1. The history of the American "melting pot" idea suggests that all minority cultures share basically the same problem: how to fit into the larger dominant culture of the United States. Yet each minority group is different, with a different history and different needs. What particular issues associated with the development of a system of public education for Native Americans are different from those experienced by other American minorities? Rely on your own experience as well as the material from this chapter in developing your response.
The American Indians, as a society, were agrarian. In a raw, primitive sense, they were even beyond agrarian, surviving and thriving in the wild land. The strong European drive for "progress" was simply not a prominent part of the Indian psyche, nor did it need to be. However, because of this fundamental difference, there were significant cultural adjustments to be made: from non-materialist to materialistic, from an honor system to a contract system, from ceremony to seminary.
Adaptation and assimilation was an inevitable result of white settlement, a process that was at various times handled clumsily by both Indians and whites. Indians, as native inhabitants, deserved more respect than they received. Whites, as (mostly) peaceable newcomers, deserved less hostility. Coterminous social progress was laid on a foundation of mistrust.
2. In Chapter 4, various objectives and practices of progressive education were presented in the context of an urbanizing, industrializing, and heavily immigrant society. To what degree are progressive education aims and practices relevant to the changes in schooling developed for Native Americans in the 20th century? Explain.
Progressive education sought to understand education from the perspective of the student and also to integrate the education machine to the social one. These perspectives become even more potent when dealing with cultural minorities and racial idiosyncrasies. As Collier believed, it was crucial for educators to work hard to understand and appropriately engage Indian culture - to walk a mile in their moccasins, as it were.
Progressive education, therefore, was a mixed blessing. On the one hand, it made important strides toward properly understanding the Indian; on the other, it fueled the unrelenting drive for assimilation.
3. American Indian educational reform during the first half of the 20th century might be characterized as partly pluralist and partly assimilationist in nature. How would you describe and assess the character of the pluralism embodied in Indian schooling reform? In explaining your position, explain also the degree to which those reforms appear to you to be consistent with democratic ideals - and why.
As Indians began to assume responsibility for managing and advancing their own education, they made important changes to reverse some of the initial damage caused by the impositions of the system. What they don't appear to have questioned was whether the system was valid and useful in the first place, being an entirely European invention. By this time, (1970's) the demands of society may have made an institutional-style educational system non-negotiable, or perhaps enough time had passed to where the Indians took it for granted.
Whatever the case may be, the Indian's affirmation of their identity was entirely healthy. They stepped back from the problems and challenges, took a deep breath, and engaged the larger society as they saw fit, which is the epitome of the democratic ideal.
4. The point of view informing this chapter suggests a strong connection between U.S. reform of American Indian education and the elimination of native culture and values. If Indians could have controlled their own educational destinies on a continent won in battle by Europeans, how could they have pursued an educational policy any different from that imposed by the United States? In developing your response, consider differences in ideology between the dominant European-American culture and the various Indian cultures; political-economic constraints; and the Primary Source Readings as well as the chapter material itself.
The Indians were at a distinct disadvantage as European settlement expanded across the continent. They were not free to simply continue their way of life, seeing as the continental infrastructure had radically changed. They could not adapt their play and try out a different strategy - it was a whole new game. The development of an Indian educational system was inevitable, but were it given a bit more care and thought it might have been pursued in a more specifically Indian style.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Saturday, March 17, 2007
School & Society: Ch. 6 Study Questions
1. Some students familiar with Du Bois's criticism of Washington have defended Washington's approach as a "practical" solution that sought to accomplish what could be done for black people under the conditions of that particular place and time. Yet Du Bois believed that Washington fundamentally misinterpreted those conditions, and that given the political-economic and ideological realities of the period, the Washingtonian solution was truly impractical as a route to black advancement. Which leader had the stronger position, in your view, and why?
I tend to think that both Washington and Du Bois held pieces of the puzzle, although it seems that Du Bois's held a somewhat larger piece. Washington's continual insistence on "earning" or "deserving" one's rights - as opposed to simply demanding them - is largely wholesome. Du Bois, however, while he recognized the truth in Washington's approach, lays his finger on the larger problem: "[Washington's] doctrine has tended to make the whites, North and South, shift the burden of the Negro problem to the Negro's shoulders and stand aside as critical and rather pessimistic spectators; when in fact the burden belongs to the nation, and the hands of none of us are clean if we bend not our energies to righting these great wrongs."
Thus, I am inclined to side mainly with Du Bois, though with a generous dose of Washington mixed in.
2. Du Bois relied on Washington's autobiography in writing that "the picture of a lone black boy poring over a French grammar amid the weeds and dirt of a neglected home soon seemed to him the acme of absurdities." Why, in your view, did Washington see this image as so absurd, and why did Du Bois see Washington's view as so wrong in this instance? Which position do you believe is stronger, and why?
There is no single right answer. Washington is protesting the folly of overlooking the obvious, antecedent things, while Du Bois is extolling the virtue of education and higher thought. Both are valid perspectives. Washington could not see any practicality in the scenario, and Du Bois for his part could not see how the scenario could be anything but healthy. I say it depends. It may be entirely appropriate for a boy of uncommon genius, and it may be thoroughly inappropriate for a boy who simply disliked manual work.
3. In your Primary Source Reading, Du Bois wrote, "Honest and earnest criticism from those whose interests are most nearly touched, - criticism of writers by readers, of government by those governed, of leaders by those led, - this is the soul of democracy and the safeguard of modern society. If the best of the American Negroes receive by outer pressure a leader whom they had not recognized before, manifestly there is here a certain palpable gain. Yet there is also irreparable loss, - a loss of that peculiarly valuable education which a group receives when by search and criticism it finds and commissions its own leaders." To what degree do you find this statement consistent or inconsistent with Thomas Jefferson's views on intellectual freedom and the developmental value of democracy? Support your position.
American society in the late 19th century used some "democratic" sleight of hand to conceal their belligerency towards the Negro race. Washington bought into this deception, at least to some extent. His sights became politically clouded and began to affect his vision and ideals.
Du Bois is saying two things: 1) that the censuring of criticism is destructive to democracy, and 2) that it is important for any social entity aspiring to freedom and responsibility to learn to select its own leaders and recognize its own voice. Both ideas are entirely consistent with the Jeffersonian ideal. As Jefferson himself said, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
4. Du Bois also wrote, "When to earth and brute is added an environment of men and ideas, then the attitude of the imprisoned group may take three main forms, - a feeling of revolt and revenge; an attempt to adjust all thought and action to the will of the greater group; or, finally, a determined effort at self-realization and self-development despite environing opinion." However Du Bois might characterize Washington, how would you place Washington's vocational-education approach with respect to the three responses proposed by Du Bois? To what degree does Washington's approach fit one or more of those descriptions? Explain.
Du Bois's characterizations are plain: he dismisses the first category as crude and irrational, describes Washington as overly accommodating and lacking in pluck - the second category, and includes himself in the third category, among those who advocate "a determined effort at self-realization and self-development despite environing opinion."
This assessment stacks the deck against Washington, as was no doubt Du Bois's intention. I'm sure Washington would protest that his ideology and methods were closer to the third category and more than just a limp acquiescence to White pressure, and his protest would have some merit. So I think Du Bois is largely correct, in a simplified sense, but Washington should be given a bit more credit if we want to split hairs.
5. Du Bois identifies the following "dangerous half-truths": "The distinct impression left by Mr. Washington's propaganda is, first, that the South is justified in its present attitude toward the Negro because of the Negro's degradation; secondly, that the prime cause of the Negro's failure to rise more quickly is his wrong education in the past; and, thirdly, that his future rise depends primarily on his own efforts. Each of these propositions is a dangerous half-truth." To what degree do you agree that each of those propositions is partly true but partly false, and why would it be "dangerous" to overlook the falseness you identify in each? Defend your view.
Let us take them in order. In the first proposition, Washington states that "the South is justified in its present attitude toward the Negro because of the Negro's degradation." This is partly true, as it is mostly fact, but it is partly false, because of the Negro's degradation being due in part to the South's present attitude toward them.
Secondly, Washington deplores the lack of effectual education among the Negroes. This is true. But it is also true that Negroes were largely deprived of the necessary means to make such an education possible.
Thirdly, Washington lays the responsibility for self-advancement directly at the feet of the Negroes. This is true in the sense that it is indeed primarily their responsibility, but false in that it is not wholly their responsibility, which is what seems to be implied.
Therefore, each error follows the same theme: the Negro must indeed take responsibility for his situation, but, as Du Bois argues, that is not the whole story. To deny the mutual responsibility of the White man in this fashion is "dangerous."
I tend to think that both Washington and Du Bois held pieces of the puzzle, although it seems that Du Bois's held a somewhat larger piece. Washington's continual insistence on "earning" or "deserving" one's rights - as opposed to simply demanding them - is largely wholesome. Du Bois, however, while he recognized the truth in Washington's approach, lays his finger on the larger problem: "[Washington's] doctrine has tended to make the whites, North and South, shift the burden of the Negro problem to the Negro's shoulders and stand aside as critical and rather pessimistic spectators; when in fact the burden belongs to the nation, and the hands of none of us are clean if we bend not our energies to righting these great wrongs."
Thus, I am inclined to side mainly with Du Bois, though with a generous dose of Washington mixed in.
2. Du Bois relied on Washington's autobiography in writing that "the picture of a lone black boy poring over a French grammar amid the weeds and dirt of a neglected home soon seemed to him the acme of absurdities." Why, in your view, did Washington see this image as so absurd, and why did Du Bois see Washington's view as so wrong in this instance? Which position do you believe is stronger, and why?
There is no single right answer. Washington is protesting the folly of overlooking the obvious, antecedent things, while Du Bois is extolling the virtue of education and higher thought. Both are valid perspectives. Washington could not see any practicality in the scenario, and Du Bois for his part could not see how the scenario could be anything but healthy. I say it depends. It may be entirely appropriate for a boy of uncommon genius, and it may be thoroughly inappropriate for a boy who simply disliked manual work.
3. In your Primary Source Reading, Du Bois wrote, "Honest and earnest criticism from those whose interests are most nearly touched, - criticism of writers by readers, of government by those governed, of leaders by those led, - this is the soul of democracy and the safeguard of modern society. If the best of the American Negroes receive by outer pressure a leader whom they had not recognized before, manifestly there is here a certain palpable gain. Yet there is also irreparable loss, - a loss of that peculiarly valuable education which a group receives when by search and criticism it finds and commissions its own leaders." To what degree do you find this statement consistent or inconsistent with Thomas Jefferson's views on intellectual freedom and the developmental value of democracy? Support your position.
American society in the late 19th century used some "democratic" sleight of hand to conceal their belligerency towards the Negro race. Washington bought into this deception, at least to some extent. His sights became politically clouded and began to affect his vision and ideals.
Du Bois is saying two things: 1) that the censuring of criticism is destructive to democracy, and 2) that it is important for any social entity aspiring to freedom and responsibility to learn to select its own leaders and recognize its own voice. Both ideas are entirely consistent with the Jeffersonian ideal. As Jefferson himself said, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
4. Du Bois also wrote, "When to earth and brute is added an environment of men and ideas, then the attitude of the imprisoned group may take three main forms, - a feeling of revolt and revenge; an attempt to adjust all thought and action to the will of the greater group; or, finally, a determined effort at self-realization and self-development despite environing opinion." However Du Bois might characterize Washington, how would you place Washington's vocational-education approach with respect to the three responses proposed by Du Bois? To what degree does Washington's approach fit one or more of those descriptions? Explain.
Du Bois's characterizations are plain: he dismisses the first category as crude and irrational, describes Washington as overly accommodating and lacking in pluck - the second category, and includes himself in the third category, among those who advocate "a determined effort at self-realization and self-development despite environing opinion."
This assessment stacks the deck against Washington, as was no doubt Du Bois's intention. I'm sure Washington would protest that his ideology and methods were closer to the third category and more than just a limp acquiescence to White pressure, and his protest would have some merit. So I think Du Bois is largely correct, in a simplified sense, but Washington should be given a bit more credit if we want to split hairs.
5. Du Bois identifies the following "dangerous half-truths": "The distinct impression left by Mr. Washington's propaganda is, first, that the South is justified in its present attitude toward the Negro because of the Negro's degradation; secondly, that the prime cause of the Negro's failure to rise more quickly is his wrong education in the past; and, thirdly, that his future rise depends primarily on his own efforts. Each of these propositions is a dangerous half-truth." To what degree do you agree that each of those propositions is partly true but partly false, and why would it be "dangerous" to overlook the falseness you identify in each? Defend your view.
Let us take them in order. In the first proposition, Washington states that "the South is justified in its present attitude toward the Negro because of the Negro's degradation." This is partly true, as it is mostly fact, but it is partly false, because of the Negro's degradation being due in part to the South's present attitude toward them.
Secondly, Washington deplores the lack of effectual education among the Negroes. This is true. But it is also true that Negroes were largely deprived of the necessary means to make such an education possible.
Thirdly, Washington lays the responsibility for self-advancement directly at the feet of the Negroes. This is true in the sense that it is indeed primarily their responsibility, but false in that it is not wholly their responsibility, which is what seems to be implied.
Therefore, each error follows the same theme: the Negro must indeed take responsibility for his situation, but, as Du Bois argues, that is not the whole story. To deny the mutual responsibility of the White man in this fashion is "dangerous."
Saturday, March 10, 2007
School & Society: Ch. 5 Study Questions
1. This chapter tries to show that fifth-century Augustinian thought was one significant point of origin for the subordinate role and status of women in our national history. Do you believe that any of Augustine's views on women and men continue to influence the educational experiences of girls and women today? Specifically, how or how not? Defend your view.
The important question is not whether a given ideology is newer and more up-to-date, but rather whether it is true. "Augustinian," in this context, is nearly equivalent to "antiquated," and is used with a negative slur. Something that is old is not necessarily inadequate; this is an important distinction to maintain.
As regards the continuing influence of Augustine's views, it remains present, but is lessening. While some still cling to these ideas, many people have discounted them altogether, and most have probably not thought so far. The persistence of these views, however, is evidenced both by their longevity and by the vehement dislike and exaggeration with which society reacts to them, namely, in granting unreasonable preference to females in employment and advancement, and denying the clear facts of the situation. Discrimination has been turned on its head.
2. Clearly, the education of girls and women has progressed toward greater parity with the education of males since the time of the early republic. The progressive era was one time during which new opportunities for girls developed most markedly, but it is clear that many of these opportunities were gender-typed. On balance, did the progressive era result in greater or less educational parity for girls?
Crawling is not walking; in fact, crawling prevents you from walking. But crawling, for most people, is part of the incremental process of learning to walk. Speaking from the perspective of the social progressives, the main achievement of the era was the insertion of women and girls into the world of education and employment. Overcoming gender-typing simultaneously was too large a mouthful to swallow, for society, and even for some of the progressives themselves, such as John T. Irving.
Thus, gender-typing was the one step back for the two steps forward.
Assuming the direction is indeed forward, on which question I have my doubts.
3. The Seneca Falls Declaration of Rights and Sentiments is presented as a prominent illustration of a "radical" point of view on the role of women in society. Making clear what you mean by "radical," discuss whether any of the perspectives reflected in that document would be considered radical by most citizens today. Give examples and evidence to support your view.
I actually thought the definition of "radical" given in the text was excellent: "The idea that a political or ideological position is 'radical' stems from that word's meaning 'of or pertaining to the root.' Radical thinking seeks to get to the root of a problem, and radical solutions thus require fundamental change."
With this in mind, it must be recognized that it is not enough to be merely radical; it is important to also be right.
The Seneca Falls Declaration is over 150 years old, and during this time society has developed closely along these lines. While the Declaration was no doubt phenomenally fanatical for its time, it would seem one would be hard pressed to find much dissent from the twelve resolutions amongst the majority of America's population. Take, for instance, the issue of women in the workplace. This idea has followed the familiar but astonishing progression: prohibited - permitted - popular - preferred. Whether this unaccountable preference is merely the apex of society's pendulum swing, or a precursor to even greater extremes, remains to be seen.
4. In the Seneca Falls Declaration was purposely based on classical liberalism, which was the dominant ideology of the time, how could the document be considered radical and extreme in its views? Explain.
This is an instance in which the context of ideas becomes important. It is one thing to argue for freedom from tyranny, it is quite another to argue for freedom from tomato soup, even though the arguments employed may be nearly identical. The Seneca Falls Declaration employed the fundamental ideas of classical liberalism in a new context.
I do not believe that Classical Liberalism, in and of itself, addresses the issue of inter-gender equality. It merely affirms the right of societies and individuals to do as they please, provided they accepted responsibility for the consequences.
Even after 75 years, American society was unprepared to make the leap from Freedom-for-Society to Freedom-for-Women (or at least Freedom-for-Women as defined by the SF Declaration).
5. The article by Mary Leal Harkness was written about 70 years after the Seneca Falls Declaration, and the dominant ideology had shifted from classical liberalism to modern liberalism. To what degree is this shift evident in Harkness's article, and to what degree does it continue to show its roots more directly in classical liberalism? Defend your view with illustrations from the article.
The main distinction between classical and modern liberalism is that the former believes society is freest under little or no government, laissez-faire style, while the latter holds that a great deal of government is necessary to ensure true freedom and equality.
There is a subtle but important distinction between arguing that someone should have access to an education and arguing that the government ought to provide it. Indeed, these days, many people assume that the one implies the other. It doesn't.
Harkness shows her classical liberalism in arguing against social prejudices; she shows her modern liberalism in expecting government to be the cure.
The important question is not whether a given ideology is newer and more up-to-date, but rather whether it is true. "Augustinian," in this context, is nearly equivalent to "antiquated," and is used with a negative slur. Something that is old is not necessarily inadequate; this is an important distinction to maintain.
As regards the continuing influence of Augustine's views, it remains present, but is lessening. While some still cling to these ideas, many people have discounted them altogether, and most have probably not thought so far. The persistence of these views, however, is evidenced both by their longevity and by the vehement dislike and exaggeration with which society reacts to them, namely, in granting unreasonable preference to females in employment and advancement, and denying the clear facts of the situation. Discrimination has been turned on its head.
2. Clearly, the education of girls and women has progressed toward greater parity with the education of males since the time of the early republic. The progressive era was one time during which new opportunities for girls developed most markedly, but it is clear that many of these opportunities were gender-typed. On balance, did the progressive era result in greater or less educational parity for girls?
Crawling is not walking; in fact, crawling prevents you from walking. But crawling, for most people, is part of the incremental process of learning to walk. Speaking from the perspective of the social progressives, the main achievement of the era was the insertion of women and girls into the world of education and employment. Overcoming gender-typing simultaneously was too large a mouthful to swallow, for society, and even for some of the progressives themselves, such as John T. Irving.
Thus, gender-typing was the one step back for the two steps forward.
Assuming the direction is indeed forward, on which question I have my doubts.
3. The Seneca Falls Declaration of Rights and Sentiments is presented as a prominent illustration of a "radical" point of view on the role of women in society. Making clear what you mean by "radical," discuss whether any of the perspectives reflected in that document would be considered radical by most citizens today. Give examples and evidence to support your view.
I actually thought the definition of "radical" given in the text was excellent: "The idea that a political or ideological position is 'radical' stems from that word's meaning 'of or pertaining to the root.' Radical thinking seeks to get to the root of a problem, and radical solutions thus require fundamental change."
With this in mind, it must be recognized that it is not enough to be merely radical; it is important to also be right.
The Seneca Falls Declaration is over 150 years old, and during this time society has developed closely along these lines. While the Declaration was no doubt phenomenally fanatical for its time, it would seem one would be hard pressed to find much dissent from the twelve resolutions amongst the majority of America's population. Take, for instance, the issue of women in the workplace. This idea has followed the familiar but astonishing progression: prohibited - permitted - popular - preferred. Whether this unaccountable preference is merely the apex of society's pendulum swing, or a precursor to even greater extremes, remains to be seen.
4. In the Seneca Falls Declaration was purposely based on classical liberalism, which was the dominant ideology of the time, how could the document be considered radical and extreme in its views? Explain.
This is an instance in which the context of ideas becomes important. It is one thing to argue for freedom from tyranny, it is quite another to argue for freedom from tomato soup, even though the arguments employed may be nearly identical. The Seneca Falls Declaration employed the fundamental ideas of classical liberalism in a new context.
I do not believe that Classical Liberalism, in and of itself, addresses the issue of inter-gender equality. It merely affirms the right of societies and individuals to do as they please, provided they accepted responsibility for the consequences.
Even after 75 years, American society was unprepared to make the leap from Freedom-for-Society to Freedom-for-Women (or at least Freedom-for-Women as defined by the SF Declaration).
5. The article by Mary Leal Harkness was written about 70 years after the Seneca Falls Declaration, and the dominant ideology had shifted from classical liberalism to modern liberalism. To what degree is this shift evident in Harkness's article, and to what degree does it continue to show its roots more directly in classical liberalism? Defend your view with illustrations from the article.
The main distinction between classical and modern liberalism is that the former believes society is freest under little or no government, laissez-faire style, while the latter holds that a great deal of government is necessary to ensure true freedom and equality.
There is a subtle but important distinction between arguing that someone should have access to an education and arguing that the government ought to provide it. Indeed, these days, many people assume that the one implies the other. It doesn't.
Harkness shows her classical liberalism in arguing against social prejudices; she shows her modern liberalism in expecting government to be the cure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
