Introduction to the Special Issue Examining and Applying Safety Zone Theory: Current Policies, Practices, and Experiences

Abstract

Introduction to the Special Issue Examining and Applying Safety Zone Iheory: Current Policies, Practices» and Experiences K. TsianinaLomawaima and Teresa L. McCarty The 2014 symposium three Annual articles organized published Meeting byCynthia in of this the Benally special American issue andTimothy were Educational first San presented Pedro Research at in the a symposium organized byCynthia BenallyandTimothy SanPedroatthe 2014 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Associationin Philadelphia. Teresa L. McCartychairedthe session,and K. TsianinaLomawaimaoffered comments as thediscussant. In guiding the issue, we thankour colleagueand co-editor Dr. BryanMcKinleyJones Brayboy fortaking thelead as developmental editor inorder topreserve the integrity of J AIE's double-blind peer reviewprocess,and to ensurethe highest standard ofquality review andeditorial oversight. Benally, Lansing, andSanPedrodrawupon,implement, andextend the framework ofSafety ZoneTheory (SZT) articulated inour(2006) book,"7b Remainan Indian ě'" Lessons in Democracyfroma Century of Native American Education. We arehumbled andgratified that thesekeenly critical scholars find thetheory useful andworthwhile toengage,and- importantly - pushbeyondour framesand articulations to open up new questions, developnewinterpretations, proposenew(or stretch old) terminology, and buildmultiple levelsofanalysis usingSZT. In whatfollows, we first revisit thetheory's originsand ourintention in proposing it as an alternative to conventional "swingsofthependulum" analysesoffederal Indianeducation policy. Wethen introduce eachofthe articles, highlighting the waysinwhich they takeup SZT in theiranalyses.At theend of theissue we offer further commentary that wehopewillbothclarify ouruseofSZT, andilluminate the newusesandimplications ofthetheory as developed bythescholars herein. Safety Zone TheoryOrigins A unifying theme acrossthisspecialissueis theauthors' shared emphasis on decolonizing methodologies. Consideration ofwhat is required toproductively decolonize methodology frames a brief history ofourintellectual trajectory as we developedSZT. A stanceof criticalinquiryinforms much of the scholarship within Indigenous studies broadly andIndigenous education more specifically. Thestanceis rooted inIndigenous perspectives, epistemologies, Journal of American Indian Education -53,Issue3,2014 1 andexperiences andgenerates anapproach that might wellbe summed up as "Question everything! Take nothingfor granted!"We believe that a distinctive attribute of a decolonizing methodology is therefusal to accept dominant ideologiesat facevalue andto ask thecritical questions:"What hidden agendasmight thisideology serve? Whobenefits from thisideological stance?" SZT beganas we confronted apparent anomaliesin theideologyof erase-and-replace assimilation. Theturn ofthe20thcentury, roughly from the 1880s through the 1920s, could be arguedas the zenithof the U.S. assimilationist agenda.Federalreservation agencies,on-andoff-reservation day and boardingschools,and churchmissionswere all conceivedas laboratories toimplement a powerful suiteofpoliciesandpractices designed - we're told- to assimilate American Indians.The removalof children from families, English-only manuallaboreducation, landallotment, federal trustauthority to manageIndigenousresources, unrestricted (or plenary) Congressionalaction to controlNative governance, land dispossession, criminalization ofNativereligions andeconomies, andextreme policepowers converged inaneffort toeraseevery traceofIndian-ness and"Americanize" thefirst Americans. Figure1, a photograph fromtheFortMojave Indian Schoolearlyinthe20thcentury, visually sumsuptheassimilationist agenda andthewaysinwhich itpunished Nativestudents. Butthenwe areconfronted bytheanomalies: historic photosofsmall tipismade fromtableclothsas students fromtheNorthern and Southern Plainswereallowed, evenencouraged, torecreate miniature campswithin the confines ofboarding schoolplaygrounds; bilingual readers produced bythe BureauofIndianAffairs (see Figure2); boarding schoolclassesintheskills to producerugs,pottery, and basketry; and the preservation of tribal communal property in- ofallthings - the1924IndianCitizenship Act,the assimilationists' purported pinnacle ofachievement. As we turn ouranalytic lens towardfederalpolicies laterin the century, we findmore blatant anomalies, as theU.S. government passedthenation'sfirst andonlyextant official languagepolicy,theNativeAmerican LanguagesActof 1990/1992, reversing morethantwocenturies ofofficial andunofficial policiesbanning NativeAmerican languages inAmerican Indian-serving schools.As wewrote inourbook,"Whata difference 100yearsmake!"(Lomawaima& McCarty, 2006,p. 134). Atfirst blush, theanomalies prompted theresponse, "Howodd.Itmust be anoversight, oranaccident." Buttheinadequacy ofthat dismissive response was quickly madeevident bythefrequency andsubstance oftheanomalies. Thereweretoomanyofthem, occurring attoomanycritical junctures. They did seem, however,to operatein the historical recordas anomalies,as "exceptions that provedtherule,"so tospeak.Theydidnotderailprocesses ofassimilation, butthey clearly contradicted theideologyinessential ways. So, itseemedthat wecouldnotsimply accepttheideology offull, erase-and2 Journal of American Indian Education -Volume 53,Issue3,2014 Figure 1. "FortMojave IndianSchool,"fromtheA. P. Millercollection, ArizonaStateMuseum, University ofArizona. replaceassimilation atitsfacevalue.We asked:Whatother agendasmight be servedby theU.S. government choosingto perpetuate a controlled set of carefullyselected,carefullydomesticated, iconic markersof nationally defined "Indian-ness?"1 Ouranswers tothequestions, "Whatother agendasmight be served?" and"Whobenefits?" generated Safety ZoneTheory. Inanarticle inAmerican Educational Research Journal ,weaddressed the"entangled forces" that have directed thenation-state's "dancebetween 'safe'and'dangerous' difference" in the"contest between Nativeeducational sovereignty andfederal constraints" Journal of American Indian Education -53,Issue3,2014 3 Figure2. Thesearea fewofthebilingual IndianLifeReadersproduced in the early 1940s by the Bureau of IndianAffairswithEnglish/heritage language texts onfacing pages,inLakota(About theHenofWahpeton; Clark, 1943a),Spanish(YoungHunter ofPicuris ; Clark...