 |
| David Grann visits area near Gray Horse, Oklahoma with journalist Lee Cowan (Still from CBS Morning News broadcast April 30, 2017) |
In a similar vein, one might argue that a teacher familiar with one particular region and its people would be more effective teaching in that region than an outsider would be.
You might also argue that a writer who grew up in a particular region and among its people would be more effective writing about that region than an outsider would be.
Do you see any potential problems with this kind of thinking about outsiders and familiar faces? What if the "region" is simply a town? Are there any situations in which an outsider might better qualified than someone who is familiar with a region?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI can definitely see how a person acclimated to a certain region would be better suited to address any problems than an outsider would be. He or she would be familiar with not only the area and culture, but with the individual characters of people. He would know if someone had a history of stealing, murdering, or any other crime.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this knowledge of people can create even more issues, as proven by this book. Bias played a huge role in the Osage cases, as it does in society. Although not all local lawmen would be corrupt, some might simply be too close to the situation to address it as it truly is. There are instances in which people "can't see the forrest for the trees"; in these cases an outsider would be better suited to handle the issues.
I agree completely with what you are saying about the addressing of problems! However, I feel like having everybody in an area with a certain type of mind can be dangerous. What comes to mind when I picture such a scenario is the infamous "groupthink" scenario in which individuals own ideas and values are overlooked by a general perception of a situation. True, while these people may know how Osage towns run, remember that in order to solve the case, Tom White recruited people who were similar enough to fit into the region but diverse enough in that they thought differently.
DeleteI sense great problems in hostile attitudes towards outside thinking. While a writer may in fact know his region better, being able to discuss with ANOTHER writer would be of great benefit by allowing his world to expand and see his own in a new light. One of the key ideologies taught in the scientific method is to share your findings after all- that way we can all improve as a society and solve issues such as the murders of the Osage.
-Chance Zernicek
I completely agree Alisha, and can see both sides of the argument in terms of having a local lawman working to solve a case. On one hand, they would have more of a knowledge of the area, culture, and people of that place than an outsider would, and this could help them to more effectively solve the case. On the other hand though, like you said, this could end up leading to biases that would only hinder proper justice from being carried out. In this respect, an outsider might be more suited for keeping a case neutral and bias-free.
Delete-Kaylee George
I like the points that Alisha made. In many cases having more knowledge of a place or situation is great, but in others it can blind people to the truth. It is too often that people will jump for the easier option because it requires less digging. While one may single a person out due to their history, people can change or they are capable of hiding parts of themselves from others. An outsider may be able to see signs that those closer to the situation can not or choose not to see.
DeleteI also agree with Chance and Kaylee that a blend of an outside and an inside perspective is most beneficial. Society can only be improved when we all come together and learn to see situations and struggles outside of our own.
Destiny Rowell
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I like the idea of having an "outsider" come into a new environment as they may see new issues or have different thoughts on situations that may have never been looked at again. That being said, with different scenarios comes in different cases. For instance, having a teacher move in from another district may seem great as they have different perspectives and have seen the way another school has taught but they may not know the way the students were raised or what environment they learn best in. When it comes to society's view on outsiders I know that it tends to be a little hostile, but I think outsiders can provide us with a larger spectrum of culture and ideology. Having an outside agent aid in a regional investigation certainly could help as they would have no bias to the people, region, or any other factors that someone who lived or stayed in an area would.
ReplyDelete-Sabrina Arredondo
It definitely makes sense that a person who is acquainted with an area or situation would have a better hold on a situation regarding that area or situation. However, I believe that an outsiders take is very often underrated. When we are complacent with our situation and continue to bring people in who are familiar we will not grow. We must bring in new ideas and perspectives in order to grow our thoughts and introduce new ideas into our everyday thinking.
ReplyDeleteI think that qualification in this sense is definitely subjective. In many ways, being acclimated to a particular subset of culture can be very helpful. It is easier to interact with the people and feel more comfortable in an environment that you understand. However, like many other comments have said, this can also present the issue of bias. Sometimes an outside perspective is important to have. Having a person working in an environment that they aren't accustomed to could often lead to better work being done, because they would be able to better examine and pick apart what they were seeing around them, instead of simply being used to it all. I definitely think Hoover should have worked on a case by case basis when it came to placing agents in particular places, because both "outsider" and "insider" perspectives have their own sets of pros and cons.
ReplyDeleteLevi, you make a great point that qualification is subjective. I also agree that it would be beneficial to select individuals on a case by case basis. There are undoubtedly times when an outsider would be more appropriate and when a person familiar with a region may be best suited. For example, an outside investigator is likely to see typical small town behavior more suspiciously than someone who has lived in that atmosphere and may be desensitized to it. In "Killers of the Flower Moon," an outsider may have wondered why the governor spent so much time with the doctors, jail warden, etc. which might have seemed normal to someone who was accustomed to small town culture. However, it is possible that townspeople could have been more suspicious of someone who did not fit in with their way of life and might have been less likely to confide in them as a result. On the other hand, having someone who is not interlaced in town “drama” may have been a positive thing in regard to getting someone to share something.
DeleteBrittany West
There are definite pros and cons to this logic, especially depending on the situation at hand. The people who are known and comfortable in one particular region are often more trusted by the other occupant, allowing some aspects of certain jobs to be easier such as questioning witnesses. Outsiders would have a harder time gaining trust or support however, they bring an important unbiased view, as other comments have said. In the case of an FBI agent, someone familiar with the region might have a harder time believing the facts if a person they know well is involved. However, they would also have a better knowledge of the surrounding areas unlike an outsider. I agree with Sabrina in that an outsider brings new ideas and interpretations to an area where the thinking could become stagnant.
ReplyDeleteHaving a person familiar with the "region" being an area or people group has many advantages. They will be able to understand the issue and relate to the people more easily. Being acquainted with the region allows the ones involved to open up and have a better line of communication. However, an outsider will be able to see the situation in another perspective, without bias. The most effective solution is to have both a familiar and an outsider. There are instances where a outside opinion is better suited for dealing with issues. An outsider would observe the results and determine what really happened without any grey areas while someone familiar could hide or condone behavior of a person because of their relationship.
ReplyDeleteAs in the case with the team that White assembles in the novel, people accustomed similar regions geographically, politically, and socially will have an easier time adjusting to their new assignment or task. If you took a citizen of the United States who doesn't know another language and has never left the country and placed him in any other country that person will have too hard of a time adjusting to do his task efficiently. I do not know any occupation in which you could take an outsider and they will out perform the candidate who is more familiar with the subject.
ReplyDeleteI do understand where Hoover is coming from when he says that an agent familiar with a specific region of the country may be more effective than in a region that they know nothing about. However, this could lead to a bias of opinion depending on the relationship between the agent and the case or its related persons. Also, sometimes it is good to have someone looking in from the outside because they can see the bigger picture clearer than someone standing in the middle of it all.
ReplyDelete