author:
Eve Bunting
illustrator:
David Díaz
HarperCollins, 1996
kindergarten-grade
3
Mexican,
Mexican American
Ever since the day after Thanksgiving in 1960, when
“CBS Reports” aired a documentary called “Harvest of Shame,” the exploitation
of migrant agricultural workers has been a national scandal. Farm workers—then
and now—live at or below the poverty level and depend on their meager income
to feed their families here, and often to support relatives in their home country
as well.
Two years later, César Chávez and Dolores Huerta
founded the United Farm Workers, a human rights and labor organization that
successfully focused the national media’s attention on the struggles of
agricultural workers for better pay, safer working conditions, and the right to
organize. “Alone, the farm workers have no economic power,” Chávez said, “but
with the help of the public they can develop the economic power to counter that
of the growers.”
More recently, the corporate successes and excesses
of NAFTA have brought nothing but impoverishment to Mexican workers, both in
their country and in the US. While large transnational corporations profit
hand-over-fist from free trade, slack regulation, and abundant and cheap
Mexican labor, hundreds of thousands of displaced people—from cities, towns and
villages—are forced to head north in order to survive. On this side, the
Mexican migrant workers, many if not most undocumented, have nowhere else to
go.
Eve Bunting’s Going Home was
published 35 years after “Harvest of Shame” was aired, 33 years after the
United Farm Workers was founded, and two years after NAFTA was enacted into
law. So one might think that Bunting would have had plenty of information about
how agricultural workers and their families live—if she had looked. Apparently,
she didn’t.
In Going Home, the young narrator,
Carlos, finds out that he and his farm worker family will soon be “going home”
to La Perla, Mexico, for Christmas vacation. “Home is here,” his mother
explains, “but it is there, too.” Well, I would bet anything that no
agricultural workers in their right mind would refer to a labor camp as “home.”
Turn two pages: “Papa locks the door of our house,” Carlos says. “The house
really belongs to Mr. Culloden, the labor manager, but it is ours as long as we
work the crops for him. It has been ours for almost five years.” On the facing
page, the artwork depicts this farm worker family’s “home” as one in a row of
suburban tract houses, with neatly manicured lawns—as far from a typical
ramshackle labor camp domicile as Santa Barbara might be from
Appalachia.
Papa tells the children that they are “legal farm
workers,” so they will have no trouble crossing the border. Well, that’s convenient—not
only does Bunting neatly avoid describing the incidences of harassment, arrest,
jail and deportation common at border crossings, she also does so by having
Papa explain why: This family is “legal.” The world is good.
Then there is the peppering of Spanish words in the
text—“sí,” “mijo” [sic], “papeles”—coming from the parents. Carlos explains to
the reader that, “Papa speaks always in Spanish. He and Mama have no English.
There is no need for it in the fields. But I’m always trying to teach them.”
But. Since there are only a few Spanish words in the entire text, everyone appears to be speaking English. And Carlos is correcting Papa
when he says a word in Spanish, which Mexican children do not do because it
would be rude. Rather, children learn early on how to code-switch, an important
skill in a household where the parents speak one language and the children
speak two. This is all different from teaching the parents English or interpreting when
interpretation is needed, a subtlety that is lost on Bunting. And I’m not sure
why Bunting decided to use Spanish grammatical forms in Carlos’s English,
either. This whole language thing is just a mess.
Carlos says that he and his sister know “how hard
the work is. The heat in the strawberry fields. The sun pushing down between
the rows of tomatoes. The little flies biting our faces. We know because we
work, too, on weekends and school vacations.” In truth, children often work
alongside their parents in the fields—before and after school, when they are
fortunate enough to be able to attend school—as well as weekends and vacations.
While federally mandated Migrant Education Programs exist, children living in
rural areas often do not get to go to school. And despite the existence of
child labor laws that vary from state to state, children are often forced to
work under a parent’s name or under an alias. It’s a dirty business, but one
that Bunting conveniently ignores.
Why did Carlos’s family come here, then? “We are
here for the opportunities,” Papa says. More likely, the children would not
ask, because they would know. Toiling in the fields as migrant agricultural
workers is hardly done for the “opportunities”—it’s done for survival and
possibly to send some money home.
So Mama, Papa, Carlos, Delores, and Nora arrive at
La Perla, where they meet the rest of their family and have a great time.
Everyone is impressed with the children’s nice clothes and English skills, and
the family talks more about “opportunities”:
They laugh and clap. “Imagine,
Consuelo! Your son—and all your children—speaking English. So smart!” “Yes,”
Papa says. “Their school is very fine. They are getting a good education.” The
woman nods. “You were wise to take them and go. Our school is good, too. But
where are the opportunities for our children after?”
La Perla is a beautiful place, but there is no
“opportunity” here, only in the US. That night, the children sleep in the car,
and Mama and Papa come out to dance in the streets. Older sister Delores tells
Carlos that Mama and Papa “plan to come back someday and live in Grandfather’s
house and work his land.” Carlos thinks, “It will be after our
opportunities.”
“Diaz’s fiesta-bright artwork,” a reviewer for Kirkus gushes, “ignites this joyous tale of a Mexican-American family’s sentimental journey.... The fiery colors and bold lines of Diaz's woodcut-like illustrations lend a strength and nobility to these scenes.... [H]e sets his artwork within the photographic backdrops that show gaily painted pottery, folk art figurines, Mexican Christmas decorations, festive flowers and other shiny holiday trinkets. A veritable feast for the eyes...” What the Kirkus reviewer lauds is precisely the problem. Diaz has aptly illustrated Bunting’s sanitized story of a hard working Mexican family for the edification of cultural tourists: take home all the pretty things and look away from the garbage. Indeed, this story and art together function as an apologia for imperialism.
Bunting’s
purposeful ignoring of racism in order to maintain the status quo is palpable.
Where she sees issues, they are not so bad. In the case of Going Home, there is no backbreaking
labor, no inhaling of toxic pesticides, no sweat, no tears, no exhaustion, no
harassment from labor bosses or La Migra. Just “opportunities.” A Publishers Weekly review of Going Home could have been about
any of Bunting’s “social justice” books, which “(hint) at the depth of
parental love and sacrifice while distancing children from genuine
understanding.”
Scholar
Joyce King has coined a term for this kind of thinking: “dysconscious racism,”
which she defines as “a form of racism that tacitly accepts the dominant white
norms and privileges.” [1] And scholar Dan Hade has labeled Bunting’s
“social justice” books as “aestheticizing the poor, anesthetizing the reader.”[2]
One
last thing: On the dedication page of Going
Home, Bunting writes: “Sincere thanks to Joe Mendoza, Regional Director of
Migrant Education, Region #17.” Curious to know what kind of involvement
someone who works with migrant families might have had with this book, I phoned
him. What he told me[3] was that he and Bunting were “like two
ships passing in the night; if she walked in right now, I wouldn’t remember
her. As I recall, she walked into my office and asked if she could meet a
migrant family because she was writing a book. I vaguely remember introducing
her to a family, more as a courtesy than anything else and that was that. I
spoke with her once or twice; she never asked me to read her manuscript or
anything like that.”
Bunting is not the only mediocre writer who
acknowledges sources solely to create credibility for a book. When a writer
acknowledges someone who is not a friend but whose name carries a particular
credential, the assumption is that the person has lent some kind of oversight
or has helped in significant ways. In Going Home, Bunting implies
something that isn’t there; it’s disingenuous.
Bunting’s “social justice” books show a distortion
of reality in order to appeal to what some want to believe.
Her formula fits issues such as homelessness (Fly Away Home, 1991),
immigration (One Green Apple, 2006), rebellion (Smoky Night,
1994), youth gangs (Your Move, 1998), forced relocation (So Far from
the Sea, 1998). Et cetera. As with Bunting’s others, Going Home is
sympathetic in a seemingly harmless way. But it’s not harmless;
on the contrary, it’s cruel. It’s cruel to the children of agricultural
workers and other migrant and immigrant children who must struggle for the
“opportunities” that others have as their birthright. And it’s cruel to the
unsuspecting children who are being anesthetized to the hard lives of others.
Going Home is
not recommended.
—Beverly Slapin
(published 5/18/13)
[1] Joyce E. King, Ph.D, holds the Benjamin
E. Mays Chair of Urban Teaching, Learning, and Leadership in the College of
Education at Georgia State University. This definition is from her paper,
“Disconscious Racism: Ideology, Identity, and the Miseducation of Teachers” (Journal
of Negro Education, Vol. 60, No. 2, 1991).
[2] Daniel Hade, Ph.D, is an Associate Professor
in Language and Literacy at Penn State College of Education, where he looks at
how poverty is constructed in children’s books and how it is used as an
aesthetic. In 1995, he spoke at a children’s literature conference; the title
of his talk was “Aestheticizing the Poor, Anesthetizing the Reader: the ‘Social
Justice’ Books of Eve Bunting.”
[3] Joe Mendoza generously gave me permission to
take notes while we were talking, and to quote him. He said, “Only liars don’t
let themselves be quoted.” Thanks, Joe.