Insider/Outsider Debate

After reading the articles pertaining to the inside/outsider debate, I find myself not siding strongly with either side. I can see the pros and cons of writing multicultural literature as both an insider and an outsider. Before taking this class, I thought that any literature written about a culture that was not mainstream would be considered multicultural literature. Quite obviously, my viewpoints have changed.

I think that an insider could very easily write an accurate story about their own culture because they have the ability to draw upon their personal experiences from their childhood, as well as their adult life. They don't have to do a lot of research because they are writing a story involving things that actually happened to them or people close to them. However, you also have to consider how accurate their story really is. Often when people tell childhood stories, they are exaggerated upon for dramatic effect. These writers could unknowingly be writing false information because their parents could have told them a story wrong, or they could have even remembered a story wrong. With that being said, maybe an outsider is more fit to write multicultural literature? No, because there are many things that can go wrong in researching a culture. You have to be extremely careful when researching because it is very easy to obtain false information without even knowing it. Also, even if careful and accurate research is collected, the writer still does not have that personal connection to the culture that an insider has.

After considering both sides of the debate, I think that anyone can write multicultural literature. An insider has to be careful that they are telling an accurate rendition of their story, while an outsider has to make sure that they collect accurate and ample research.