Search
On-Site Program Calendar
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Room
Browse By Unit
Browse By Session Type
Search Tips
Change Preferences / Time Zone
Sign In
X (Twitter)
As Appalachians outside of Appalachia, we are met with confusion when we decree that we are simultaneously Georgians and Appalachians. Thirty-seven Georgia counties, rich with literacies and languages, fall within Appalachia’s boundaries (Appalachian Regional Commission, 2023; Foxfire, 2023; Wolfram, 1977, 1984). However, Appalachia has constantly faced a stereotype of widespread illiteracy that has persisted for decades (McCarroll & Harkins, 2019). This prolific illiteracy stereotype fuels deficit narratives. Hayes (2017) explains,
two ideas at work in the dominant narrative: that Appalachians are without “real” literacy in terms of academic discourse (and are unwilling or unable to gain it), and that the literacies they have, in terms of cultural and place-based literacies, don’t count in the ways we might otherwise believe multicultural literacies should. (p.73)
Scholarship is growing around Appalachian studies, specifically language and literacies, but Georgia narratives appear to be missing (Harkins & McCarroll, 2019; Hasty & Childs, 2021; Slocum, 2019; Tennant, 2022; Webb-Sunderhaus, 2016). We qualitatively analyzed existing research regarding Appalachian language and literacy to understand the erasure of Georgia's Appalachian language and literacies. We focused on the following questions: What is the significance of Georgia's Appalachian region within the broader context of Appalachian studies? Which specific resources, such as books, scholarly articles, and grey literature, have contributed to the understanding of Georgia Appalachia and its linguistic heritage? How can the insights derived from the thematic analysis inform efforts to address Georgia's Appalachian language and literacies within educational contexts?
When examining the existing literature, two main findings emerged. First, the inclusion of Georgia in the literature does not extend beyond its mention of being part of the Appalachian region (Lalik & Dellinger, 2001; Locklear, 2011; Parker, 2010; Powers, 2002; Sohn, 2006; Watkins, 1949; Williams, 1978). Second, most studies did not focus on Georgia’s Appalachian regions, languages, or literacies. Publications centered on Georgia’s were found only when Foxfire, an Appalachian Heritage museum, was used as a search term (Ensminger & Dangel, 1992; Glickman, 2016; Hayes, 2017; Peine et. al, 2020; Sitton, 1978; Teets & Starnes, 1996; Wiggington, 1989). Foxfire’s extensive research was not included in other articles related to Appalachian language, identities, and literature (e.g. Anderson et. al, 2014).
Appalachian Georgia must be included in sustaining identities, culture, and language in Georgia education; otherwise, they are at risk for erasure (Paris, & Alim, 2017). Lisa Parker (2010) explains
I have whitewashed my South Appalachian to an understandable hue, put those regional words in jars with lace lids, breath held, for the scholarly nods. That approval is almost enough to tolerate knowing that between what I am and what I write something is rotting. (p.20)
If Appalachian Georgia communities are excluded from conversations regarding culturally sustaining pedagogies, we risk facilitating rot. The implications of this erasure are grave for Appalachian students. Peine (2020) explains, “When place and identity are erased in Appalachian classrooms through the adoption of common core standards, there is no counter-narrative to challenge the narrative of deficiency that is projected onto yet another generation of Appalachians” (p. 52).