This spring semester 2012, I participated in the Honors 479 Cultivating Global Citizenship course.  This course had a service learning aspect, which involved working with children, or "dreamers", at the Asheville chapter of the I Have a Dream Foundation (IHAD).  The course also required weekly blogging, which served as a reflection for the service learning and for all of the reading material we covered in class.  The class structure allowed other students and me to make the best of it based on what work we were willing to put it.  Ultimately, we had a very good class that was very focused on the goals at hand and on having critical conversations surrounding the material.

            For me, personally, I didn't feel as connected to IHAD as I have previously with another tutoring group I was involved with in high school.  In high school, I tutored Hispanic children at El Centro Hispano in Durham, NC.  It was super fulfilling and really interesting to me since I was able to practice my Spanish speaking skills.  It was harder for me to get into IHAD and I think so for several reasons.  This semester was loaded with work for my Spanish senior thesis and packed with studying for microbiology.  I applied to nursing school and had to deal with the stress of organizing everything for that on my mind too.  It was difficult for me to focus on making connections with the participants of IHAD.  I'm also more interested in working with adults and senior citizens.  So, I conclude that a combination of all these things led me to feel distant to the service learning this semester.  However, just because I felt this way doesn't mean I didn't find any importance in programs like IHAD in children's lives or any relevance in our class's readings.  It sounds cliché, but children will eventually be the next adult generation and in order to ensure a positive future for our country and citizens we need to make certain that our children are educated, in the traditional sense, and in the importance of human dignity. 

            Both of my parents worked hard and, with the upper-middle class behind them, earned graduate degrees (M.D. and Ph.D.)  I was born into the privileged world.  We lived in a nice house and always had food on the table.  I knew I could entertain any interest I had and I never doubted that Santa would bring me tons of presents at Christmas.  Thankfully, I wasn't sheltered.  My parents could have sent me to private school, and almost did, but instead put me in public school because they felt I should be exposed to the real world where I would interact with people of every socioeconomic class.  I never realized how important my public school experience was until high school rolled around and I went to the "nice" public high school and my friends went to the "bad" one.  That was the first time I realized I was privileged and that my privilege was big enough to alienate me from my friends who lived in or near different, "sketchy" neighborhoods.  It was a harsh reality for me, but talking to my parents about it made me feel better.  They are the people that I admire the most.  My mom works for a state psychiatric hospital and my dad does drug research for a nonprofit.  They are the ones that told me to use my privilege to help others the best I can.  I'm not trying to sound like a super hero or sound self-important, but it's like what Kwame Anthony Appiah said in his book Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers, "If you are the person in the best position to prevent something really awful, and it won’t cost you must to do so, do it” (161). 

            This Appiah quote is a modification of another philosopher's argument/principle.  Appiah’s principle doesn’t call for extremes and it doesn’t require that a person sit down and “reduce all values to their contributions to the badness in the world” (161).  His principle, I feel like, relies on and trusts people’s sense of morality.  I like to think that most people do choose to act responsibly and do good in the world.  However, and this has always been the case, I have a little bit of mistrust in other people's sense of morality because humans aren’t always rational and don’t always act the way our society would deem correct.  I guess this is why we have been exploring different theories and social injustices, so we can think critically about how we act toward other humans and help them live dignified lives.  Ultimately, I tried to connect each of our readings to IHAD and how they affected my beliefs.

            I Have a Dream is located in the Pisgah View Apartments in West Asheville.  When you arrive, you can instantly tell that it is lower income.  Paint is peeling off of the siding and unit numbers are either missing or barely hanging on. Unlike fancier neighborhoods, the Pisgah View neighborhood is located almost on the freeway and tucked away from downtown.  Because of economic struggle and perhaps other prejudices, it is easy to see that the dreamers need the program because their parents or guardians might be busy with more immediate issues (like putting food on the table and paying bills) other than worrying about the long-term benefits of a complete education.   The dreamers come from low-income families and marginalized groups (racial or economic minorities). 

The I Have A Dream (IHAD) program chooses motivated children from such backgrounds and follows them through middle and high school (sometimes elementary school, too) with the promise of financial support for college if they do well and graduate.  IHAD provides a daily structured environment for its “dreamers” (participants) where they can complete homework and have supervised recreational time.  I think this is phenomenal because all children crave structure and, often times, the dreamers come from unstructured homes where they don’t get the motivation and guidance they need.  The importance of programs like IHAD is magnified by Jonathan Kozol’s information in his book The Shame of the Nation and in David Guggenheim’s movie Waiting for “Superman.” 

Children from marginalized groups become disenfranchised as soon as they reach elementary school.  One of the primary reasons why is how school districts are drawn.  More often than not, children from poorer neighborhoods get funneled into one, less funded public school, while children from more wealthier areas get funneled into another, well equipped one.  David Guggenheim calls these poorer public schools “dropout factories” and the chances that a disenfranchised student will actually graduate from such a school greatly diminish with each grade.  Not only is district an issue, but also some public schools require an entrance exam to even be considered for enrollment.  These entrance exams can cost up to $200 and those parents unable to pay send their children to underfunded schools and the “dropout factory” process begins.  The dreamers of IHAD, many of who live in the Pisgah View Apartments, find themselves in this situation—the same situation that their parents were in.  Without IHAD and similar programs intervention, this social situation is perpetuated for generations to come. 

It is absolutely crucial to get students excited about learning at the earliest possible stage and to provide them with a positive learning experience.  Without motivation and people pushing them to do well, students fall behind and get pushed through the school system until they give up and settle for the idea of “going nowhere.” It has been proven time and time again that encouragement and long-term support almost guarantee a child’s completion of high school and acceptance into college.  This is something I think many adults (parents, teachers, school policy makers) need to know and understand in order to truly make a difference in a child’s quality of education.  This is about as far as I want to talk in depth about disenfranchised children and volunteer programs because the class mainly made me excited about pursuing my interests in becoming a nurse practioner and helping disenfranchised adults.  Ultimately, I want to work at a public clinic or in geriatric psychiatry.  In a public clinic, I could help people who normally don't have access to affordable health care and in geriatric psychiatry I could help people age in a dignified manner.  There were several works that we read and watched that related directly to my interests and past experiences and made me excited to really get out in the world and start doing stuff. 

One week we watched “Arts: A Film About Possibilities, Disabilities and the Arts.”  It featured various types of artists from different disciplines and different types of training.  Many of the featured artists had some type of disability (Geri Jewell has cerebral palsy and there are others on the autism spectrum), but they were very passionate about how their disability contributed to their work and to their sense of pride.

            Overall, I thought the film was a little cheesy and, at first, hard to take seriously because of the spotty camera work.  However, I think the positive message that the film portrayed shined through well enough.

            I think it was wonderful to hear from the various artists what art meant to them and its role in their lives.  To some of the artists, their work meant everything to them and was very personal (like the woman with autism who HAD to cut out a piece of every painting she made before selling it), while others just thought it was fun creativity.  No matter the meaning, I got the feeling that it was important for all of the artists to create something that made them happy and made them proud.  It really said something about the human soul, or human essence, that people generally have the urge to create and put a piece of themselves down for the world, or just themselves, to see.

            While I was touched by the documentary’s focus on people with disabilities loving the arts, I was more moved by the idea of art as a form of therapy.  Art therapy can work for anyone of any age, gender, race, social class, etc.  In my opinion, art therapy, or just art, is a form of meditation and reflection.  It's a way of soothing the mind and making sense of its inner workings.  In high school, when I volunteered at the state psychiatric hospital where my mother worked, I had the chance to shadow one of the art therapists and later help her set up an art show of patients’ creations.  During art therapy sessions, it was amazing to see how easily patients opened up about their lives and their experiences—making art was a way of calming down and being able to think rationally.  When it came to setting up the art show, I was very surprised at how many pieces each patient (artist) had and I was equally surprised at how impressive the art was.  The level of talent each patient had was astounding and varied from detailed sketch portraiture to colorful abstract watercolors.  I was only 17 years old, so you have to forgive me for thinking the art of psychiatric patients would be like toddler finger painting or creepy, ominous drawings like in the movies.  My volunteering experience taught me that just because someone has a mental illness doesn’t mean they are completely out of control or untalented or incompetent or infantile.  A mental illness doesn't define someone and it doesn't mean they aren't worthy of love and recognition.  My time volunteering at the psychiatric hospital opened my eyes to a different set of people who needed dignity and, until that time, I hadn't once critically thought about the people my mother worked to help.  Also, I'm aware that, although I was very excited about volunteering then, I only just now have the vocabulary to describe why it is so important to help others.

            I think out of everything we read and watched in class the film "Waging a Living" had the biggest effect on me because it was the most relevant to our present day socioeconomic situation in the United States.  Our economy is in the dump and the key players in the government (both at the national and state levels) can't seem to agree on a way to alleviate the stresses on the people most affected by the decisions made (or not made).

            “Waging a Living” proved that it’s impossible to live comfortably, without excessive worry, on minimum wage.  All of the interviewees worked full-time to support their children.  One woman was a divorcee, had two children, worked as a waitress (something like $2.75/hour plus tips), and was $15,000+ in debt.  She didn't have enough money to pay for her divorce and necessities and the only way she could pay for things was by continually maxing out credit cards.  Another woman had multiple children, worked in a girls' home, and attended community college part-time.  She lived on her wages, Medicaid, and food stamps—at least that was until she got a $3 raise and magically made too much to qualify.  Her state housing rent also went up in price.  She called it “hustling backwards” because the more she made, the more she stayed behind, stayed stagnant.  Making more money meant she would be spending more money (no health care meant she had to spend $175 on her son’s allergy medication and choose some other necessity not to pay).  Her situation was so dire that she couldn’t even buy her family a Christmas dinner. One man, Jerry, barely made enough to eat and pay rent and only after ten years was he able to afford a plane ticket to see his children. The financial situations of the other film participants were similar to each other: good people working hard, long hours, but staying socially stagnant. 

            This film created the class discussion that I remembered the most.  The question that challenged me was about the American dream and if we are owed or if we deserve everything it encompasses.  In class, we pretty much summed the American Dream up to be the ability (or the idea of the ability) to be able to work hard and move up and out of your social class and to have all the benefits that come with that class.  The fact that our country was more or less founded on this dream is the primary reason we deserve to have it and the reason we are owed to live comfortable lives with our hard work.  The answer is definitively, unequivocally “yes”.  We do deserve the American Dream.  We shouldn’t have to “rethink” the American Dream.  We need to find ways to make it possible.  As human beings, we deserve dignity and comfort.  We deserve to have enough money to take a vacation or to visit family.  We deserve to be able to buy food for the holidays.  We deserve to give our children a quality education.  We deserve to have easy transportation to and from work (having a car shouldn’t feel like a necessity).  We deserve to pamper ourselves and to indulge.  The question, “What are we really owed?” bothered me for this reason: if we don’t have these pleasures, abilities we are merely existing and if we’re just existing, we lose the beauty of being human.  All of this being said, I don’t understand why someone wouldn’t want a more socialist, educated society (socialism doesn’t mean communism or less capitalism).  Why would anyone want to deny another human being the right to live a comfortable life? A life of dignity and value?  I will admit that possessing these ideas is a privilege because I obtained them through higher education and being economically comfortable.  I have access to these ideas and access to the discussion of these ideas.  More people need access to these ideas, so that upward social mobility is possible.

            If I take one thing away from this class, it would be that human life is precious and each one deserves to be cultivated and nurtured.  By this I mean that everyone deserves to have a happy life and the opportunity to make it as positive they can.  But now, reflecting, how will I contribute to the world?  I'm graduating in less than two weeks and I'm waiting to hear back from nursing school.  I know that I mentioned that I want to be a nurse practioner and either work in geriatric psychiatry or in a public clinic.  Up front, I know that this profession will directly help people.  But how will I use the things I've learned in class to positively affect the lives of people I encounter?

            I've learned that my privilege is unique and that it was no accident.  I'm a white, upper-middle class woman.  Paulo Freire stresses in Pedagogy of the Oppressed that in order to make a true difference in oppressed lives we have to be positive and active in reconstructing social order and acknowledging that no one comes from a neutral position.  Now that I know where I stand in that social order I have to analyze how my position affects others and how they interpret it.  I also have to think about other people's situations in life and their experiences.  As a future nurse, I can't walk into the doctor's office and assume that every patient thinks like me or has had the same medical experience.  I have to understand their needs because the doctor's office is often an intimidating place and the last thing patients need is to feel like their health care provider is looking down on them.  I know I'll encounter people, not just in the health care world, that are from lower socioeconomic classes than I am.  Sensitivity and tolerance is necessary to elevate people to a dignified level. 

            When (if) I have children, I'll have to keep in mind what I have learned in this class and in my personal experiences.  I want to make sure that my children are exposed to different kinds of people from all over the world.  I want them to know people of different races, cultures, sexualities, and socioeconomic levels and that certain kinds of people are unfairly favored over others (namely in the USA rich, white people rule over ethnic minorities).  It's important that they learn to respect people different from them and that they develop, like I have, the vocabulary to talk about prejudice and oppressive social constructs.  No one is a perfect, nonjudgmental human being.  However, with patience and an open mind, we can begin any dialogue and create peace (on the global level and in individual interactions).

            Last week we discussed Unequal Childhoods by Annette Lareau and her work on different parenting styles and how inequalities in childhood extend into adulthood.  I never really gave much thought about parenting styles and how they affect a child’s access to things in society.  Sure, I knew that parents who were active in their children's lives and who communicated well with them gave them an advantage in that those children knew they were loved, which can go a long way.  I just never considered labeling parenting styles or analyzing the ultimate outcomes of those styles.  I guess this is because I'm a 21-year-old female who has no immediate plans to have any rugrats of my own anytime soon.  
           Lareau discusses two main parenting styles: concerted cultivation and the accomplishment of   natural growth.  With the concerted cultivation style, parents are extremely active in their children's lives.  They play a direct role in sculpting their child's talents, opinions, and skills.  Ultimately, children raised in the concerted cultivation style are skilled in navigating various social situations and systems, have an extensive vocabulary, and they have a sense of entitlement  (ex. "I deserve to have this situation to work out in my favor).  Concerted cultivated children, aside from the positive aspects, often feel the need to be constantly engaged or they feel bored.  They are more competitive and tend to have hostile relationships with siblings.  They are often tired and have weaker ties with extended family members.  Concerted cultivation is very common among middle and upper class families.  The natural growth approach is common among the working class/poor.  With the natural growth approach, parents often have no time to actively participate in their children's activities and have to focus on making enough money to provide for basic necessities.  Natural growth children are in charge of their leisure time and often spend it with friends and family.  These children rarely question authority or directives (ex. They don't challenge their teacher's negative comments on an essay).  Natural growth children are often good at peer mediation, conflict management and resolution, creativity and spontaneity, and personal responsibility and strategizing.  While these observations are accurate, they aren't true for every family and every child.  Also, many families are a blend of these two styles.
          Basically, parenting styles affect where a child goes in life and what resources they're exposed to for personal success.  Parenting styles affect how a child feels about his or herself and how they interact with people and go about professional endeavors.  I haven't really mentioned how race plays into parenting styles (just read the book), but it's definitely an intersecting issue.  However, Lareau sums up that social class matters more than race in how well a person can move up socially or improve their life. She also discusses certain aspects that remain independent of class, such as a family's degree of organization and daily orderliness, and family rituals.
         I think Unequal Childhoods applies directly to our work at IHAD because it offers insight to the struggles that the dreamers face in their journey to better their lives.  They may not be fully aware right now of every little social aspect in their lives that will affect their social mobility, but eventually they will and they'll eventually need the vocabulary and terms necessary to give their issues a platform.

          This book is also relevant to what is currently happening in Florida and the outrage that is spreading across the country.  A black teen, Trayvon Martin, was shot dead by a man claiming self-defense.  However, the general consensus, based on witness accounts and the 911 call, is that the shooting was racially motivated because Trayvon was a young black teen wearing a hoodie at nighttime.  The man is innocent until proven guilty, but there should definitely be a HUGE inquiry into the shooting based on the evidence.  If anything, it appears to me that the shooter actively sought out Trayvon and followed him, however, nothing is easy to decipher in such a situation.  What happened to Trayvon is exactly why I think gun laws need to be improved and be stricter.  Guns cause more harm than good and especially complicate situations like this one where race and age differences are involved.  The law says you have the right to protect yourself, but it gets sticky when the shooting is unclear.  Racism still exists and our country is particularly sensitive to it.  Even though we don't know how this case will end, I think it's good the story is getting a lot of national attention because racism is something we need to keep talking about instead of sweeping it under the rug and pretending the wound is healed since we have laws that promote equality.  We still need to talk about the invisible social "laws" and workings that keep people down.

This week we watched “Waging a Living”, a film that followed various Americans’ lives and their struggle to provide for their families with only minimum wages.  Firstly, it should be established that earning minimum wage isn’t “making a living” because there is no way one person could make enough to pay for rent, health insurance, gas, utility bills, groceries, and other expenses.  People don’t live on minimum wage—they exist. 

            After our class on Thursday, I was a little aggravated by other people’s comments on the film.  That being said, I am glad that we all have different opinions because it starts the conversation and creates ideas.    The question that challenged me was about the American dream and if we are owed or if we deserve everything it encompasses.  In class, we pretty much summed the American Dream up to be the ability (or the idea of the ability) to be able to work hard and move up and out of your social class and to have all the benefits that come with that class.  The fact that our country was more or less founded on this dream is the primary reason we deserve to have it and, YES, we are owed to live comfortable lives with our hard work. 

            “Waging a Living” proved that it’s impossible to live comfortably, without excessive worry, on minimum wage.  All of the interviewees worked full-time to support their children.  One woman was a divorcee, had two children, worked as a waitress (something like $2.75/hour plus tips), and was $15,000+ in debt.  Another woman had multiple children, worked in a girls home, and attended community college part-time.  She lived on her wages, Medicaid, and food stamps—at least that was until she got a $3 raise and magically made too much to qualify.  Her state housing rent also went up in price.  She called it “hustling backwards” because the more she made, the more she stayed behind, stayed stagnant.  Making more money meant she would be spending more money (no health care meant she had to spend $175 on her son’s allergy medication and choose some other necessity not to pay).  Her situation was so dire that she couldn’t even buy her family a Christmas dinner. One man, Jerry, barely made enough to eat and pay rent and only after ten years was he able to afford a plane ticket to see his children. The financial situations of the other film participants were similar to each other: good people working hard, long hours, but staying socially stagnant.   

            So, the answer is definitely, unequivocally “yes”.  We do deserve the American Dream.  We shouldn’t have to “rethink” the American Dream.  We need to find ways to make it possible.  As human beings, we deserve dignity and comfort.  We deserve to have enough money to take a vacation or to visit family.  We deserve to be able to buy food for the holidays.  We deserve to have easy transportation to and from work (having a car shouldn’t feel like a necessity).  We deserve to pamper ourselves and to indulge.  The question, “What are we really owed?” bothered me for this reason: if we don’t have these pleasures, abilities we are merely existing and if we’re just existing, we lose the beauty of being human.
           With respect to our service learning at IHAD, I truly do believe that our dreamers deserve to live out of poverty, that their parents deserve to work hard and not feel like they're hustling backwards.  There are so many factors that come with poverty, near-poverty that contribute to academic failure and to social class stagnation.  Parents may not be as involved in children's lives if they have to work constantly to make ends meet or they may cope with stress in unhealthy ways (overeating, drugs, alcohol, abuse) or they are involved in their children's lives and their economic anxieties transfer to their children (growing up too fast).  The emotional stress that comes with economic struggle can affect young people's mentality and confidence, too.  They may question their value to society and their own ability to make a difference in their lives ("I see how hard my mom works and how it gets her no where.  Why should I try?")  It’s so important to instill confidence in these kids, so that they know what they’re capable of achieving.  They deserve to have dignity and pride.  And for the people who say it doesn’t matter if these kids ever go to college and make something of themselves and think of the economic improvement the nation will see if more people can fill more job positions.  Think of how our nation could improve with better-educated people and how our nation could compete with other nations.  A more socialist capitalist (oxymoron?) society could achieve this.  Also, an improvement in secondary public education would make a huge difference.  What would also make a major change is educating the majority of people on the discrimination and social inequities that minorities face every day.  Educating people that these social inequities are ingrained in our national fabric is the first way to tackle this task.

         All of this being said, I don’t understand why someone wouldn’t want a more socialist, educated society (socialism doesn’t mean communism or less capitalism).  Why would anyone want to deny another human being the right to live a comfortable life? A life of dignity and value?  I will admit that I’m privileged in these ideas because I’m educated and economically comfortable.  I have access to these ideas and access to the discussion of these ideas.  More people need access to these ideas, so that upward social mobility is possible.

According to many intellectuals around the world, Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed is a work that everyone should read.   I would definitely agree with those people.  Freire’s work has simple, straightforward ideas that aim to lift the oppressed (minorities, the lower class, the disabled, etc.) and ensure that everyone lives a life full of meaning and quality.  However, the West hasn’t embraced Freire’s ideas and I think this is for two reasons.  The first reason is that the West has valued its own ideals above all others and chooses not to budge (not that other cultures always make an effort to embrace Western values).  The second reason is that ever since the Red Scare, the West has been wary of anything too radically socialist (emphasis on the radical part).  For example, England, France, and Germany all have a very social component of their government that looks out for their citizens (healthcare, social security).  However, these countries still have an entrenched capitalist system with the very rich at running things from the very top.  While these countries have taken a step in the right direction when it comes to bringing the oppressed up from the bottom, they still encourage irresponsible capitalism (the US wasn’t the sole cause of the global economy’s downturn).    

So, Freire’s work is revolutionary and makes the call for dramatic social revolution so that all human beings can have a dignified life.  Great.  How do we even begin?  I don’t want to make anyone depressed by saying that this task is really hard and daunting...but it is.  Do we have more public forums?  More surveys and polls?  Before we can even brainstorm, we have to understand one of Freire’s main points: the oppressed must realize their own condition and must themselves work to improve their condition.  Privileged people helping from outside of the oppressed group can only do so much.  Someone within the oppressed needs to become a leader for their community.  The idea that change has to start from within not only applies to the self, but also to the community.  

         I want to take a moment and blog about my dog Xena.  My parents went to Mexico for vacation, so I had the pleasure of dog-sitting for 3 weeks.  Xena is a rat terrier with a lot of spunk.  She is splotchy brown and white (it looks like someone spilled paint on her) and is the queen of snuggling.  Her favorite thing to do is fall asleep on the heating pad and she has recently started to really like broccoli (with the occasional cheese).  Xena is a little high maintenance and she requires constant attention.   Taking care of her has been a lot of responsibility so far and it’s really made me think about adulthood and my future as a nurse.  College students, if not the majority of young people, are still pretty selfish in that they save all of their time for things they want to do and they worry about numero uno (themselves).  I would say that I’m still a selfish college student because my immediate worries only involve my needs and what I want.  I’m not scared about taking on responsibility and I think I’m fully capable of being a caring nurse, but it’s a little weird for me to think that eventually I will be an adult like the adults I see in my everyday life.  When will I feel the transformation?  Will it just happen someday?  When do you know you’re an adult?  Legally, I am an adult, but it doesn’t always feel that way.  Right now, it feels like it has always felt (go to class for two semesters, enjoy summer, winter, and spring breaks).  I guess being an adult is just taking baby steps and getting to where you want to be in life (I remember sitting in my high school art class thinking I would never get to college and that I would never be able to choose a major or future career).  For now, I’ll keep applying to nursing schools and waking up at 5 a.m. to take my dog outside.

        Currently, Syria is in the middle of great conflict, on the verge of, if not in total, civil war.  Numerous protestors have been killed and many people have basically been taken hostage by the Syrian government and forced to shoot upon and kill their fellow citizens (kill or be killed).  My wish for Syria is that they be able to end the violence (although it often seems that once violence begins it is perpetuated for quite awhile) and establish a working democracy (not that our U.S. politicians are perfect, but at least we voted for them).  Revolution is a necessary thing for many countries and it’s horrible that violence is a part of it.  My confusion with the situation in Syria is our (the U.S.) involvement in the whole thing.  I don’t understand how the United States picks and chooses which countries to meddle in or give aid to.  How can we have actively helped Libya with their struggle, but now sit back while Syria destructs?  I understand we can’t help everyone and that we have our own issues and reputation to look after, but there has to be a better way to divide our attention (at least publically...I’m sure the CIA and special forces are secretly in Syria supporting the anti-government factions).  I’m sure our class could have a good discussion on this using Appiah’s view of comospolitanism.

Two years ago, I read part of Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire in my Spanish 332 class (Spanish American Civilization and Literature).  My Spanish comprehension skills were just starting to really improve, so I couldn’t fully understand the content of the work.  I mainly focused on vocabulary and how it flowed throughout the translation.  After a little class discussion, I understood some of the material.  Spanish 332 is a class that focuses on the Spanish (and some Portuguese) colonization of Latin America and on the literature that came out of Latin Americans’ search for a cultural identity.  At the time, I understood Pedagogy of the Oppressed to be about the quest for Latin American identities and making sure that no one was denied their identity (since Latin America has a history of the Spanish defining ethnic identities and dehumanizing many of them).  I still think that Freire intended this in his book, but I understand better that he really wanted to improve the way that humans communicate with each other and learn about their differences and similarities, so that everyone feels they can own their identity and feel valuable (and able to make change and to critique) within their respective societies.

            Even after reading only the foreword, introduction, and preface I can already tell that Paulo Freire would be able to find common ground with Kwame Appiah.  Appiah stressed cosmopolitanism as a way to create a more harmonious world in which people of every culture can live peacefully.  Similarly, Beverly Daniel Tatum would appreciate Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed because it deals with educating people about the social construction of poverty and racism (in Freire’s case, the social construction between the oppressor and the oppressed, the teacher and the student). 

            I feel like Freire’s theory about the relationship between the oppressor and the oppressed, the teacher and the student really incorporates all struggles of humanity because it is applicable to many relationships and social constructs.  His focus, although he discusses the liberation of people in poverty and a new approach to education, encompasses the fight against dehumanization.  I like that he begins by discussing dehumanization and its presence throughout history, but then stresses that dehumanization isn’t a “historical vocation,” it isn’t “a given destiny but the result of an unjust order that engenders violence in the oppressors, which in turn dehumanizes the oppressed” (44).  Freire stresses that in order to make a true difference in oppressed lives we have to be positive and active in reconstructing social order and acknowledging that no one comes from a neutral position.  I’ll blog more about Pedagogy of the Oppressed after our week’s class discussions.

           This last Saturday, iconic singer and performer Whitney Houston passed away.  Her music and talented voice inspired many other performers and her fans.  However, her relationship with Bobby Brown and her addiction to illegal substances were detrimental to her mental stability and happiness.  Her downfall in the public eye probably led to her early death.  Being an addict and going to rehab is not easy and it certainly isn’t easier when the world is following your every move and judging each one.

            Thinking of human dignity, the media often (if not always) hounds a person/celebrity/official/etc. and picks apart their every move and when tragedy strikes that person the media goes after them relentlessly.  When there is nothing left to dissect, the media abandons the person.  Whitney’s last media appearance was on Bobby Brown’s VH1 reality show and after that we didn’t hear much of her.  Now, with her death, her songs are topping the iTunes charts.  It seems that forgotten celebrities are always suddenly remembered and praised for what they did after they die.  How come our society is always quick to feed off of negative media and quick to forget it as soon as the next big story comes along?  There are always stories about victims of violence or horrible disasters, but the media never follows up on them or tries to find a positive perspective.  The media exploits these people, but doesn’t care about the pain they cause.  I think this has a lot to do with our society’s increased use of technology and multimedia websites (texting, virtual friends, etc).  We need to find a better way to communicate with each other and the media needs to find a more sensitive way to present people’s stories.

            Last Thursday, we discussed Kwame Anthony Appiah’s Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers.  The debate we had in class was a little unorganized, but I think we covered some good ideas.  At first, I was a little fuzzy on cosmopolitanism versus cultural relativism, but after reading more of Appiah’s example, I think I have a good grasp on it. 

            I want to discuss Appiah’s chapter 10 “Kindness to Strangers” and the segments “Killing the Mandarin” and “The Shallow Pond.”  In “Killing the Mandarin” Appiah writes, “If we were to apportion our efforts to the strength of our feelings, we would sacrifice a hundred millions to save our little finger (Smith’s inference); and if we would do that (this is Rastignac’s corollary), we would surely sacrifice a single faraway life to gain a great fortune.”  These statements assume is that cosmopolitanism “requires us to feel about everyone in the world what we feel about our literal neighbors” (157).  Appiah goes on to say that the skepticism that many people feel toward cosmopolitanism is understandable because it is difficult to imagine caring about strangers that one isn’t necessarily close to.  Therefore, we need to think critically about our own morals and how we should/would react toward strangers and our global neighbors.  Appiah elaborates more in “The Shallow Pond” about how we should behave toward strangers or how we can at least begin to think about how we should behave.  Appiah quotes philosopher Peter Unger, “’To behave in a way that’s not seriously wrong, a well-off person, like you and me, must contribute to vitally effective groups...most of the money and property she now has, and most of what comes her way for the foreseeable future” (158).    Appiah remarks that Unger uses some of philosopher Peter Singer’s work to further explain his point.  Singer has written that if he saw a child drowning in a pond he would be obligated to rescue him even if it meant his clothes would get dirty.  Appiah calls Singer’s argument the “Singer principle” and he says that it “requires you to prevent bad things from happening if the cost is something less awful”.  He takes issue with the Singer principle because it doesn’t consider the idea that not acting, or not saving the drowning child, could prevent something worse from happening.  Appiah also has a problem with the Singer principle because it requires you to do the most possible to minimize the “amount of badness in the world” and because it doesn’t explain “why we should do so” (161). 

           Appiah revises the Singer principle to, “If you are the person in the best position to prevent something really awful, and it won’t cost you must to do so, do it” (161).  Appiah’s principle doesn’t call for extremes and it doesn’t require that a person sit down and “reduce all values to their contributions to the badness in the world” (161).  His principle, I feel like, relies on and trusts people’s sense of morality.  I like to think that most people do choose to act responsibly and do good in the world, but I also have a little bit of doubt lingering in the back of my head because humans aren’t always rational and don’t always act the way most people would deem correct.

            

                 For my Spanish senior seminar class, I am writing a research paper about domestic abuse against Latinas inside the United States (Latinas constitute immigrants and generations of immigrants).  There isn’t a whole lot of national data on Latinas’ experiences with domestic abuse, but there is research that tells us that it does happen and that current resources for victims of domestic abuse don’t meet the cultural needs of Latinas.  I find this interesting because the United States has a huge growing Hispanic population and while there are current movements that seek to promote Hispanic causes, there aren’t very many movements that are bringing light to domestic abuse within their communities.  This is largely in part due to the machismo and marianismo within Hispanic culture.  Machismo is the idea of dominant, powerful men and marianismo is the idea of the submissive, passive female.  In traditional Hispanic culture, the woman is expected to be sensitive and caring, to worry about the family and make sure that everything is harmonious (or at least appears to be).  She shouldn’t make scenes or openly question her husband’s actions.  The man is expected to be the head of the household and to economically support his family.  His word is often the final word.  Now, just to be clear, I know that this is traditional and over simplified.  In real life, these roles are subtle and not so easily recognized upon first glance.  However, they still very much exist.  Many battered women’s shelters, while they accept everyone, cater to the dominant white culture.  Thus, their resources are limited when it comes to understanding battered Latinas.    The first, most obvious obstacle for women’s shelters in understanding this issue is the language barrier—not everyone knows how to speak Spanish.  Another obstacle lies in understanding the dynamics of romantic relationships within the Hispanic community (what behavior is acceptable/unacceptable and what behavior, abuse, is never acceptable no matter what culture a woman is from.)  Perhaps the biggest obstacle is that many Latina immigrants don’t come forward with their experiences of domestic abuse and they don’t press charges against their abuser because they’re afraid of being deported.  This last issue can only be resolved within a community by building trust with its Latina members (outreach programs, talking to law enforcement agencies, making legal connections.)  I don’t have a ton of information yet, but I will continue to blog as I do more research and I expect to learn enough to be able to say what makes a good women’s shelter or what helps a community to better deal with all types of domestic abuse.

In Tuesday’s class, we watched the documentary “Arts: A Film About Possibilities, Disabilities and the Arts.”  It featured various types of artists from different disciplines and different types of training.  Many of the featured artists had some type of disability (Geri Jewell has cerebral palsy and there are others on the autism spectrum), but they were very passionate about how their disability contributed to their work and to their sense of pride.

            Overall, I thought the film was a little cheesy and, at first, hard to take seriously because of the spotty camera work.  However, I think the positive message that the film portrayed shined through well enough.

            I think it was wonderful to hear from the various artists what art meant to them and its role in their lives.  To some artists, their work meant everything to them and was very personal (like the woman with autism who HAD to cut out a piece of every painting she made before selling it), while others just thought it was fun creativity.  No matter the meaning, I got the feeling that it was important for all of the artists to create something that made them happy and made them proud.

            While I was touched by the documentary’s focus on people with disabilities loving the arts, I am more moved by the idea of art as a form of therapy.  Art therapy can work for anyone of any age, gender, race, social class, etc.  In my opinion, art therapy is a form of meditation and reflection.  In high school, when I volunteered at one of our state psychiatric hospitals, I had the chance of working with one of the art therapists and later helping her set up an art show of patients’ works.  It was amazing to see during art therapy sessions how easily patients opened up about their lives and their experiences—making art was a way of calming down and being able to think rationally.  When it came to setting up the art show, I was very surprised at how many pieces each patient (artist) had and I was equally surprised at how impressive the art was.  I was only 17 years old, so you have to forgive me for thinking the art of psychiatric patients would look like the art of hyperactive kindergarteners.  My volunteering experience taught me that just because someone has a mental illness doesn’t mean they are completely out of control or untalented or incompetent or infantile.  It also doesn’t mean that they won’t get better.  I guess you could say art therapy helped me realize that.

            The most inspiring artist in the documentary to me was Geri Jewell.  I was blown away by her ability to perform in front of huge audiences and to make light of her cerebral palsy.  It is also a feat that she has aged with cerebral palsy and still found a way to make her life meaningful, which really brings me back to caring for our senior citizens (I know Geri isn’t a senior citizen, but we all age).  I didn’t see one single senior citizen in the “Arts” documentary (unless they had great plastic surgery.)  Senior citizens still constitute a group that gets overlooked.

Like Alex P. Kellogg’s CNN article states, despite having Obama in the White House and the social/economic progress of minorities, inequality still exists and racial hierarchy persists.  Many universities are stressing that “white studies” are necessary to teach because white privilege is very much ingrained in our society.  It is easy for some people to think that discrimination is a thing of the past and easier for others to blame inequalities on minorities themselves.

            I think in our class’s case, “white studies” are very important.  The majority of our class is white and the majority of the students we are working with are from minority backgrounds.  In order to connect with our IHAD dreamers, we have to understand what situations and experiences they come from and, more importantly, we have to know what privilege we come from and how it has affected our lives and beliefs.  I will readily admit that I have a very privileged life and that my parents have supported everything I have ever wanted to do.  A lot of kids don’t have the opportunities that I have had and I need to remember that when I work with IHAD’s dreamers.


http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/30/has-whiteness-studies-run-its-course-at-colleges/?hpt=hp_c2