Return-Path: <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e9LIHX907834; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 14:17:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 14:17:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <000b01c03b8b$717ec440$5eeeffd1@cbking> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Catherine King" <cbking@flash.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:210] Re: discussing racism X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 3469 Lines: 83 Kathleen: Yes, and thanks for your input about method. I think also what we are talking about is very much connected with how the Arab-Israel conflict is working its own dialogue out. That is, often when the news folks have two opposing representatives on their programs, they often have them sitting next to each other facing the moderator. Notice that they are not facing each other and often make very little eye contact. In other words, this is not an abstract--removed--bracketed dialogue and they know it. When they speak directly to each other, the conversation often becomes incendiary because they are too close to the conflict. People are dying. Also, the moderator in the case of the Arab-Israeli argument is similar to the teacher in our situations, but also not similar. Certainly teachers are performing some of the same functions, but in conversations about race in the classroom, the teacher cannot--by definition--abstract her-himself from the historical situation in the way the TV moderator can. The TV moderator is geographically separated--belonging to another country usually; and also his-her ethnic background and identity, though they always have one like the teacher, has been subordinated under the identity with the newspaper- journalist tradition--a point that is often rather fuzzy for some guests (students) who are so wholly identified with their ethnicity or religion and who have not differentiated those identities from the political as many democratic cultures have. These folks tend to project their religious-ethnic notions onto others and don't realize there is another way to think about the problems--but that's part of the problem of having a dialogue?--we have to start where they-we are? A teacher is a teacher who may be white or black, but that fuzziness about which identity we are working under--teacher and what that means, or black/white-Asian, etc. teacher, is exactly the issue here--making that distinction, and becoming clear about the tension of those identities, is the thing. No one is not in both in human situations. This, of course, points to the underlying problem of foundations in the social sciences, but we cannot "go there" here. Failing to take this path towards self-analysis, however, is often the central problem in any dialogue, including for the teacher and the social scientist, and including with regard to epistemological issues. If this could be done by all parties, we wouldn't have to have these conversations to preserve the peace. Thanks for your reply, Kathleen. Best to all, Catherine King ---- Original Message ----- From: <KathleenBombach@aol.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 10:00 AM Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:208] Re: discussing racism > Catherine: > I think that art can also be used as a basis for dialogue about race. > Students can draw 'what it means to be black' for example, or can use > magazine pictures. They can also do this for 'how they think society (or > 'whites or blacks, etc.) view them'. This leads into discussion and writing, > but maintains enough distance for safety. > Other techniques include going around the circle and giving everyone exactly > two (or 3 or whatever) minutes to talk about their feelings and experiences > with one rule: no one is allowed to respond to what another speaker has said. > Just some ideas to add to yours. > Kathleen Bombach >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:47:27 EST