Insider vs. Outsider - Thoughts Before And After

Before reading the Insider vs. Outsider Debate I really believed that something written by an outsider wouldn't be very reliable information because they didn't experience it themselves. Some experts in certain areas even have some misconceptions about what truly happened in the situation/event or some unanswered questions. I think that it can be very difficult for people on the outside to write about specific topics that others have experienced because they could accidentally say things or address issues that are offensive to those it happened to. After reading the Insider vs. Outsider Debate I have changed my outlook on authors of diverse literature. Of course things presented by someone who actually experienced it is going to be the most accurate because they witnessed it themselves and would probably be the best answer to finding out true information. After reading I no longer believe information written by an outsider is invalid information. Even though some of the things written may be assumptions and not really the truth I think that it can be good that the concept or situation is being addressed as best as possible, taking into consideration that things aren't exaggerated too much. For example, the topic in class about Pocahontas was a good example of not really presenting the whole truth about a period of time but it's getting across the main points so that children are aware of particular history. People that didn't experience slavery, or grow up handicapped should also become aware of what life is like for those who have lived through it. It's important to know because it makes society as a whole more understanding and really shapes us to become better people with positive views and opinions about people different from ourselves in race, gender, ethnicity, or culture. So I've learned that it can be very beneficial to be presented with information from an insider and an outsider.