Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:48 am Post subject: hw due 12/15
I really enjoyed this reading because I learned a lot about Rosa Parks and MLK Jr that I hadn't learned in previous studies of them. We had talked about the limited information and the limited story that most people know about the Civil Rights Movement. This reading enforced our concern that children weren't receiving a proper explanation as to what the movement was, as we can testify because we learned about it not too long ago.
I agree with the teacher whose class acted out the play in some ways. Certain events are too graphic and hard to understand in elementary school. Certainly I wouldn't have been able to fully understand what racial unjustice was in 4th grade unless it was explained. I do, however, think that if the story is going to be told, it must be accurate. Certain details can be left out (beating of blacks, etc) but the overall facts must be there. It is important, in my opinion, for students to learn the background of Rosa Park's hometown so that it doesn't make her sound crazy, as Kohl pointed out throughout the article. I, too, imagined Rosa Parks as a "poor, single parents with lots of children, and an unskilled worker" (pg 115).
One thing that really caught my attention was on page 114 when Kohl talks about the play (again) and his talk with the teacher. "The teacher agreed that the play took some liberties with history but said that since his class was interracial it was better for all of the children to do the play as an integrated struggle. Otherwise, he said, the play might lead to racial strife in the classroom" (114)
hmm... so is he saying that he would have put together a more accurate, offensive play if there were no African Americans in his class? It doesn't seem fair for certain children to hear the background story and others not to just to avoid a discussion. That, although it seems to be attempting to protect the feelings of the students, seems unfair.
I was wondering when this article was written and when Kohl had the discussion with the teacher (just as an idea of how long ago this was)
I thought that the passage from the textbook on page 118 was shocking, as it seemed to hold a clear bias (even moreso than in other textbooks).
I also had never heard of half of the people that Kohl mentions which goes to show how isolated Rosa Parks and MLK Jr have been from the history of other members of their communities.
Lastly, I was thinking back to my experience in middle school and elementary school. I remember that everyone used to always fight over the back of the bus. All of the cool kids (who were really mean!) got to sit in the back, and there was always a big fight over who had to sit in the front. How do you think this relates to Rosa Parks, if at all? Was that the same situation for you, too?
and a final question: do you think that African Americans today feel empowered when they sit in the front of the bus, as they once were not allowed to?
I totally disagree that its okay to present an abridged version of the civil rights movement in schools because kids might not be ready to "handle it". Kids are taught about violence earlier than fourth grade. Every fourth grader knows that World War II occurred. But its ok to teach about the violence and bloodshed and horror of World War II to little kids because the american Eestablishment is portrayed in a positive way. The violent, virulent nature of racism in america and the beatings of blacks aren't withheld from kids because people think that kids can't handle the violence, they're withheld because people are afraid that it will shake childrens' faith in the sugarcoated, everything perfect and just and wonderful version of american history. One might argue that kids shouldn't be taught about the murder of fred hampton because it will scare them. But why shouldn't kids be taught to fear a government that will murder them in their sleep if they grow up to be dissenters who threaten the racist establishment?
If fourth graders can't understand racial injustice without an explanation, they should be given an explanation. I think that the glossing over of the civil rights movement and the racial injustice in America is really dangerous for kids. It gives them the sense, later in life, when they see injustice, that even though things look bad, beneath it all, things are better than they look. Because that's what they learn first, that even when things are bad, they're fine. It teaches people that they don't really have to work to change unjust conditions, and it teaches them to equate radicalism with craziness.
And as far as the teacher being afraid of racial strife in his classroom goes, if he's not prepared to deal with the issues that the truth brings up, he shouldn't be a teacher. The duty of a teacher isn't to create a tranquil classroom by making all of his or her students complac
I see where both will and heather are coming from. On the one hand children certainly do not need to be exposed to as much violence as the world has to offer. On the other hand white washing over certain parts of history defeats the purpose of learning the history in the first place and can leave children with a skewed view of what happened and what to take away from it.
Teachers have a lot of power. They control information for a large number of people who's minds are very open. So how does a teacher monitor the information that the student learns? They must figure out what they want their students to take away from a lesson and teach that. In the case of civil rights the idea is to teach that people often judge other people and that this is wrong and should not be done. Most teachers would believe this to be true and try to teach this. Do not judge others and that we are all people and deserve to be treated as such. The civil rights movement is a convenient time to teach this. Remember that these are still very young children. and the teachers are trying to teach them to be civil to one another regardless of their physical appearance. they are not being taught yet that violence is a huge part of America and do not trust the status quo. they are simply learning to be civil which I believe is a much more important lesson.
So perhaps the civil rights movement is not the perfect way to teach this and we should not glorify America by only teaching about violence when it is from another country. We should however not only teach children the dark parts of history. I believe that in school in general we should learn to trust one another as humans this is something that i feel as though i have never learned in school. Faith in humanity is a wonderful thing to have. It will not necessarily make people ignorant it will just remind them that everyone has a reason for doing what they do and before you judge you should understand what they are thinking.
As a whole, I found the article really intriguing, and I think the author makes an invaluable point about education in our culture. I just wanted to point out one thing that kind of bothered me a little: “European Americans” every ten seconds. Maybe it is the PC academic term, and if it is, my apologies, but it just sounded like an annoying euphemism to me.
Anyways, I don’t think it detracts too much from the rest of the chapter (it’s a chapter from a book, right?), which I think is a really refreshing perspective, almost a reveal, of the story of Rosa Parks.
My personal connection to the article:
I spent the majority of my pre-CSW schooling life in a school completely unlike the one described on page 115, and unlike the similar one the author seems to group “most schools” into for the remainder of the article (understandably; it supports her point). I went to a school (incidentally the same school that a huge chunk of the past and present CSW population is from) where the awareness of institutionalized racism, outright hatred, and the need for a Civil Rights Movement and freedom was not only discussed and taught, but was an integral part of the curriculum. So integral that I have no idea what makes a dependent clause or how to write an essay outline because my eighth grade English class was spent reading articles about White Guilt. Even with that uniquely comprehensive racial curriculum, I found myself learning new things about Rosa Parks in this article. I think that the misconceptions of Mrs. Parks’s story stem from the fact that it is usually taught to young kids, and once it has been “taught” to them, it is only referenced in later years. So however watered down it is when you first get it is how you’ll know it, because it will be the last time anyone will teach it to you straight up. If a high school student, having gone through a Massachusetts elementary school education, asked who Rosa Parks was, or what she really did, and why, people would be too confused as to why he didn’t already know about her to answer!
I agree with Peter, there is a lesson to be taught here, but it just takes some pretty delicate timing. Yes, one woman refusing to move from her seat on a bus and sparking a revolution is a good and simple image to introduce young kids to the Civil Rights Movement, but it is difficult to give them a comprehensive story at age 5, that is understandable and not incredibly offensive (the problem is, we’re talking about incredible offenses of human rights, so it’s hard to create that balance). All that said, Will makes a valid point: “Because that's what they learn first, that even when things are bad, they're fine. It teaches people that they don't really have to work to change unjust conditions, and it teaches them to equate radicalism with craziness.” Soooo.... in conclusion, the school system is a mess and I clearly have gotten nowhere (what am I supposed to do, propose a solution?! I was just innocently commenting!). oy.
Question:
What do you think of the author’s “translation” of his (?) imitation “Rosa Was Tired” story? Do you think it would be an effective way to teach little kids about Rosa Parks and segregation in the fifties? IS there a “right” way to teach that?
or if you don’t like that,
Why is Mrs. Parks’s activist/leader background, particularly her involvement with the NAACP, left out of the typical retelling of her story?
Before making connections to the reading, I have something to share. The way history is taught is very different in Taiwan and in US. We just learned what the text book says and memorize them. Discussions on what we learned seldom happen, not even readings besides text books. So I have never doubt a history text book before coming here, and I thought they were all the same. Maybe the country’s history itself might matters, but knowing that history is not just a bunch of events and dates to memorize really astonished me. Although this is what I felt when I first took a history class in CSW last year, this reading somehow reminds me the feeling again. (Sorry for saying all these if someone is annoyed by them…)
What do you think of the author’s “translation” of his (?) imitation “Rosa Was Tired” story? Do you think it would be an effective way to teach little kids about Rosa Parks and segregation in the fifties? IS there a “right” way to teach that?
Seeing Kohl changing “Rosa Was Tired” to “Rosa was Ready” along with all those facts and evidences is very powerful. Although the revised version of the story have more information and become more complicated, I think he delivered the story in an easy way for children to learn while included every important facts. But I’m too far away from being a little kid, maybe it is too hard… However, I do think it is the right way to teach, and I totally agree with Peter saying teachers have a lot of power. As we often see little kids telling other people what their teacher says, we know that children take teacher’s words very seriously, and not even children, teenagers and adults will mostly believe what a teacher says. So teachers ought to take the responsibility of their jobs, teach the truth and give the students enough and the right knowledge to look and reflect on our history.
Joined: 18 Nov 2009 Posts: 16 Location: In your closet
Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 7:21 pm Post subject:
I liked that peter pointed out that there needs to be a fine balance between presenting too much and sheltering the children too much. On one hand, if we shelter the kids too much, they won't know anything in the future, but on the other hand, we must educate them, and bring them up the way we want them to.
The civil rights movement is a very big thing. It would be impossible to teach the entire civil rights movement to the children, so it must be abridged in some way. But what is taught should be both the good and bad. If we can't teach only one side, we must teach all sides of the event, so to be as un-biased as possible.
Also, I don't agree with using the term European Americans constantly, because it does seem like a PC term, which I find annoying. Also its just distracting...
Quote:
do you think that African Americans today feel empowered when they sit in the front of the bus, as they once were not allowed to?
It depends on how old they are, and how educated about the topic they are. For example, if one black man does not know about the civil rights movement at all, then it would just be another day, taking the bus to work. On the other hand, one who was active in the fight for equality would proudly sit in the front of the bus, as they got what they were fighting for.
In the past, I recall being taught about the Civil Rights Movement, but honestly, as I recall now, it didn't have much of an impact to me. I think I was more affected by society and the people around me more then the teachings when it came to prejudice. _________________ WARNING: I am not responsible for what i type above because apparently, my cats learned how to type
gabechai.com
After I read the article, I just can’t believe how the U.S society has changed so much in five decades. When Rosa Parks refused to give her seat to other whites, she was arrested. I just can’t think of this kind of incident occurring these days. As I said before, civil rights movements really improved our society. As generations changes, peoples’ perspectives shifts from one to another dramatically. This is because we see and learn things differently from our ancestors. I am glad everyone dies at some point. If we lived longer or are immortals, it would be perfect if the leaders or government have the Jesus like mind, that they would make the society with full of helping and loving. But our world is so much different from this Utopia. If the rulers are corrupted, numerous civilians will suffer, than it is really hard to change our society. As a result, society changes every decades, and even more when one generation comes from others. The racism between whites and blacks in the U.S led by slavery system during the colonization in the early U.S history. And it still influences nowadays. But with efforts from minorities, people’s perspectives changed and the alleviated racism. Our society goes to a right way, only if, people learn mistakes from our history.
My question is, would racism end at some point in the future?
I really enjoyed this reading because I learned a lot about Rosa Parks and MLK Jr that I hadn't learned in previous studies of them. We had talked about the limited information and the limited story that most people know about the Civil Rights Movement. This reading enforced our concern that children weren't receiving a proper explanation as to what the movement was, as we can testify because we learned about it not too long ago.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
