A week or two ago I was asked to introduce myself to a group of teachers in an "alternate" way. This was to mean I could not talk about my classroom, my school, or my degree program. I'm really not good at introductions - of any sort. I generally say very little which produces, at the end, an awkward silence in which everyone wonders if I am finished. Not knowing how to let people know I'm finished talking is one of the many social cues I have yet to learn. Am I supposed to make the pitch of my voice go up, or maybe down? Am I supposed to finish with a flurry of rapid talking followed by jazz hands? I suppose I should consider creating a catchy sign off to help people know that I have no more to say. Maybe something along the lines of "That's it. If you want to know anymore you'll have to read the transcripts from the arraignment". Somehow, though, I suspect this would only lead to more awkwardness.
So I was challenged to go outside of the obvious this time around and offer up an introduction of myself that helped people know more about me than just my role as a teacher and a learner. What to do???
"My name is Chris and I'd like to introduce myself by telling you all the things I hate...from A-Z."
Ha, this list may be childish but it paid off beautifully within the context of an introduction. Not only do I think there might actually be some value in using the things we "hate" to learn more about ourselves and others but the mere fact that someone would create such a list is telling as well. Of what I'm not certain. But definitely telling.
So to further my journey into my deepest thoughts and feelings I present the letters S, T, and U.
S- Seesaws. Do you remember the first time you climbed onto a seesaw? You had probably seen them on television and thought they'd be SO MUCH FUN. Then you climbed on only to find out that, sadly, it's just a trick to get you to do a bunch of deep crunches or else feel the jarring discomfort of having your ass repeatedly dropped into the ground. The only saving grace was to take comfort in the fact that the incessant squeaking of the "seeeeeee.....saaaaaaaw.....seeeeeee.....saaaaaaw" drove your parents nuts.
Others: sailor uniforms, saluting, scones, Scottish terriers, secrets, shaving, shopping, sickness, silverfish, slippers, smugness, snoring, splinters, suits, syringes
T- Tickling (but only as the recipient).Why do kids love being tickled so much? It's terrible. I HATE being tickled. When our kids try to tickle I do my best not to let on that it's bothering me in hopes that they'll soon give up and come to the conclusion that I'm not ticklish. Seriously, it gives me the creeps. Yet Ty will let you tickle him until he can hardly breath and then ask you to do it again. I don't get it.
Others: tanks, tanning beds, tartness, termites, thorns, tiaras, ties, tobacco, tobacco companies, toupees, tuxedos
U- Ultra-sound photos. Are these truly necessary? I'm convinced they're a scam perpetrated on poor unsuspecting insurance companies. Only a parent, or perhaps grandparent, could get so excited about a smalll white fuzzy blob that looks like nothing at all. How many poor children have had to endure years of being called Peanut as a result of these "photographs"?
Others: uniforms, urinal cakes
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Sunday, January 22, 2012
An Incomplete History Leads to an Incomplete Present
What do you know about the U.S. war with Mexico? The years it took place? Events leading up to the war? The effects it had on each country? Chances are you know very little. You can blame your history teachers for this. Well, that's probably unfair because there's more than enough blame to go around. History textbooks devote only a couple of paragraphs to this war and the powers that create such documents as state standards are just fine with this. To read anymore might well lead one to question the morality of this conquest.
Take, for instance, this account of facts from Bill Bigelow (www.rethinkingschools.org):
The U.S. war with Mexico (1846-48) “gave”—in the words of history textbooks—California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and part of Colorado to the United States of America. And the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, formally ending the war, ratified the annexation of Texas, which had broken away from Mexico largely because of Mexico’s policies against slavery.
Most Mexicans know that the war against Mexico was another chapter in U.S. imperialism—a “North American invasion,” as it’s commemorated in a huge memorial in Mexico City’s Chapultepec Park. But don’t take Mexicans’ word for it. Here’s what Col. Ethan Allan Hitchcock, aide to the commander of U.S. forces Gen. Zachary Taylor, wrote at the time in his journal about the war’s origins: “I have said from the first that the United States are the aggressors. … We have not one particle of right to be here … It looks as if the government sent a small force on purpose to bring on a war, so as to have a pretext for taking California and as much of this country as it chooses.”
Exactly. President James K. Polk, himself a slaveowner, had ordered U.S. troops into an area claimed by Mexico and inhabited by Mexicans and waited for them to be attacked. And when they were, Polk claimed aggression and the U.S. had its war. The invading U.S. Army actually called itself the Army of Occupation.
The
abolition movement regarded the war as a land grab to expand slavery.
The great abolitionist Frederick Douglass denounced the Mexican invasion
as “a murderous war—as a war against the free states—as a war against
freedom, against the Negro, and against the interests of workingmen of
this country—and as a means of extending that great evil and damning
curse, negro slavery.” Henry David Thoreau coined the term “civil
disobedience” in defense of his position that people should not pay
taxes to support the war against Mexico. Thoreau argued that a minority
can act against an unjust system only when it “clogs by its whole
weight.”
Here’s a U.S. infantry lieutenant who wrote his parents after a U.S. officer named Walker was killed in battle, quoted in Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States: “Gen. Lane … told us to ‘avenge the death of the gallant Walker’ … Grog shops were broken open first and then, maddened with liquor, every species of outrage was committed. Old women and girls were stripped of their clothing—many suffered still greater outrages. Men were shot by dozens … their property, churches, stores, and dwelling houses ransacked … It made me for the first time ashamed of my country.” In his memoirs, Ulysses S. Grant wrote that this was “one of the most unjust [wars] ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation …”
Any study of history should include the inclusion of multiple perspectives. However, this rarely happens. We learn of our history through the lens of the victors, or oppressors as it may be. We make heroes of slave holders and killers alike with little concern for their oppressive beliefs and practices. I've never been any more aware of this than last week when the following statement was made by Newt Gringrich in the Republican debate where good ol' South Carolina Republicans applauded like mad:
"We're in South Carolina. South Carolina in the Revolutionary War had a young 13-year-old named Andrew Jackson. He was sabred by a British officer and wore a scar his whole life. Andrew Jackson had a pretty clear-cut idea about America's enemies: kill them."
The fact that it was actually "Stonewall" Jackson who said "kill them" aside, it's scary a presidential candidate would try to evoke the sentiments of a man responsible for the Indian Removal Act, a piece of legislature that led to the death of thousands of Native Americans. But should anyone really be all that surprised Gingrich would communicate an "us versus them" mentality that places himself in a superior role? Consider the fact he openly, and proudly, demands that "Blacks need to stop demanding food stamps and begin demanding jobs." Or that he argues the "fact" that the poor have no work ethic. Or that marriage is not a civil right - at least not if you're homosexual.
I wonder how people like Newt Gingrich come to hate, belittle, and work to oppress others. Do they learn it from their families? The church? The media?
Their schools?
I'm becoming much more aware of our role as educators to teach not just tolerance but love and appreciation and respect. Part of doing this is to think about the language we use about those who are different than us and the underlying beliefs that fuel these statements. Another part is to engage in a critical study of our past (both the good and the bad) in hopes of better understanding our present. And the third part is to begin seeing ways in which our society marginalizes populations based on race, gender, religion, sexuality, class, and so on.
Maybe if our students learned to see the world for both what it is and what it isn't we'd find ourselves with far fewer Newt Gingriches.
Take, for instance, this account of facts from Bill Bigelow (www.rethinkingschools.org):
The U.S. war with Mexico (1846-48) “gave”—in the words of history textbooks—California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and part of Colorado to the United States of America. And the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, formally ending the war, ratified the annexation of Texas, which had broken away from Mexico largely because of Mexico’s policies against slavery.
Most Mexicans know that the war against Mexico was another chapter in U.S. imperialism—a “North American invasion,” as it’s commemorated in a huge memorial in Mexico City’s Chapultepec Park. But don’t take Mexicans’ word for it. Here’s what Col. Ethan Allan Hitchcock, aide to the commander of U.S. forces Gen. Zachary Taylor, wrote at the time in his journal about the war’s origins: “I have said from the first that the United States are the aggressors. … We have not one particle of right to be here … It looks as if the government sent a small force on purpose to bring on a war, so as to have a pretext for taking California and as much of this country as it chooses.”
Exactly. President James K. Polk, himself a slaveowner, had ordered U.S. troops into an area claimed by Mexico and inhabited by Mexicans and waited for them to be attacked. And when they were, Polk claimed aggression and the U.S. had its war. The invading U.S. Army actually called itself the Army of Occupation.
Here’s a U.S. infantry lieutenant who wrote his parents after a U.S. officer named Walker was killed in battle, quoted in Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States: “Gen. Lane … told us to ‘avenge the death of the gallant Walker’ … Grog shops were broken open first and then, maddened with liquor, every species of outrage was committed. Old women and girls were stripped of their clothing—many suffered still greater outrages. Men were shot by dozens … their property, churches, stores, and dwelling houses ransacked … It made me for the first time ashamed of my country.” In his memoirs, Ulysses S. Grant wrote that this was “one of the most unjust [wars] ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation …”
Any study of history should include the inclusion of multiple perspectives. However, this rarely happens. We learn of our history through the lens of the victors, or oppressors as it may be. We make heroes of slave holders and killers alike with little concern for their oppressive beliefs and practices. I've never been any more aware of this than last week when the following statement was made by Newt Gringrich in the Republican debate where good ol' South Carolina Republicans applauded like mad:
"We're in South Carolina. South Carolina in the Revolutionary War had a young 13-year-old named Andrew Jackson. He was sabred by a British officer and wore a scar his whole life. Andrew Jackson had a pretty clear-cut idea about America's enemies: kill them."
The fact that it was actually "Stonewall" Jackson who said "kill them" aside, it's scary a presidential candidate would try to evoke the sentiments of a man responsible for the Indian Removal Act, a piece of legislature that led to the death of thousands of Native Americans. But should anyone really be all that surprised Gingrich would communicate an "us versus them" mentality that places himself in a superior role? Consider the fact he openly, and proudly, demands that "Blacks need to stop demanding food stamps and begin demanding jobs." Or that he argues the "fact" that the poor have no work ethic. Or that marriage is not a civil right - at least not if you're homosexual.
I wonder how people like Newt Gingrich come to hate, belittle, and work to oppress others. Do they learn it from their families? The church? The media?
Their schools?
I'm becoming much more aware of our role as educators to teach not just tolerance but love and appreciation and respect. Part of doing this is to think about the language we use about those who are different than us and the underlying beliefs that fuel these statements. Another part is to engage in a critical study of our past (both the good and the bad) in hopes of better understanding our present. And the third part is to begin seeing ways in which our society marginalizes populations based on race, gender, religion, sexuality, class, and so on.
Maybe if our students learned to see the world for both what it is and what it isn't we'd find ourselves with far fewer Newt Gingriches.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
You Know There's Something Wrong with America...
I was initially tempted to intro this video by sharing interesting excerpts from the conversations my kids at school have been having about the election and the differences their parents see between the two primary parties. However, I don't want to associate anything we've done in the classroom with this ad. This may be the worst ad I've ever seen. Within half a minute he attacks gays and then turns around to talk about a liberal war on religion - suggesting a denial of rights. I'd love to see him pull another 0.7% in South Carolina. However, that would require our state getting something right.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
What I Hate: P-R
My first tough letter - Q. I was tempted to include the band Qeensryche on the sole basis on their terrible power ballad "Silent Lucidity." It played almost non-stop in the early 90's. However, given the fact they've had only that single hit yet have still found a way to release eleven lps, sell more than 20 million albums worldwide, and still tour to this day I'll give them a pass. Here are the losers...
P- PADDLE BOATS. At no other time in your life will you work so hard to produce so little. Tricia and I once paid to paddle boat in Forest Park in St. Louis. We made it about a half-mile away from the dock when a sudden thunderstorm moved in. We started to pedal like mad only to see a few glaciers pass us by. It was ridiculous. When you consider they charge you by the half-hour it's actually pretty genius.
Others: painting (or at least cleaning up afterward), paisley shirts, parades, parasites, political ads, photographs of me, pickles, pigeons, pipes (except maybe the corncob type), poison ivy, pollution, Pomeranian's, potpourri, prunes, pumice stones, and power ballads.
Q- QUENTIN TARANTINO. Go ahead. You Tube him and try to listen to him talk for more than five minutes. At best it will produce an epileptic seizure.
Others: quiche, questions in the final minutes of a meeting or class, queen bees, quicksand
R- RECEDING HAIR. A few of my students keep telling me that I'm going bald. I thought they meant I had a microscopic bare spot on the crown of my noggin but when asked to show me they proceeded to point out my growing forehead. This reminds me I should have included the "comb-over" back at the letter C.
Others: raccoons, rashes, Ronald McDonald, razor burn, rodeos, rust, R. Kelly, rude people
P- PADDLE BOATS. At no other time in your life will you work so hard to produce so little. Tricia and I once paid to paddle boat in Forest Park in St. Louis. We made it about a half-mile away from the dock when a sudden thunderstorm moved in. We started to pedal like mad only to see a few glaciers pass us by. It was ridiculous. When you consider they charge you by the half-hour it's actually pretty genius.
Others: painting (or at least cleaning up afterward), paisley shirts, parades, parasites, political ads, photographs of me, pickles, pigeons, pipes (except maybe the corncob type), poison ivy, pollution, Pomeranian's, potpourri, prunes, pumice stones, and power ballads.
Q- QUENTIN TARANTINO. Go ahead. You Tube him and try to listen to him talk for more than five minutes. At best it will produce an epileptic seizure.
Others: quiche, questions in the final minutes of a meeting or class, queen bees, quicksand
R- RECEDING HAIR. A few of my students keep telling me that I'm going bald. I thought they meant I had a microscopic bare spot on the crown of my noggin but when asked to show me they proceeded to point out my growing forehead. This reminds me I should have included the "comb-over" back at the letter C.
Others: raccoons, rashes, Ronald McDonald, razor burn, rodeos, rust, R. Kelly, rude people
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)