Today, educators across America are looking for ways to integrate studies of different subjects together. A recent Chicago Tribune article provided an example of one way not to do it.
In New York City, a fourth grade teacher attempted to combine what her students had been learning about in math in conjunction with their study of slavery. While the idea might seem like a unique way to get students to think, it turned into what I think a big mistake. One of the problems on the worksheet, entitled Slavery Word Problems, was, "In a slave ship, there can be 3,799 slaves. One day, the slaves took over the ship. 1,897 are dead. How many slaves are alive?" The problem may be stated in simple English, however given how sensitive the issue is, I think the teacher made the wrong decision to incorporate the two subjects. With wording such as 'alive' it makes the student consider the buying and selling of people as product and property, almost like cattle or clothing.
The desensitizing of the whole realm of slavery is most alarming to me because of the fact that slavery was outlawed almost 150 years ago. Another problem on the sheet said, "One slave got whipped five times a day. How many times did he get whipped in a month (31 days)? Another slave got whipped nine times a day. How many times did he get whipped in a month? How many times did the two slaves get whipped together in one month?" This is a grotesque example of how slavery as a Peculiar Institution has been accepted into society. 'Daily whippings' are in the same format as any other word problem like apples picked or cars washed. The given information, like in any word problem, is assumed as factual and correct. I think it is wrong that the students are forced to believe that the horrors and abuse of slavery are known and believed as a simple truth.
What do you think this proves about American society? To what extent should the teacher be punished? How widespread do you think this issue is across the country and world? What can we do in the future to get these ideas stopped without infringing on teachers' rights?
Search This Blog
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Lights, Camera, Error: Lincoln
With the Academy Awards coming up, there are many movies in contention for the Best Picture Oscar. The competition has become fierce. One of the top contenders, Lincoln, based on the life of America's sixteenth president, Abraham Lincoln, has been considered a front runner by film critics all over the world.
With Awards Night less than two weeks away, just now historians across the country are beginning to question the authenticity of the film. While the film focuses on the last few years of the Civil War, Lincoln's second term and his eventual success at attempting to pass the Thirteenth Amendment outlawing slavery, on February 5th, Rep. Joe Courtney from Connecticut said that the film "misrepresented the way his predecessors in the 1865 House of Representatives voted on the 13th Amendment banning slavery". According to Courtney, all four Connecticut representatives voted for the amendment, however the movie depicts two voting against it. I think he interpreted the 'misrepresentation' of the voting results as a negative reflection of the state's history. If a state barely agreed that slavery should be outlawed, it casts them in a bad light today because now there is almost an absolute agreement that it was wrong. He later he asked DreamWorks (the film's production company) for some form of correction because, according to CNN's Gene Seymour, he "merely wants props restored to his home state" and isn't out to "ruin anybody's chances [at winning an award]". I agree that the facts should be set straight, however I find it curious that despite the fact that the movie premiered to the public on October 8th, the error is just being brought up. To what extent does the Oscars being right around the corner have to do with it? Probably at least something.
I wonder worthy if this case is of a challenge. What do you think is more important: the authenticity of the film's historical account or the film's right to thematic artistic license? Do you think this was done on purpose or just because of a lack of research? The film did take a long time to be made and surely it had been thoroughly researched beforehand.
With Awards Night less than two weeks away, just now historians across the country are beginning to question the authenticity of the film. While the film focuses on the last few years of the Civil War, Lincoln's second term and his eventual success at attempting to pass the Thirteenth Amendment outlawing slavery, on February 5th, Rep. Joe Courtney from Connecticut said that the film "misrepresented the way his predecessors in the 1865 House of Representatives voted on the 13th Amendment banning slavery". According to Courtney, all four Connecticut representatives voted for the amendment, however the movie depicts two voting against it. I think he interpreted the 'misrepresentation' of the voting results as a negative reflection of the state's history. If a state barely agreed that slavery should be outlawed, it casts them in a bad light today because now there is almost an absolute agreement that it was wrong. He later he asked DreamWorks (the film's production company) for some form of correction because, according to CNN's Gene Seymour, he "merely wants props restored to his home state" and isn't out to "ruin anybody's chances [at winning an award]". I agree that the facts should be set straight, however I find it curious that despite the fact that the movie premiered to the public on October 8th, the error is just being brought up. To what extent does the Oscars being right around the corner have to do with it? Probably at least something.
I wonder worthy if this case is of a challenge. What do you think is more important: the authenticity of the film's historical account or the film's right to thematic artistic license? Do you think this was done on purpose or just because of a lack of research? The film did take a long time to be made and surely it had been thoroughly researched beforehand.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Do Clothes Really Make the Man?
via Faded and Blurred |
I was looking on the Internet and came across a series of photographs by the German photographer, Herlinde Koelbl, from a recent collection of the past year. The project, entitled Kleider Machen Leute,-‘Clothes Make The Man’ in German- explores how people are perceived based on the clothes they wear or the uniform they don for eight hours a day, five days a week, in the average profession's case.
In the first side-by-side, a man is photographed in his work clothes (priest) and in his everyday clothes. When I first see him in his regal red robes and red biretta hat, I think of a person of not only stature, but also one of discipline, strong faith and a dedication to tradition. When pictured on the right, I think if I were to ever see this man on the street I would not look twice at him in his track jacket and running shoes. I wonder if clergyman desire to fit in on the street and struggle with having two personas all their life.
via Faded and Blurred |
What do you think about the saying, 'clothes make the man'? How do you think clothing affects what a person thinks of themselves?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)