strategies demonstrates the value of indigenous Pacific Islander, collectivist cultural, knowledge development. This reflection to “Under the Blood-Red Sun” by Salisbury briefly explores participation in literary circles as instructional reading strategy, to indigenous Pacific Islander students within a neo-colonial pedagogical higher education context. The indigeneity, or cultural meaning, of which gives Native meaning to the title “Under the Blood-Red Sun”. Or do we say “Under the Blood, Red Son”? When we begin to apply the perspective of an Insider- Native Pacific Islander, we give our people more than a voice, we acknowledge an exclusive identity of Oceanic peoples with a right to apply indigenous knowledge, developing indigenous meaning for ourselves, by our cultural standards. Such discussions of divergent pedagogy applications create a platform to explore the motivation and development of “interdependent”, as opposed to independent reader and writer development of Oceanic indigenous students enrolled at Guam’s Department of Education. As a product example, our Cohort II- Graffiti Board, we posted online: http://ed641summer2011.blogspot.com/2011/07/graffiti-board_15.html.

As Dr.Rivera point out, “Students become actively involved in the reading process when they realize they have an active role in determining meaning. These {literary circle} responses ensure that participation remains active,” (ed641handout; Rivera, 2011). Personal participation, of mine, in the literary circle included: reading the assigned text chapters, interpreting, analyzing, and synthesizing content within an interdisciplinary critical thinking model of indigenous articulation, (Diaz & Kauanui). Here, an observation towards the value of contemporary group learning identifies with the collective indigenous cultural values of traditional small group communication. According to Devito, individualistic forms of cultural communication have significant prevalence among European and American people; while Stuart Hall suggests the audience plays an active voice in the development of meaning. Therefore, in an individualist culture, meaning may play out to the favor of the individual in the audience (intended audience). Which remains divergent to our indigenous cultural upbringing on Guam, I Tao Tao Tano, forms group members to participate interdependently in group activities for the benefit of the group audience (actual audience). Only through colonization has the content of the ideas under discussion by indigenous Pacific Islanders changed, as well as the function of the actual and intended audience, and use of english as the primary language. However, the group form continues to exist today among people from Oceania. A possible cause of indigenous student participation decreasing in the classroom may represents a loss of indigenous voice caused by the overwhelming outsider-owned mass media attempts to endoctrine Oceanic peoples through commercialization. Therefore, such reading strategies represent a form of indigenous representation in the struggle to determine meaning for ourselves in a global context..

Classroom applications to motivate and develop confident and independent readers and writers depend as much on teacher cultural bias, as well as the cultural values of independent and interdependent students, making social contexts reality. Brofenbrenner’s Chrono System of socio-historical “ecological” theory, suggests student culture and lifestyle, determines the Macro-system of individual lives. Meaning the social contexts of external conditions of student life may bring a bearing on intrinsic motivation. Therefore, the self-determinedless students of the Oceanic (U.S. Insular Areas), live in a phenomanon void of self determination.

According to Ryan:

“intrinsic motivation emphasizes self-determination”, (Miller, 2011)

Over time the subjugation and oppression of peoples lacking self determination may seem to create a community of generations lacking intrinsic motivation in the classroom. The broader and deeper historical contextual understanding of such a pedagogy represents a space ripe for indigenous articulation. The long term impact over time of such phenomenon suggests a neo-colonial system of political economy at the expense of the under-served indigenous population. The harm evolves from the influential power bases of hegemonic forces acting counter to the counter-hegemonic narrative giving meaning to idigeneity - Gramscian style. So what can we as teachers do to promote self determination in the classroom? According to Brophy, Deci, and Ryan, we 1) take the time, 2) be attentive, 3) manage the classroom effectively, in a way that lets students make personal choices; 4) establish learning centers, and 5) create self-selected interest groups, (Miller, 2011). With the development of indigenous curriculum standards for globalization; we may find the intrinsic motivation we’ve been looking for-right inside.

Taking a brief examination of the reading strategy “literary circles”, the paper begins to explore the indigenous communication patterns applicable to educational theory of Euro-American perspective on Native Oceanic peoples. From personal participation in our own cooperative learning project, presented here, one may find observations from the perspective of an Indigenous Native higher education student. Surmising, literacy learning by groups demonstrates the value of indigenous Pacific Islander, collectivist knowledge development. For thousand of years our people have worked interdependently for the good of the group. Perhaps, only over the last five-hundred years of imperial contact, which lead to the current colonial and neo-colonial social systems, has the indigenous people of Oceania exhibited the group characteristic of independence versus interdependence as a norm. Discussion of such indigeneity occurs in a context of classroom applications to motivate and develop confident and independent readers and writers. Again, as suggested by Brophy, Deci, and Ryan, indigenous scholars may explore self determination development of indigenous students with a strategy towards a vision of Nationhood. That said, the book entitled “Under the Blood-Red Sun” by Salsibury lacks a voice of indigeneity. So for a Native to read, study the book and give feedback, the premise for the meaning comes from my experience as a silent reader, read aloud. Pay close attention to the shift in meaning the active audience here gives; the title changes due the change in interpretation, “Under the Blood, Red Son”! For one of Native descent decodes the message as follows:

Under the blood...for you too must follow

the Native has no voice

You, the native, smart enough to read this and figure out meaning

you, native, have to adhere to the call of the blood for our Nation; for with this blood comes a responsibility to the American Family; for you have a place;

the place of the son; the son of a different color; the red son you’re still my son; under

the blood you go; give your self for your new values!

References

“Encoding & Decoding”, Stuart Hall; 1973
ed641handout; Rivera, 2011
“Edge of Native Studies”; Diaz & Kauanui, 2001
“Fundamentals of Human Communication”, J. Devito, 2008
“Lecture Notes-Ryan”; Miller, 2011
http://www.pineforge.com/upm-data/13286_Chapter_2_Web_Byte__Stuart_Hall.pdf