I spent the better part of the past weekend infuriated about an article that was being shared by a number of friends on Facebook. The article was written for the National Post by a Cree man from Alberta who does not support Idle No More and ultimately believes colonialism was a thing of the past. He argues that no one deserves a free ride, and that Canadians, regardless of race or ethnicity, must develop their own path to achieve success because life is a level playing field. He also mentioned several times that the atrocities of colonialism were commited by people who no longer alive, to people who no longer exist. He raised multiple other opinions that had a troublesome lack of credibility, but he essentially believed that the Idle No More movement crushed the dream of Canadian equality.
Normally when I see ignorant opinions being circulated through social media I restrain myself from making comments, but this time I simply could not resist, especially given the amount of negative attention the Idle No More movement has elicited. The part of the article that bothered me the most was that colonialism is a thing of the past and that these people no longer exist, when the last residential school closed in the 1990s. I have met several people who attended residential schools, and many children and adults have parents or grandparents who had the misfortune of attending residential school. I found it extremely unsettling that this man believed that Aboriginal people should move on. This attitude is what creates and maintains racism and culture loss within society.
It was ironic that my reading for this week was Atleo and Fitzner's because the authors emphasized that colonial discourses remain in today's society and exist within school curriculums. Had I read their article before my comments on the article and on other posts I may have used some of their points. Curriculum is still Eurocentric, and although it is becoming increasingly encouraged to include Aboriginal content, it will take decades for Aboriginal content to become normal within the school system. The attitude that Aboriginal people should "get over the past," (the most common and most discouraging discourse) comes from a lack of knowledge about the subject. It takes generations for trauma to pass through and diminish, and relatives of residential school survivors may be separated by only one or two generations. Many of the issues within Aboriginal society stem from the residential school experience. Those who attended were made to believe they and their culture was worthless, and they were not shown love or respect. Inevitably, when residential school generations had their own children, parents had a difficult time showing love because they had never been shown love themselves. This creates a problem for a generation of people, and it is a problem that people generally fail to understand.
I believe that if students were educated from a young age about the effects of residential schooling and how and why those effects still exist combined with Aboriginal ways of knowing, future generations would become more tolerant over time. It is unfortunate that it will take years for a significant change, but beginning to teach children now is a start. Increased knowledge means decreased discrimination, and teachers and curriculum need to incorporate a more inclusive education for future generations.
Tuesday, 29 January 2013
Tuesday, 22 January 2013
Language In and Outside of the Classroom
The readings for the week of January 21st really got me thinking about English within school settings, especially Siegel's article on whether Creoles and dialects should be kept in or out of the classroom. If I had been asked about this topic before the readings and discussion my opionion may have been that Standard English is the most beneficial form of English for students of all backgrounds to learn. However, after reading and thinking about the topics discussed in class and the articles for this week, I can see why thinking of Standard English as an additional acceptable form of English rather than the only acceptable form of English is an important concept to consider.
There were a few factors that contributed to my deeper consideration of the topic. The first was thinking about the way in which people communicate given their context. For example, if a child whose dominant vernacular is AAVE were to speak Standard English to his or her friends in a social setting, he or she might be seen as pretentious. There is a vernacular for every context. When teachers teach students about Standard English, they tend to imply that Standard English is the most correct form of English. My question is, who decided that Standard English was the most acceptable form? Why can't we accept that there is a time and place for all vernaculars of English? Obama's address at the Congressional Black Caucus was also eye-opening. I had never considered that politicians (or other influential people) might change their vernacular given the context of whom they are speaking to.
Another interesting thought that came from the article was how, as White Canadians, we don't question certain features of British English or consider these features incorrect, yet we consider certain characteristics of AAVE to be incorrect when we hear them. Even language has racial undertones embedded within it. There is also a hierarchy within White English. In our discussion groups, Andrea raised the point that she might even question her own English or grammar if she heard a British person saying something differently than her. Who makes the rules?
Lastly, and something I've been thinking about a lot lately, is why incorrect grammar and spelling bother me so much. (By the way, I will definitely be thinking about the "is because rule in the future!) My mother is an editor and columnist at a small newspaper, and my father is a lawyer. Both jobs require an excellent understanding and knowledge of the English language, which is likely one of the reasons I am so concerned about English myself. I mentioned my thoughts in class, but I think future generations are in danger of learning oversimplified versions of subject matter. If students are being taught math, science and other difficult subject matter, it is important that they learn at the very least the most common and important mechanincs of the English language.
It is our duty as teachers to instill in future generations of students that to/too/two are not interchangable, that they're/their/there do not have the same meaning, and that apostrophes do not belong in plurals! We don't want this to happen to our children:
There were a few factors that contributed to my deeper consideration of the topic. The first was thinking about the way in which people communicate given their context. For example, if a child whose dominant vernacular is AAVE were to speak Standard English to his or her friends in a social setting, he or she might be seen as pretentious. There is a vernacular for every context. When teachers teach students about Standard English, they tend to imply that Standard English is the most correct form of English. My question is, who decided that Standard English was the most acceptable form? Why can't we accept that there is a time and place for all vernaculars of English? Obama's address at the Congressional Black Caucus was also eye-opening. I had never considered that politicians (or other influential people) might change their vernacular given the context of whom they are speaking to.
Another interesting thought that came from the article was how, as White Canadians, we don't question certain features of British English or consider these features incorrect, yet we consider certain characteristics of AAVE to be incorrect when we hear them. Even language has racial undertones embedded within it. There is also a hierarchy within White English. In our discussion groups, Andrea raised the point that she might even question her own English or grammar if she heard a British person saying something differently than her. Who makes the rules?
Lastly, and something I've been thinking about a lot lately, is why incorrect grammar and spelling bother me so much. (By the way, I will definitely be thinking about the "is because rule in the future!) My mother is an editor and columnist at a small newspaper, and my father is a lawyer. Both jobs require an excellent understanding and knowledge of the English language, which is likely one of the reasons I am so concerned about English myself. I mentioned my thoughts in class, but I think future generations are in danger of learning oversimplified versions of subject matter. If students are being taught math, science and other difficult subject matter, it is important that they learn at the very least the most common and important mechanincs of the English language.
It is our duty as teachers to instill in future generations of students that to/too/two are not interchangable, that they're/their/there do not have the same meaning, and that apostrophes do not belong in plurals! We don't want this to happen to our children:
Tuesday, 15 January 2013
Standard English - Important or Not?
This week I'm responding to Trudgill's "Standard English - What it Isn't." Before reading the article I wasn't entirely sure what Standard English referred to. After reading the article, I wasn't sure if my understanding was more clear or more hazy. Trudgill defined Standard English by defining what it isn't, and then came to the conclusion that Standard English is a dialect without a geographical base (which is generally not the case of dialects).
My understanding was that Standard English is a grammatical version of English that is used in various contexts such as in novels or newspapers. I also understood that Standard English has more to do with writing than with speaking. When is the line drawn between what is Standard English and what is not? I'm guilty of saying "I don't want any," which Trudgill pointed out was not Standard English because of the double negative. If I don't speak Standard English, what am I speaking?
One of the interesting thoughts raised in class was whether the English language will become Americanized or whether it will break off and dessimate into smaller dialects worldwide. I tend to think the Americanization of English is more likely than the dessimation of the English language. When we are constantly exposed to advertisements, TV shows, movies, and other forms of pop culture and media on a daily basis, isn't it inevitable that one dominant form of English will take over others? The media influences people in every other way, so why wouldn't language have the same effect? Language keeps the world rich and diverse. I often wonder (and wondered even before this class) whether the entire world will end up speaking English one day, thousands of years from now.
My sister is an Anglophone who pursued French in university and obtained her Master's Degree in French Literature. She said French and English are different in the sense that in English, new words are constantly being added to our language. In French, there are more strict guidelines on what is acceptable to add to the language. She said it isn't common for words to be added to the French dictionary. Does that mean French speakers are more concerned about the "Standard" part of their language? And if so, why?
It concerns me to think of grammar rules changing, words being added or taken away from the English dictionary, and younger generations having poor writing skills as a result of massive technology change. I also wonder, however, why it bothers me so much. Is proper English, spelling and grammar an elitist concern? Why do grammatical errors bother me so much when many people fail to even learn correct usage? What will become of language and writing within the next century or two? I will never know the answer to some of my questions, but I know that whenver I send a text or an e-mail I make sure to be as proper as possible. :)
My understanding was that Standard English is a grammatical version of English that is used in various contexts such as in novels or newspapers. I also understood that Standard English has more to do with writing than with speaking. When is the line drawn between what is Standard English and what is not? I'm guilty of saying "I don't want any," which Trudgill pointed out was not Standard English because of the double negative. If I don't speak Standard English, what am I speaking?
One of the interesting thoughts raised in class was whether the English language will become Americanized or whether it will break off and dessimate into smaller dialects worldwide. I tend to think the Americanization of English is more likely than the dessimation of the English language. When we are constantly exposed to advertisements, TV shows, movies, and other forms of pop culture and media on a daily basis, isn't it inevitable that one dominant form of English will take over others? The media influences people in every other way, so why wouldn't language have the same effect? Language keeps the world rich and diverse. I often wonder (and wondered even before this class) whether the entire world will end up speaking English one day, thousands of years from now.
My sister is an Anglophone who pursued French in university and obtained her Master's Degree in French Literature. She said French and English are different in the sense that in English, new words are constantly being added to our language. In French, there are more strict guidelines on what is acceptable to add to the language. She said it isn't common for words to be added to the French dictionary. Does that mean French speakers are more concerned about the "Standard" part of their language? And if so, why?
It concerns me to think of grammar rules changing, words being added or taken away from the English dictionary, and younger generations having poor writing skills as a result of massive technology change. I also wonder, however, why it bothers me so much. Is proper English, spelling and grammar an elitist concern? Why do grammatical errors bother me so much when many people fail to even learn correct usage? What will become of language and writing within the next century or two? I will never know the answer to some of my questions, but I know that whenver I send a text or an e-mail I make sure to be as proper as possible. :)
Saturday, 12 January 2013
Mona Lisa Smile - Intersections of Knowledge
Welcome to a new semester!
I've decided to continue using the same blog the for Geraldine's class. My first blog is in response to Mona Lisa Smile, a feel-good film set in the 1950s that revolves around Katherine Watson, a progressive newly hired Art History teacher at Wellesley College (which is an all-girls school) and her struggles and triumphs there. When Watson arrives at the school, much to her dismay, the female students have few further life dreams other than becoming a housewife. This is unsettling to Watson who, throughout the duration of the movie, encourages the young women she teaches to aspire to more than the life society (and their husbands) expect of them.
Mona Lisa Smile is a movie I've always seen segments of, but never the whole movie at once. When class was finished, a few of us stayed over the lunch hour to watch the second half of the movie. Mona Lisa Smile was an excellent film to view to break down the meaning and epistemology of knowledge. There were plenty of themes and questions being raised throughout the film such as:
- What is knowledge?
- Where does knowledge come from?
- Who decides what knowledge is?
- Is there more than one way to think about knowledge?
- Is there right and wrong when it comes to knowledge?
- In what way do societal norms and knowledge intersect?
I also thought about questions I would ask students if I were to show them this film in class (in addition to the questions above):
- Whose version of knowledge in the film is most correct (if any)?
- Do you agree with Katherine Watson's approach to education? Why or why not?
- Are there benefits to the traditional way of teaching that was being used at Wellesley College?
- What do you think about Joan Brandwyn's (Julia Stiles) decision to marry her husband?
- Were you surprised that these young women were attending a high-end college only to become housewives?
I thoroughly enjoyed watching Mona Lisa Smile, and I think movies about education have much to offer teachers and students. I think my favourite aspect of the film was the fact that Katherine Watson, who seemed so certain in the beginning, did not know, herself, what she wanted from life. She knew she didn't want to get married and become a housewife, but it was obvious that she longed for a partner to connect with. She was conflicted within the world she lived in, and one of my favourite scenes from the film was when Joan Brandwyn tells Watson that there are more perspectives on how to live than Watson's alone. Watson was so convinced she was right that she failed to see that perhaps there are other acceptable ways to go about life if young women are educated about their futures.
In the end, Watson achieved what she set out to do. She had a profound effect on the women she encountered and, in turn, they taught Watson more about herself. This film presents an excellent example of the intersection of traditionalism and educational innovation. Both sides learned from one another and all people seemed to benefit from what they learned from their experience at Wellesley College. The 1950s must have been an extremely difficult era for women to grow up in. Mona Lisa Smile is a great film to show teenagers in helping them to understand not only how knowledge and the idea of knowledge has changed over time, but how the role of women has changed over time.
I've decided to continue using the same blog the for Geraldine's class. My first blog is in response to Mona Lisa Smile, a feel-good film set in the 1950s that revolves around Katherine Watson, a progressive newly hired Art History teacher at Wellesley College (which is an all-girls school) and her struggles and triumphs there. When Watson arrives at the school, much to her dismay, the female students have few further life dreams other than becoming a housewife. This is unsettling to Watson who, throughout the duration of the movie, encourages the young women she teaches to aspire to more than the life society (and their husbands) expect of them.
Mona Lisa Smile is a movie I've always seen segments of, but never the whole movie at once. When class was finished, a few of us stayed over the lunch hour to watch the second half of the movie. Mona Lisa Smile was an excellent film to view to break down the meaning and epistemology of knowledge. There were plenty of themes and questions being raised throughout the film such as:
- What is knowledge?
- Where does knowledge come from?
- Who decides what knowledge is?
- Is there more than one way to think about knowledge?
- Is there right and wrong when it comes to knowledge?
- In what way do societal norms and knowledge intersect?
I also thought about questions I would ask students if I were to show them this film in class (in addition to the questions above):
- Whose version of knowledge in the film is most correct (if any)?
- Do you agree with Katherine Watson's approach to education? Why or why not?
- Are there benefits to the traditional way of teaching that was being used at Wellesley College?
- What do you think about Joan Brandwyn's (Julia Stiles) decision to marry her husband?
- Were you surprised that these young women were attending a high-end college only to become housewives?
I thoroughly enjoyed watching Mona Lisa Smile, and I think movies about education have much to offer teachers and students. I think my favourite aspect of the film was the fact that Katherine Watson, who seemed so certain in the beginning, did not know, herself, what she wanted from life. She knew she didn't want to get married and become a housewife, but it was obvious that she longed for a partner to connect with. She was conflicted within the world she lived in, and one of my favourite scenes from the film was when Joan Brandwyn tells Watson that there are more perspectives on how to live than Watson's alone. Watson was so convinced she was right that she failed to see that perhaps there are other acceptable ways to go about life if young women are educated about their futures.
In the end, Watson achieved what she set out to do. She had a profound effect on the women she encountered and, in turn, they taught Watson more about herself. This film presents an excellent example of the intersection of traditionalism and educational innovation. Both sides learned from one another and all people seemed to benefit from what they learned from their experience at Wellesley College. The 1950s must have been an extremely difficult era for women to grow up in. Mona Lisa Smile is a great film to show teenagers in helping them to understand not only how knowledge and the idea of knowledge has changed over time, but how the role of women has changed over time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)