Insiders Know Best

In regards to the "insider/outsider" debate, I stand firmly on the side of the insiders. I agree with Rudine Bishop when she states: "...you have to know a culture intimately if you're going to reflect it accurately in your fiction." I believe that she is stating that while one does not have to necessarily be part of the particular culture about which they are writing, they must have a plethora of credible knowledge. Only then can an enriched piece of literature be created that could potentially be read by millions of people.

While I am not sure on how others may define the term "insider" I take the term to mean an author that is either a part of any given culture, or is extremely aware of how a culture goes about their every day life. Only then can that author produce a non-fiction or fictional story.

In the case that there is stereotypical or false information in a piece of literature, the author is ultimately supplying the reader with misleading information. If the reader is unaware of this, they will assume that the information is correct, and could proceed to spread the wrong ideas to other people.

In Violet Harris' article titled "No Invitations Required to Share Multiculturalism Literature", she makes an incredibly powerful statement:

"I selected the authors because they are experts in literacy and/or children's literature; they are informed about the group's literature; and they possess the critical consciousness that enabled them to assess the literature in a forthright manner."

These three reasons Hill uses in determining quality authors sum up the insider/outsider deabate beautifully. It is imperative that authors have the proper knowledge to develop a story that the readers can learn from and possibly relate to.