I had the honor today of visiting several classrooms at St. Andrew Nativity School, where I started volunteering as a tutor nine weeks ago, to talk about Ghana. And I was soon telling the students that of the many classrooms I have visited in the U.S., theirs most reminded me of Ghana.
There are, to be sure, a lot of differences: temperature control; furnishings; number of books and other teaching aids.
But there are also a lot of similarities. The students at St. Andrew are much more respectful toward adults than are most students in the U.S. This is not just a question of wearing uniforms and being quiet--though that helps. It also seems to be internalized. The students at St. Andrew seem to view their school as a splendid opportunity. Indeed, the school is one of many Catholic efforts to provide an outstanding education to children from disadvantaged backgrounds. But across the U.S. there are students from all sorts of backgrounds who seem to view school as some sort of punishment. I recall students from my own childhood who seemed utterly devoted to driving teachers into early retirement. The students at St. Andrew, like those I met and observed in Ghana, seem very pleased to be in school and to take pride in their accomplishments and ambitions.
In chatting with one of the staff members today, we remarked that the American love for equality and freedom has often translated into a distrust of any sort of hierarchy or deference. But the students in Ghana and at St. Andrew seem pleased to show respect to their teachers in particular and to adults in general, people who are, one hopes, helping them to move from childhood to maturity, dependence to responsibility.
The website for St. Andrew Nativity School: http://nativityportland.com/
Friday, November 30, 2012
Friday, November 23, 2012
Life's Sneaker Waves
We've been staying the past couple of days south of Lincoln City, very close to the spot where four years ago I nearly got swept into the ocean by a sneaker wave. It was Wendy's 50th birthday celebration week-end, and I went for a walk with a friend. We were talking, and I turned to see a huge wave coming at us, yelled to Mary to run, and made it to the rocks on the base of a short cliff, where I climbed up a couple of feet and then hung. on. The wave washed completely over me, and as I held on for dear life I remember hoping with all my might that Mary would be there when the wave receded. She was not. I saw her in the ocean, being sucked out to sea. So I figured I'd see if the next wave would bring her in, then decide whether or not to jump in to try to save her. I'm a terrible swimmer. It was a cold day; both of us had bulky clothes on. But jumping in seemed like it would be the right thing to do. But Mary found a way to find the current that was driving toward shore, and the next wave deposited her on the beach. I kept yelling at her to get up. I didn't want to go anywhere near the ocean. She asked for help, so I trotted out and helped her up. We went back to the house. Life went on.
I was troubled by the event for a long time. I felt so helpless and frightened on that rock. And I wondered what I would have done--or should have done--if Mary had stayed out in the ocean.
I finally got specialized, rapid-eye-movement therapy to help me process and heal from the trauma of the event. And the therapist helped me to realize that I dealt with the episode very successfully: I took care of myself, then I took care of my friend. Who knows what I would have done--or should have done--if she had been swept out to sea.
But I still think of the episode from time to time. Mostly I think about how ordinary the day seemed and how quickly the prospect of helplessness and death appeared. My life almost always seems ordinary, even routine, and I almost always feel in control. But big events--danger, death, and other traumas--will come again, probably without warning.
I was troubled by the event for a long time. I felt so helpless and frightened on that rock. And I wondered what I would have done--or should have done--if Mary had stayed out in the ocean.
I finally got specialized, rapid-eye-movement therapy to help me process and heal from the trauma of the event. And the therapist helped me to realize that I dealt with the episode very successfully: I took care of myself, then I took care of my friend. Who knows what I would have done--or should have done--if she had been swept out to sea.
But I still think of the episode from time to time. Mostly I think about how ordinary the day seemed and how quickly the prospect of helplessness and death appeared. My life almost always seems ordinary, even routine, and I almost always feel in control. But big events--danger, death, and other traumas--will come again, probably without warning.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
The End of Christian America?
I seldom blog about explicitly religious subjects, as it seems like the one topic of conversation guaranteed to alienate at least some of my friends and students. But the last election has me thinking about the relationship between Christianity and the mainstream political culture of the U.S.
Given the defeat of Republicans at the polls and, especially, the gains made by proponents of same-sex marriage, some Evangelical Christians have concluded that the nation has decisively turned away from Christian values.
I have two (very different) objections to this way of thinking. First, I think and believe that an open-minded reading (if such an endeavor is possible) of the New Testament suggests that Jesus and the early church were much more interested in people showing love and care for each other than in such subjects as abortion and same-sex relations--not to mention that the very definitions terms like "homosexual" are historically plastic and indeterminate. And where is the chorus of outrage from conservative Christian commentators over drone attacks that kill innocent children or the deaths of several thousand children each day from lack of food and simple medicines? Second, should we really expect the Christianity of the New Testament to become the basis of popular culture in any deep and meaningful way? It seems to me that the crux of Christianity is God becoming human and offering himself as a sacrifice to humanity even as they--literally--crucify him. Jesus washes the feet of his disciples even as he tells them that they will betray and abandon him on the cross. He urges people to confess their sins, their need for forgiveness, and to lay down their lives in humble service to God and humanity. Does this sound like the Republican Party or mainstream America?
Christians haven't lost America. They never had it.
Given the defeat of Republicans at the polls and, especially, the gains made by proponents of same-sex marriage, some Evangelical Christians have concluded that the nation has decisively turned away from Christian values.
I have two (very different) objections to this way of thinking. First, I think and believe that an open-minded reading (if such an endeavor is possible) of the New Testament suggests that Jesus and the early church were much more interested in people showing love and care for each other than in such subjects as abortion and same-sex relations--not to mention that the very definitions terms like "homosexual" are historically plastic and indeterminate. And where is the chorus of outrage from conservative Christian commentators over drone attacks that kill innocent children or the deaths of several thousand children each day from lack of food and simple medicines? Second, should we really expect the Christianity of the New Testament to become the basis of popular culture in any deep and meaningful way? It seems to me that the crux of Christianity is God becoming human and offering himself as a sacrifice to humanity even as they--literally--crucify him. Jesus washes the feet of his disciples even as he tells them that they will betray and abandon him on the cross. He urges people to confess their sins, their need for forgiveness, and to lay down their lives in humble service to God and humanity. Does this sound like the Republican Party or mainstream America?
Christians haven't lost America. They never had it.
Friday, November 9, 2012
The End of the Republican Party?
Many pundits since elecrion day have pointed out that the Republicans foolishly hitched their wagon to a single demographic group: older white (and of course straight) males--preferably not with a lot of education in subject such as Sociology or Ethnic Studies. As this group has been and, for the foreseeable future, shall remain a shrinking part of the electorate, it seems in hindsight unwise to have "fired up the base" by alienating Latinos and women. Republicans since Richard Nixon have made a living by trying to paint the Democratic Party as the refuge of poor blacks and clueless intellectuals, thereby scooping up the white South and working class. But they can ill afford to hand the Democrats large pluralities of the nation's young, women, and Latinos.
The problem facing Republicans, though, is that the party has become dominated by people who feel alienated by the same modern forces that are reworking the electorate. Sensible Republicans who want to remain competitive in national elections and in states such Nevada and Florida recognize that they must now move significantly to the left on questions such as immigration and women's rights--and eventually on gay and lesbian rights. But it is precisely these changes (a black man in the White House, women outnumbering men in a growing number of professions, Spanish speakers arriving in more and more local neighborhoods and schools, and gays and lesbians appearing in sit-coms and PTA meetings) that have motivated so many conservatives to become politically active, to "take back our country," as they often put it.
Those of us who embrace social and cultural diversity have a hard time not gloating at the fix the Republican Party finds itself in. We should remind ourselves that most people find change unsettling, and that in the 1960s the Republican Party also seemed to be hopelessly out of step and headed for the scrap heap of history.
The problem facing Republicans, though, is that the party has become dominated by people who feel alienated by the same modern forces that are reworking the electorate. Sensible Republicans who want to remain competitive in national elections and in states such Nevada and Florida recognize that they must now move significantly to the left on questions such as immigration and women's rights--and eventually on gay and lesbian rights. But it is precisely these changes (a black man in the White House, women outnumbering men in a growing number of professions, Spanish speakers arriving in more and more local neighborhoods and schools, and gays and lesbians appearing in sit-coms and PTA meetings) that have motivated so many conservatives to become politically active, to "take back our country," as they often put it.
Those of us who embrace social and cultural diversity have a hard time not gloating at the fix the Republican Party finds itself in. We should remind ourselves that most people find change unsettling, and that in the 1960s the Republican Party also seemed to be hopelessly out of step and headed for the scrap heap of history.
Friday, November 2, 2012
The Election We Deserve
'Tis the season for complaints about the endless barrage of political ads that treat us like we are a bunch of rubes easily influenced by lies, exagerrations, bombast, and personal attacks.
Of course the problem is that these ads are so common because they usually work.
Our inability or unwillingness to pay much attention to civics, to our obligations as citizens, means that we are influenced by relatively small amounts of information. That is why televised debates and advertisements are so important. Most of us don't get much information otherwise.
Therefore candidates are often rewarded for appearing to be in command and assertive, even if they are spouting a bunch of nonsense. They are banking on the fact that only a small sliver of viewers will read the fact-checkers' articles the next day. Likewise, advertisements so often play to the more shallow side of human nature (fear and envy, for example), because in the absence of knowledge we tend to vote with "our gut."
The power of this sort of advertising means that the candidate able to buy up the most advertising has a huge advantage. This advantage would be greatly reduced--and the level of political discourse greatly elevated--if all of us spent half as much time educating ourselves about politics as we do watching sit-coms.
Of course the problem is that these ads are so common because they usually work.
Our inability or unwillingness to pay much attention to civics, to our obligations as citizens, means that we are influenced by relatively small amounts of information. That is why televised debates and advertisements are so important. Most of us don't get much information otherwise.
Therefore candidates are often rewarded for appearing to be in command and assertive, even if they are spouting a bunch of nonsense. They are banking on the fact that only a small sliver of viewers will read the fact-checkers' articles the next day. Likewise, advertisements so often play to the more shallow side of human nature (fear and envy, for example), because in the absence of knowledge we tend to vote with "our gut."
The power of this sort of advertising means that the candidate able to buy up the most advertising has a huge advantage. This advantage would be greatly reduced--and the level of political discourse greatly elevated--if all of us spent half as much time educating ourselves about politics as we do watching sit-coms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)