Tim Wise responce.

Tim Wise made some very good points. I agree with his opinion that the election of Barack Obama is not the end all be all. I liked the point he made about the major events during the Civil Rights movement such as Brown v. The Board of Education, the Civil Right's Act of 1964, and such as all being steps...because that is what they were. I also liked his ideas of "racism 1.0" and "racism 2.0". I like this because one might imagine racism is dead because events where someone is lynched or the Ku Klux Klan is viewed as being a beneficial organization are exceedingly rare. More common is the racism depicted by Wise, such as saying that people embraced Obama because he was "more white". This draws some parallels with Delpit and the culture of power.

Here are a few points I tend to disagree with.

When Wise talks about people not being able to run for president because they wear their hair differently or dressing differently. Here is the thing...I don't think that is necessarily a racial thing but rather what the culture dictates is appropriate for a person to maintain a professional image. For example, say if a white person was running for president...but had shoulder length hair and a beard then I think there would definitely be problems during their campaigns. This is true even though vikings had long hair and beards and they were about as white as a person can be. Hell, they were even about as aryan as one could get too, so there is no way that someone is going to be discriminating over race. Going even further into this topic of what culture dictates is professional, we could look to the fact that no president since Taft has worn facial hair. That is not to say facial hair is bad, I sport it myself, but it just isn't what mass culture wants for their president or other politicians. Interestingly though, in academia facial hair is quite common and considered to be "professional".

The other thing was when he started talking about Will Smith. He was saying his comments as if Will Smith, because he is black should have an idea of the problems what all african-americans are feeling. It sounded as if Wise was suggesting that they have hive-minds and all face the same exact problems. It reminded me of what President Obama once said in regards to affirmative action and his daughters. He said something along the lines of how he does not think that his daughter's should be taken into account for affirmative action because they have far more opportunity then the vast majority of people in the country, whether they're white or a minority.

Service Learning

"Mr. Johnson's curriculum included only minimal attention to any systematic analysis of the ills his students were helping to alleviate. Instead, his class focused on inculcating a sense of civic duty. His high school seniors were not asked to articulate an understanding of the conditions and contexts that might have contributed to the loss of a family's home or to a pregnant mother's decision to turn to crack cocaine."

While Mr. Johnson's effort is certainly admirable, it does leave out some key issues. While it may be beneficial to provide services to those less fortunate than yourself, this only placates the problem temporarily. The problem will briefly alleviate itself...but then return full force given time. It's like the needle situation described in one of our earlier readings. Sure, clean needles will cut down on HIV, but the underlying problem is still the rampant drug use. Now I'm pretty libertarian when it comes to drug use, but I would never encourage it and would rather have a world where far fewer people turn to powerful drugs. Anyways, this charitable action of the distribution of clean needles only solves one problem but does not tackle the main problem. Johnson's class should have focus on the WHY and not the WHAT. That way, they could take the WHY into consideration when designing programs to solve the WHAT.


"Ms. Adams' students, by contrast, began their work with a systematic and critical analysis of the causes of homelessness and of the strategies employed to prevent it. The class discussed the growing economic disparity between rich and poor, the impact of homeless ness on children, and the difficult balance between individual rights and collective responsibility. Students read stories by homeless children and wrote essays assessing the impact of homelessness on people like themselves."

This approach is far better. Only when you gain the most information possible can you successfully analyze a situation. Only when you have successfully analyzed a problem can you make a sound attempt at rectifying it. This is what Ms. Adams students. They looked at the WHY. Why are people homeless? Not just "what can we do to help them out". When you look at the why, you can make an attack on the root of the problem and not just on the problem itself.




As I have said in class, I find myself to be between the two models of of service learning. I am charitable, because I am only there because it is my responsibility to do so in class to get a good grade. On the other hand, I really do want to make some sort of impact in these kids lives. That is why I got into education in the first place...because I really do hope to make some sort of difference. I don't want education to be something foreign. I want it to be embraced.

Christensen

Wow, I have totally been neglecting this. I guess about now I'll do some rapid fire blog posts...get them all settled before hell month begins in April.

"For some the lesson doesn't end in the classroom. Many who watched cartoons before we start our study say they can no longer enjoy them. Now instead of seeing a bunch of ducks in clothes, they see the racism, sexism, and violence that swim under the surface of the stories."

Over analysis is never a good thing. This is why psychoanalysis and Sigmund Freud are for the most part considered discredited. If you look at anything...absolutely anything, it can be viewed as having "hidden messages". Here are some examples concerning Pokemon and The Cat in the Hat. Hell, I've even joking written one myself about Doug. The point I'm trying to make, is that though there will always be depictions of racism or sexism in popular culture, that does not mean anything. It is not malicious. I doubt anyone takes it seriously. Sure, old cartoons were full of blatant racism, no one is denying that. But the sort of racism Christen keeps pointing out is so subtle and so buried that you need to be lead to it to actually see it and be affected by it. I don't think any kid looks at Scrooge McDuck and sees anything other than "some duck with a lot of money." In fact, "unca Scrooge"'s greed is often portrayed as a fault and is the butt of many jokes. And that's if kids even know what Ducktales is.

"Pizza-Eating Ninja Turtles. What's the point? There isn't any. The show is based on fighting the "bad guy," Shredder..." (My computer is weird about copy and pasting. But you can easily find this quote)

Has this argument not been going around in one form or the other since the 1950s? As a child of the 90s, my earliest memories of this argument include the Ninja Turtles, the Power Rangers, and Mortal Kombat. And like all of the earlier controversies whether they be over say horror comics in the 1950s or Dungeons and Dragons in the 80s, absolutely nothing happened. There was no sudden epidemic of kids attacking each other or anything of the sort. Yes, it would need to be an epidemic to prove that an element of pop-culture was truly influencing children on a mass scale. Most people my age grew up with Disney and people who truly hold racist or misogynist views are the minority.


"I'm not taking my kids to see any Walt Disney movies until they have a black woman playing the leading role."

And shielding them from something is beneficial? I do not buy that. Shielding has no benefits except to create curiosity. Really now. Shielding? Isn't that what those super conservative people like to do?