Showing posts with label Eve Bunting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eve Bunting. Show all posts

How Many Days to America? A Thanksgiving Story


author: Eve Bunting
illustrator: Beth Peck
Clarion, 1988
kindergarten-grade 3
Latin American

How Many Days to America? A Thanksgiving Story tells the wrenching tale of a family forced to leave an unnamed Latin American country, where they are fleeing from political oppression. They board a fishing boat to travel to the US. Their journey is arduous—the motor breaks, the soldiers in their country shoot at them from the shore, their food and water run out, people become ill, and thieves take what little they have left. When they finally arrive at the US mainland, soldiers give them food and water but do not let them land. “They will not take us,” the father comments sadly, but he doesn’t say why.

Yet inexplicably, the next day, the boat lands at the US shore again. This time there are no soldiers, but instead a large crowd of people who welcome the family and usher them into a shed in which there are tables covered with delicious food. They explain that it is “Thanksgiving” and tell the new arrivals about the significance of that day in the US. How Many Days ends with a description of how “[f]ather gave thanks that we were free, and safe—and here.” The little sister asks if they can stay. “Yes, small one,” the father replies. “We can stay.”

Peck’s pastel drawings, on a subdued, depressing palette of mostly browns, blues and some yellows, portray the characters as real human beings. They have real expressions; they are real people with whom children can relate. The tone of the illustrations is as somber as the story, and then—voila!—the people are all sitting together at a table laden with delicious food, and the whole scene is brighter, lighter, and more hopeful. Teachers may be drawn to the illustrations as well, and those who find stories about “The First Thanksgiving” problematic might unwittingly see this book as a great Thanksgiving read-aloud that encompasses both multicultural and social justice themes. They would be wrong.

One of the most frustrating things about How Many Days is that Bunting doesn’t specify where the characters are from, why they have to leave their homes, or why they are being shot at. Rather, she serves up a generic version of a politically oppressive tropical nation, feeding into US stereotypes of Latin America as a backwards place full of palm trees and dictators. Many factors indicate that the unnamed country is probably Cuba—for example, the fact that the refugees can travel by boat to the US and that they are presumably safe from immigration authorities once they land. However, by refusing to name the place—by portraying the characters absent any cultural, linguistic or historical specificity—Bunting avoids real conversation about politics or the realities facing Cuba and her people.

How Many Days sets up a false expectation: No matter the struggle that it takes to get to the US, once here, you are safe and you are allowed to stay. Yet this is clearly not the case for many migrants and immigrants who have no documents. Indeed, many children recognize that, despite their families’ arduous journeys to this country, they still face the dangers of deportation, exploitation, and discrimination. Just as Bunting stays silent on the reasons why the soldiers initially refuse to allow the family to land, she all too swiftly conjures up a happy ending. In How Many Day to America? A Thanksgiving Story, Bunting simplifies and objectifies immigrants’ struggles and ignores the possibility that citizenship might not be easily attainable for all who set foot on US shores. NOT Recommended.

—Grace Cornell Gonzales
(published 6/14/13)

Going Home

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.”

Diazs 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.

Day's Work: The Exploitation of Mexican Day Laborers as a Cautionary Morality Tale



author: Eve Bunting
illustrator: Ronald Himler
publisher: Clarion, 1994
grades 1-3 
Mexican, Mexican American

One Saturday, a young Mexican-American boy takes his newly arrived grandfather to a day laborer pickup spot. Grandfather speaks no English, so the boy goes along to acclimate him to the intricacies of an English-only world. There’s a lot of competition for work, but the boy manages to arrive at a contractor’s truck before the other workers get there, and offers himself as a second laborer: “two for the price of one.” 

The boy does all the translating and bargaining, including the details of what the job involves. And he lies, telling the contractor that his grandfather is a gardener. After brief directions, grandfather and grandson are left to work alone. When the contractor returns, the two are shocked and ashamed to learn that they had pulled the ice plants and left the chickweed. When the grandfather catches the boy in his lie, he says: “We do not lie for work.” The grandfather promises to rectify the error for free, and the contractor implies that, because of his integrity, there will be more work for him.

Himler’s artwork is lovely. His soft, light-filled watercolors, using a muted palette of mostly autumnal colors, reminds me of Matisse’s Impressionistic use of light and space. The artist uses the wash to give the impression of being outdoors, of light shining off trees, specks of water on grass, shadows on clothing. The faces are not detailed; they’re felt rather than seen. Children will be drawn to his work, which I happen to like; but all this is apparently unimportant. The faceless workers are irrelevant to the story except for providing the setting of men standing around, waiting for work or when one of them tries to force his way into the contractor’s truck. While the lack of cultural markers marginalizes the workers and trivializes their desperation, impoverishment and hopelessness, the art both softens the difficulty of their lives and reinforces the concepts of ignorance and backwardness in ways that the words don’t. Both art and words come together to create a fake scenario to make Bunting’s point.

Reviews of A Day’s Work, for the most part, have been uncritically positive. According to Booklist, for instance, “The family drama captures the universal immigrant experience in which the child must help the adult interpret the new world, while the wise adult still has much to teach the child about enduring values.” And the book was named a 1994 Américas Commended Title from the Consortium of Latin American Studies Programs.

When I was in the third grade and studying California Indians, by some quirk of fate, when it came my turn to read aloud, it was a paragraph labeled “Digger Indians.” Next to the paragraph was a picture of a child, kneeling in the dirt with a stick in his hand. I learned that “digger” meant that they dug for worms and insects to eat, and, they were Cahuilla. My family is Cahuilla. I was never so humiliated in my life. I could barely speak and the teacher had to prompt me to “read louder.” I tried to pretend that I was not related to that child, but I knew that I was. I tell you this story because I know in my heart that this is what children whose fathers are day laborers, or Mexican laborers for that matter, will feel when they read this book.

The problems in A Day’s Work may not be as traumatic as seeing your family digging in the dirt for food, but for children whose families do manual labor or speak only Spanish—the humiliation is the same.

Bunting has made a career out of writing “multicultural” picture books that use poor and immigrant people as backdrops for cautionary morality tales. In Bunting’s picture books, there’s no insight as to why people leave their home countries, their linguistic and educational backgrounds, or their dreams and aspirations. There are no issues to deal with, other than the fact that the grandfather doesn’t speak English, because Bunting doesn’t see any. In her shallow worldview, the exploitation of day laborers, the backbreaking work for little money with no job security, the immigrant-bashing and English-only legislation, the laws being enacted against migrant and immigrant workers, the threat of la Migra at every turn, aren’t real to her because they don’t have to be. Bunting’s a one-trick pony. We get no sense of the people in her stories; they are there merely as a watercolor wash to her morality tale.

Positive reviews notwithstanding, here are some of the problems in A Day’s Work:

Unreal scenario. No Mexican mother in her right mind would thrust a young kid into the all-male world of day laborers, where their language would be improper for children to hear, and where strangers pulling up in cars and trucks all day would present a real danger for her child. It’s just not done. But since the protagonist of this story has to be a youngster to fit the picture-book template, and Bunting has crafted the theme to be about honesty and hard work rather than danger, she seems to have no problem with ignoring this reality.

Location, location, location. Since the story takes place in Los Angeles, Francisco would know that the ice plant is the plant of choice for open areas, and, unless he’s never been in a car or anywhere else, he would not mistake it for a weed. But again, because Bunting’s theme is solely about the value of honesty and hard work, she seems to have no problem inserting a stereotype about Mexicans who have no observable skills and can’t tell a plant from a weed. An aside: ice plant, while not native to Southern California (it was imported from Australia) is a succulent, thick-skinned and containing liquid, like many plants found throughout Mexico, and if it is taken for anything, it would be the cactus family.

Unreal reaction. In any event, a contractor who discovered that his over- and under-age workers have pulled out the desirable plants and left the weeds, would probably, at the very least, fire them on the spot—without pay. Since it’s the habit of many contractors to cruise pickup areas for this exploitable cheap labor, it would be highly unlikely, after such an error, for the grandfather to be rewarded for his  “honesty.” The contractor would certainly make him redo the work, for nothing, then never hire him again. Or, maybe there really are nice guys out there, and I’m way too cynical.

Lack of cultural markers. Here, there is nothing that would identify the culture, the place, the family, or the individual workers as Mexicans or anyone else. There is no humor, no closeness, no relationships, not even the casual banter between workers who know each other because they share a culture and language, and because they come together every day at this pickup spot. There are ten basic Spanish words, two of them about food: tortilla and chorizo. (And we don’t save up to buy chorizo; it’s very cheap, and my family usually eats it for breakfast, not for dinner.)

Inappropriate language structure. When Francisco talks with the contractor, he speaks perfect American English. Yet, in translating for his grandfather, Francisco speaks in a way that’s literal and stilted; this lack of contractions would normally indicate that a language is newly acquired. And when he speaks with the other workers, it’s even worse: “My abuelo, my grandfather, does not speak English yet.” Clunky translation aside, since the grandfather and the workers are all Mexican, why is it seen as necessary for a Mexican child to speak for his Mexican grandfather in English to people who speak Spanish? Is it too much to say it in proper Spanish, then translate it into proper English so the reader knows what he is saying and can give us a sense of people being able to speak their own languages? It seems that the author is confused about Spanish fluency or what it is to be bilingual—even though her story is all about language!

Unreal again! The contractor hires Spanish-speaking day laborers, yet he doesn’t speak or understand Spanish. In fact, Bunting presents fluency in Spanish as not only unimportant, but actually a hindrance. The contractor is furious because neither the grandfather nor the grandson can tell a weed from a desirable plant—not because the contractor could not communicate with the grandfather, but because the grandfather could not speak or understand English. Migrants from Mexico speak with each other in colloquial Spanish, and in communicating with contractors, most know at least enough English to be understood. And most contractors have at least a rudimentary working knowledge of Spanish, enough to tell the workers what the day’s work entails. Or they stick with English speakers. In A Day’s Work, except for two sentences, the workers don’t talk; they just hang out, “grumble,” and “shuffle around.” And they litter.

Children want to see their fathers as deserving of dignity and respect, and there’s nothing worse than to be ashamed of themselves and their parents. Mexican day laborers work very, very hard, struggling to feed their families here in el norte or in their home villages in el sur. Many day laborers are without documents that legally permit them to live here, and daily, risk having their families torn apart by raids and deportation orders. Bunting’s dysconscious refusal to acknowledge the economic desperation of these migrant workers is also a refusal to acknowledge the danger of being an “illegal” on this side of the border.

A few words about the cover, the first thing that children will see: An elderly man and a boy sit next to each other on the curb of a sidewalk. They do not interact. The man, whose gray hair is covered by a straw hat, wears pants that are frayed at the edges with huaraches on his feet. He sits with hands clasped around his knees, body turned inward. He faces forward, eyes half closed, staring into nothing. Behind him is an overflowing garbage can, and next to his feet lies a large piece of garbage. Several other pieces of garbage lie on the ground behind the two, but the larger pieces are closer to the man than to the boy. The boy, whose dark hair is covered by an LA Lakers cap, wears a denim jacket, denim jeans, and tennis shoes. He faces away from the elderly man and away from the garbage can. His arms are spread out behind him and his legs are spread in front. He looks off into the distance, his eyes wide open. So here are old and young, tired and energetic, traditional and modern.

Some questions: Why are the man and boy surrounded by garbage? Why haven’t they picked it up? Why aren’t the man and boy interacting? Why is the boy looking off in the distance? Is he looking to the future, open to new experiences? Away from his family? Away from his community? Away from his language and culture? Away from the garbage? My only guess is that, embedded in the cover, together with the interior artwork and the text, is this subliminal message: Learn English or die, sucker! It creeps me out.

In the guise of a story about the “universal immigrant experience” whose primary focus is a moral lesson about honesty and the importance of the work ethic, what young children and their teachers will get from A Day’s Work is a romanticized, trivialized, disparaging, and distorted glimpse into the world of hard-working Mexican migrant day laborers. Not recommended.

—Judy Zalazar Drummond
(published 4/5/13)