Introduction to the Hmong History and Cultural Studies Model Curriculum
By Dr. Kaozong N. Mouavangsou
This chapter serves as an introduction for teachers interested in teaching Hmong history and cultural studies. It is crucial for teachers not only to understand the materials themselves, but also to comprehend their perceptions of people who are Hmong, their experiences, histories, and communities. As emphasized by education scholar Ladson-Billings (2008), “...the problem is rooted in how we think – about the social contexts, about the students, about the curriculum, and about instruction” (p. 30). In this case, the ways that instructors think about Hmong histories, cultures, experiences, students, and communities will be reflected and manifested in their teaching practices. The Hmong History and Cultural Studies Model Curriculum should not be thought of as an inclusive project to add the representation of Hmong peoples in K-12 curricula merely. This curriculum will facilitate a better understanding of the diverse world that we live in and complicate monolithic narratives of people seen as “other” in the United States. Therefore, the goal of this introductory chapter is to frame the Hmong History and Cultural Studies Model Curriculum in a way that challenges how people who are Hmong have been portrayed in the United States and recenter the perspectives, knowledge, experience, and history of people who are Hmong. The chapter will answer the following questions: Why should teachers care about how they frame these lessons in their classrooms? How will this curriculum support classroom teachers? How will this model curriculum enhance student learning? In answering these questions, the chapter will touch upon reframing the Hmong narrative through language and identity.
Why should teachers care about how they frame these lessons in their classrooms?
A person’s education shapes who they are and how they view the world. As research has shown (Mouavangsou, 2019; Sleeter & Zavala, 2020; and Woodson, 1982), our nation’s education systems have a record of privileging Eurocentric values and perspectives. This type of teaching has an adverse effect on members of BIPOC (or Black, Indigenous, People of Color) communities wherein they view themselves as inferior to the dominant white culture (Mouavangsou, 2019; Sleeter & Zavala, 2020; and Woodson, 1982). In this curriculum, teachers could miseducate, that is, incorrectly teach (both implicitly and explicitly) their students about Hmong worldviews, history, and experiences (Mouavanagsou, 2019/2020; Vue & Mouavangsou, 2021; and Yang, 2012). This miseducation amounts to more than teaching the wrong information but is connected to the larger impact it can have in shaping the way students perceive and internalize meanings about themselves, their communities, and the world that they live in. Specific to this curriculum, miseducation is tied to perpetuating deficit and damage-centered beliefs about Hmong people. Those who have a deficit mindset focus on what Hmong people are lacking and blame Hmong people for their own circumstances. Meanwhile, damage-centered is more socially and historically situated to explain a community’s pain and suffering (Tuck, 2009). In this case, the continuous casting of people who are Hmong as refugee victims makes it so that their pain and suffering alone are what define Hmong communities.
Teachers play an important role in both the learning and schooling experiences of students and leave students with lasting impacts that continue even after graduation. Hence, teachers have to carefully consider how they teach their students by first understanding their perspectives of Hmong communities. Self-awareness will enable teachers to identify and address their own miseducation. Teachers’ framing of content materials and how they teach are important regardless of the identities of students in their classrooms. While these lessons come from Hmong perspectives, the teachers’ own interpretations will be transmitted and serve to create the frames for student learning. Framing and miseducation inform each other and are crucial in teachers’ teachings.
Reframing the Hmong Narrative
The U.S. dominant narrative about Hmong people situates them in the context of war, as U.S. allies, and displaced refugees who arrived in the United States in search of asylum. Casted as refugees, Hmong people are also seen superficially as having no agency but rather are waiting for the United States to rescue them. This one-dimensional frame is problematic. Teachers must “...see both these conditions (historic/contemporary) and more deeply into the broad range of social, cultural, and political life that HMong Americans have carved out for themselves even in the most inopportune circumstances and structures” (Vue & Mouavangsou, 2021, p. 266). Thus, if teachers only embrace this one-dimensional narrative of Hmong people as refugee victims, then it overlooks Hmong people’s agency in strategically utilizing their networks, resources, and knowledge to survive and thrive in the United States. The superficial framing of people who are Hmong as refugee victims automatically strips them of agency and dignity. These dominant narratives continue to limit portrayals of people who are Hmong to deficit and damaged-centered perspectives.
Additionally, the dominant narrative about Hmong culture is that it is in opposition to “American culture.” This positioning of two cultures paints a dichotomy of a “good culture” vs. “bad culture” and more so a hierarchy of culture superiority over the other. To continually paint Hmong culture and American culture as clashing is problematic for several reasons. One, this depiction positions Hmong culture as the reason for Hmong people’s inability to assimilate or fit into American culture. Two, this depiction also fails to acknowledge how cultures change according to time and place. As defined by Nieto and Bode (2018), “culture consists of values, traditions, worldview, and social and political relationships, created, shared, and transformed by a group of people bound together by a common history, geographic location, language, social class, religion, or other shared identity” (p. 137). This broader definition of culture acknowledges the fluidity and changes that happen within cultures. Thus, no culture is immune to change. All cultures are fluid and changeable based on the conditions of their time. Thus, framing culture and defining culture as fluid is an important shift away from superficial narratives of Hmong cultures.
Hmong, Mong, Mhong, HMong, MHong, H(M)ong, H/Mong, Hmoob, Moob, Mhoob, HMoob, or MHoob?
While most people have commonly seen Hmong spelled this way, it is not the only spelling that exists. To some people, framing and positioning “Hmong” as the one and only way to spell is a form of erasure that homogenizes the diversity that exists within this community. The spelling, whether it is Hmong, Mong, Mhong, HMong, MHong, H(M)ong, H/Mong, Hmoob, Moob, Mhoob, HMoob, or MHoob, is a subject of great internal tension and debate. Some people have argued that the spelling “Hmong” is the norm and, therefore, we should continue to use it. Those in opposition have argued that to use “Hmong” over “Mong” is an indicator of which dialect one prefers, Hmong White or Mong Blue/Green. In some cases, the spelling, “Mhong” has been used in place of “Mong”, as a way to emphasize the Mhong Blue/Green dialects.
Furthermore, to frame the commonly used Hmong or Mong Romanized Popular Alphabet (RPA) as “the Hmong/Mong language” is also erroneous. While Hmong/Mong RPA is used to teach students the Hmong/Mong language in U.S. schools, this writing system is not the universal Hmong/Mong written language. It is important to note that although Hmong/Mong RPA is widely used, other Hmong/Mong writing systems exist. This chapter does not argue that Hmong/Mong RPA should not be taught, but, rather, intends to demonstrate the need for teachers to understand these concepts for accurate framing in the classroom. Regardless of which writing system one utilizes (English or Hmong/Mong RPA), the first letter, whether “H” or “M,” illustrates the highly contested nature of dialect usage and pedagogy.
Over the years, people have become creative with the spelling to be inclusive of both dialects. Some people started capitalizing the “H” and “M” together to become “HMong”, or “MHong” or adding a “/” for “H/Mong” or “Hmong/Mong” or “()” for H(M)ong. Moreover, some people have shifted from the English spellings and opted to use the Hmong/Mong RPA spelling, “Hmoob” in place of “Hmong” or “Moob” in place of “Mong.” The choice to use Hmong/Mong RPA when spelling (i.e., Hmoob or Moob) speaks to centering Hmoob/Moob people through Hmoob/Moob perspectives. However, similar to the debates surrounding “H” and “M”, some people capitalize the “H” and “M” to create “HMoob” or “MHoob” as a way to acknowledge both dialects. Yet, the dispute between which letter should come first can still be visible in the attempts to be inclusive.
These debates about spelling and writing systems provide insights into how power and politics are embedded into both language and identity. While some people do not have strong opinions on these issues, the question remains: which spelling should teachers use? To be honest, there is no singular correct spelling. The concern here is not on which spelling teachers should use, but, rather, on the extent to which teachers understand what different types of framing and usage signify. Instead of adhering to one singular form of spelling, teachers should become familiar with the different variations. Teachers should be intentional and transparent about spelling usage. Most importantly, students should be taught to recognize and understand the multiple forms of spelling and the multiplicity of meanings that they represent. Hence, framing is essential to respectfully center the diverse identities, experiences, and perspectives in this community.
How will this model curriculum support classroom teachers?
This model curriculum supports teachers, especially California high school teachers in fulfilling the Ethnic Studies requirement. Additionally, this model curriculum supports teachers who are interested in educating themselves and their students about the HMoob community and/or seeking to provide their students with a breadth of perspectives of the world. As stated earlier, this model curriculum contains areas of study lessons, and background information that teachers can draw from in order to develop a deeper understanding of the HMoob community.
Each area of study comes with an introductory chapter that will provide context for teachers and lessons that they can choose from. The introductory chapters support teachers in framing the content, while the lessons will assist teachers in demonstrating complex concepts/ideas to their students. Each lesson contains information that will aid teachers in carrying out instruction including background information for the lesson, teaching objective(s) and instructions, a list of resources, and corresponding grade level(s). The lessons will also indicate which content standards adopted by the California State Board of Education (e.g., English Language Arts/English Language Development, History-Social Science) apply to which lessons. While each lesson lists which grade level it was intended for, teachers may adapt lessons to apply them to their own classes.
How will this model curriculum enhance student learning?
This model curriculum will enhance students’ learning by building their critical thinking skills. Students will learn complex concepts and ideas and process them with their previous knowledge to make sense of them. As Ethnic Studies scholars Sleeter and Zavala (2020) argued, “it is not about replacing Eurocentric content with perspectives of marginalized people; it is challenging the epistemological groundwork” (p. 110). Teaching this model curriculum decenters the Eurocentric narratives about HMoob history, culture, experiences, and people, and provides an opportunity to learn from HMoob perspectives. Specifically, for Hmong students, this model curriculum is an opportunity to learn and see themselves represented in the classroom, where HMoob knowledge is centered. While this specific curriculum is HMoob-focused, the units and lessons are widely applicable and beneficial to all students.
Conclusion
Teachers are encouraged to assess their motivations for teaching HMoob curriculum to students and also to address their miseducation/assumptions about HMoob people. As previously mentioned, the ways teachers understand and perceive the histories, experiences, and people who are HMoob will manifest in the classroom. Hence, educators must consider how they frame lessons to prevent miseducating students about people who are HMoob, including HMoob students themselves.
References
Ladson-Billings, G. (2008). Yes, but how do we do it?”: Practicing culturally relevant pedagogy. In W. Ayers, G. Ladson-Billings, G. Michie, & R. Dee (Eds.), City kids, city schools: More reports from the front row (pp. 162–177). New Press.
Lee, M. N. M. (1998). The thousand-year myth: Construction and characterization of Hmong. Hmong Studies Journal, 2(2), 1–23.
Mouavangsou, K. (2019/2020). Hmong does not mean free: The miseducation of and by Hmong Americans. In K. L. Valverde & W. M. Dariotis (Eds.), Fight the tower: Asian American women scholars’ resistance and renewal in the academy (pp. 189–218). Rutgers University Press.
Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2018). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (7th edition.). Pearson.
Sleeter, C. E., & Zavala, M. (2020). Transformative ethnic studies in schools: Curriculum, pedagogy, and research. Teachers College Press.
Vue, R., & Mouavangsou, K. N. (2021). Calling our souls home: A HMong epistemology for creating new narratives. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 12(4), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/aap0000273
Woodson, C. G. (1933). The mis-education of the Negro. Book Tree.
Yang, K. (2012). Commentary: Mis-education in K-12 teaching about Hmong culture, identity, history and religion. Hmong Studies Journal, 13(1), 1.