Dialogue, Respect, Love for Humanity, and Praxis (Blog #7)

Every time I understand a new concept in teaching it's like lifting up a mysterious drain cover to find a large dark abyss underneath. This time the idea revolved around history and it's connection to culture, identity and engagement of students in the classroom.

There is a typical way of teaching that I grew up experiencing for the most part, and that I think people automatically recognize or conjure up when they think of teaching. It's become almost stereotypical at this point. Expected.
As described by Paulo Friere:
"[This way of teaching]... turns them into "containers," into "receptacles" to be "filled" by the teachers. The more completely she fills the receptacles, the better a teachers she is. The more meekly the receptacles permit themselves to be filled, the better students they are."

Hearing this articulated so well strikes a deep chord in me, and really sets up what I hope I am able to accomplish as an educator. I know that as a kid I was never very engaged by the memorize, repeat and forget technique of learning facts. Dates, locations, names, all with very little meaning. I know a lot of people can relate to this and it's a growing topic in progressive education reform.

My question comes when I start to think about the fact that these students really truly are individuals, and there will be no one way or one subject matter that will speak to all of them. I start to wonder if it's important for students to know when the civil war started and began, and the names of the generals who were involved. I don't think storytelling like this does anything beyond filling their heads with useless facts and imparting them with a possibly unjust positive view of militaristic actions.

Taking the example of the civil war, which is the epitome to me of "Facts I know I amassed in school but have all but forgotten" I wonder if there is a better way to broach that subject. It scares me to think about, but I believe a better thing to try would be letting the students learn about wars in their own historical timeline. Let them discuss what it meant for their ancestors and really try to humanize each side.

As mentioned in the texts below, one of the big issues is the dehumanization of cultures. I know when the Native American Indians were introduced to me in elementary school they were a funny character that I had a hard time even imagining as real.  Marginalizing actual people for the sake of making facts easier to memorize is dangerous.

When we start looking to war as adults, in our current world, we still see that attitude. The muslims. The Middle East. Terrorists. Jihad. ISIS. All things that are used to scare and justify military actions that may not be the best course of action.  There are whole groups of people that get characterized and stigmatized. Of course some specific political organizations and terrorist groups might require some action of force, but when we can justify entire wars and strikes to our country simply by putting a specific type of face or skin color on it, it means we aren't looking at the bigger picture. When we are at war with a country they are at war with us. Just like we seem to believe of them, they view us as not being human enough to understand their point of view without the use of deadly force. If we can begin to demystify people who are different and introduce the idea that it is not required to hate your enemy or opponent, then maybe we can feel more confident in our ability to resolve our differences without bullets and drone strikes.

Maybe it's really bold or naive to believe that changing the way we teach our kids about the civil war could have a great impact on our country, but I know it can have a great impact on the way they relate and interact with each other. I'd be willing to bet it's at least a great place to start.

In reference to:
http://faculty.webster.edu/corbetre/philosophy/education/freire/freire-2.html

http://www.practicingfreedom.org/pedagogy-of-the-oppressed-what-is-it-and-why-its-still-relevant/