Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(40)
-
▼
July
(13)
- How to get your marks, pick up your work...
- Open Discussion Thread
- 'Pedagogy of the Superhero'
- For Wednesday...
- Open Discussion Thread
- Notes on office hours and assignments...
- 'Pedagogy of the Oppressed' chapters 3 and 4
- Open Discussion Thread
- Important notice, re: Practicum
- 'Pedagogy of the Oppressed' chapters 1 and 2
- Open Discussion Thread
- Some 'Pedagogy of the Oppressed' resources...
- 'Pedagogy of the Oppressed', Intro and Preface
-
▼
July
(13)
18 comments:
I have a question for the concentric circle assignment- I may have already asked this, but does it matter how many circles we have? Is there a minimum/maximum/suggested amount? Thanks!
I don't think there's a limit or maximum of how many circles we can have. It is based on what you think are considered the concentric circles of childhood. Clearly, we have to aim for as close as possible of what the concentric circles of childhood may be.
In regards to chapter 4, I just want to make sure I got the right interpretation towards a specific paragraph on pp. 132.
It talks about Mr. Giddy wanting the people to not to think, therefore as an oppressor class, all the epochs cannot think with the people let alone allow people to think for themselves. On the other hand, for revolutionary leaders, they think with the people, otherwise they become devitalized, meaning that they become weak or lifeless (from what I am aware of). Thus, the people is the main part of the arrangement, and not "of objects thought of"
Am I in the right track so far?
I agree with Agustina. Everyone's concentric circle will be slightly different and some people may have a lot of circles, whereas some may have less. I think it just depends on your personal situation and how many circles you feel your childhood may have keeping in mind it should be concise and to the point. I'm sure Neil doesn't want HUGE circles including every detail. In regards to Agustina's question re: the reading I would agree with your interpretation. People are the objects of oppression and without them thinking for themselves oppression will occur. Thus, people are the main part of the arrangement and without the people allowing oppression to occur it will continue. Thinking for yourself and being critical is so important to be intelligent, informed individuals. However, in all honesty the readings for the past few weeks have been difficult so if I am wrong with anything I have said here, please correct me.
So, Agustina, I believe you are on the right track, however it appears I am on the same track as you...lol....if anyone has anything to contribute to our discussion please do so. Any clarification would be appreciated.
heck ya, agustina. essentially that is what he says throughout the entire book. the people/public/majority must be part of the equation when speaking of revolution, or else it is not liberation. if the revolutionary leaders simply overcome class issues to rise to the position of oppressor they're just perpetuating the cycle of oppression. what Freire says is that a revolutionary leader is NOT one that leads by speaking FOR the people, rather he leads by speaking WITH the people. when someone is spoken FOR, he/she is dehumanized because he/she does not communicate, does not contribute to the discourse of revolutionary change. this is what Freire says is an essential human characteristic, our will to communicate, to exteriorize the soul. the true way to humanize and liberate is for everyone to contribute to the transformation of the dynamically defined linguistic reality. so yes, the people must be part of the arrangement, and not superficially, but ESSENTIALLY. the people must be at the core.
Well said Sam. That cleared a lot up for myself. Freire's language throughout the book is quite intelligent and sophisticated and for myself difficult to grasp. This is completely off topic, but was wondering if anyone would like to discuss Steven Page's arrest for cocaine and his connection with promoting children's music. My niece went to camp for 2 weeks and was introduced to the Barenaked Ladies album "Snack Time" and came home loving them. She could relate to their songs and sang them all the time. Then she heard the bands name on the radio and on the news on television and she knew something was going on with her new favorite singer. When she asked what was going on I found it very difficult to explain to her that sometimes people make mistakes and make bad choices that have serious consequences. I was honest with her and told her what had happened and she simply said...."I still like his music." It made me realize how simple things can be for children. It made me wonder if our society/media is making this much bigger than it actually is. Steven Page made a poor choice in possessing cocaine however, he is a political activist, environmentalist, and self-made Canadian musician who uses his music to promote change. Maybe our society is being too difficult and judgmental considering Steven Page has a long and impressive career. However, his career may not be so successful after the dust settles from this incident.
It will be interesting to see whether or not The Barenaked Ladies continue to produce music aimed at children after what happened with Page. In our society, where we feel we must protect children from all sorts of different "evils," it would make sense for them to withdraw from children's entertainment. I like how Melanie's niece reacted so rationally when she was told the truth about Page. Children do absolutely have the capacity to understand that people make bad decisions sometimes and I don't think we should oppress them by hiding away and lying about negative issues.
I believe the Barebaked Ladies made a choice to back out of a children's charity show organized by Disney once the charges were laid so they would not put Disney is an uncomfortable situation. So I guess to answer your question Jessica, for now they appear to not be making or promoting children's music. I agree with Jessica in the sense that children do not need to be "protected" from these types of events, rather discuss what has occurred and what consequences have occurred as a result. Hopefully the child will make an informed decision that is his/her own to make and not dictated to them how they "ought" to act.
I can't help but comment on Melanie's niece and her comment on Steven's arrest. How old is your niece? I am amazed on how she reacted. I would assume she would think hes a "bad guy" and as a result not listen to his music. I also question what exactly you told her, did you leave the drug part out? If not, great because children should be told the truth. We should not hide anything from them, they should be given the chance the analyze the situation and have their own opinion. In this case, she didn't care about Steven's personal problem and decided to still listen to his music. Interesting. Thanks for sharing that with us!
first thing: about the musician from the Barenaked ladies. consciousness-altering substances and artists go hand in hand lol if you haven't noticed. turning away from the discussion of DRUGS is all too common and a perfect example of how we suppress thought by suppressing dialogue. Instead, a firm kick in the ass and the only few words in the form of a slogan "SAY NO TO DRUGS" is the only dialogical discourse we have ever known. just lending a critical eye on the "drug" subject. how should we properly enter a discussion about drug use from a Freirian perspective, considering the SERIOUSLY limited knowledge we've inherited from our current oppressive educational system about "drug". we also need a new language, the word "drugs" inherently evokes bad images and bad thoughts about ANY drugs OTHER than our "trusted" and familiar doctor-prescribed synthetic drugs, alcohol, caffeine and tobacco (yes the latter three ARE DRUGS) - in other words, the drugs accepted by dominant ideology and pushed heavily for the individual to "properly" function in today's high-paced capitalist consumerist society. So, are illegal drugs necessarily "BAD" or "WRONG"?; or (as a potential alternative) do their effects simply oppose the fundamental effects (on mind AND body) of legal drugs, thereby subsequently affecting individual behavior to challenge the behaviors accepted by dominant social norms?
i'm thinking about this in light of having just read lots and lots of Freire. lol, influence > me. or wait, critical thinking is me.
oh, and the drug agents that seem to be most responsible for the most drug-related deaths are eaaasily tobacco and alcohol. check any legitimate statistics documents from anywhere in Canada or the United States (search google). Prescription drugs fall next below alcohol, and by FAR above every other illicit drugs we could care to name. the statistics you might find (statscan, or government approved research) will usually only include direct overdose of a substance as cause of death, but i'm sure if we tallied up the points from violent behavior under the influence of alcohol, and car accidents due to the influence of alcohol, it might well surpass tobacco as "number 1 killer". what does that say about governmental/institutional "concern" in public health? should their credibility be called into question? who is in charge of legitimizing certain drugs and demonizing others? is it in the public's best interest?
Wow Sam! Very interesting points. In fact, if alcohol and cigarettes are the main causes of death(drug-related), than why are they not illegal? This is making me think. Who then chooses what is right and wrong? I think this is due to the dominant ideology, it has always been this way. Sadly, I haven't brought my attention to this issue simply because its just the way it is and were not taught to question why things are the way they are. Interestingly enough, my mom had mentioned to me that she would rather have me smoke a cigarette than weed. Why is this? When in fact, cigarettes are worse for you.
One thing is for sure these illegal drugs are illegal for a reason. These questions that you and I ask should be brought to people of authority, those who have power and make these decisions.
Im puzzled.
I want answers!
Hoping that most of you will have a minute, please answer the following questions so I can get an idea of your thoughts and opinions in order to complete my CPT assignment. It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!
1. Did you enjoy reading the books written by Deborah Ellis? Why?
2. What do you think is the purpose of her books?
3. What was your favourite Deborah Ellis book? Why?
4. What was your least favourite Deborah Ellis book? Why?
5. Do you think you can hear the child’s voice in these books? If so, which one? If no, why so?
6. Do you think children enjoy her books? Do you think children are able to understand the meaning of her books?
7. Do you think important details are left out in order to protect the young readers from serious information? If so, in which book?
8. Please share any comment you have in regards to Deborah Ellis books.
Thank you!
To answer your questions Chantel...
1.I did enjoy reading the Debra Ellis books because they were very different from the books that I read when I was younger. Also from these novels I gained more knowledge about children and childhood because I used to assume that the myths about childhood we talked about in class were true. One of my complaints about her books would be that from the stories we read most of the stories had the same storyline and become somewhat predictable. Although the stories took place in different countries, most of the same themes were present.
2. I think the purpose of her books are to inform us that children live very different lives around the world and that our western notions of childhood are not universal. Also i think she aims to get people to take notice about problems that are occurring worldwide and that children are not too young to know whats going on.
5. I think you can hear the voice of the child in the books like our stories and our songs and three wishes because actual children were asked their opinions.
6. I think that children would enjoy reading her novels because they are something different and they allow young readers to learn about other children around the world and the issues they face. I think that children will be able to understand her books because the language used in the novels is not hard to understand and she has designed them for young readers, therefore the main ideas are clearly represented
7. I do think that some issue were left out of the books, for example, in these novels death was not really talked about. In the Heaven shop when Bindi's father died they were singing and not much else was said. Also sexuality ans sex were rarely mentioned as well as issues of drug abuse.
totally unrelated. but here is a breaking news story on youtube about concentric circles
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8wHMaJ6AtNs
answering to chantels question 1) i must say i really enjoyed the books writen by deborah ellis.the reason why i enjoyed thik is that ih has opened my inner mind of coming to know that not all chidren have ater oppurtunity to a better childhood,even if most of the stories migh not be fully right.
2)i tink the purposof her books are to inform us that children live different lives andhave a different childhood experience and that our western notion of childhood are not universal. she also bring to th notice of people, the tribulation and problm the afrin children are going through
3) one of deborah ellis book like best is 'i am a taxi' the main reason i like this book is because digo as a chracter new his rights and was a very brave child.
5) the only book of deborah ellis that i think the voice of childen were heard is three wishes and our story, our song. the reason is that the voice of chilren were heard and children in three wishes were given more oppurtunity to talk about their life exprience.
6) ithink children will enjoyin reading he book because it is different romwhat they read and it makes the children know whatis gong through around the world and also prepare them for challenges and make their rights known to them
7)i think important details ar left out the book heaven shop. details on how aids is mainly contacted are left out in order to protect the children reading this book.sexuality being the major wat to contact aids was neglected.
To answer Chantel's questions:
1. Did you enjoy reading the books written by Deborah Ellis? Why?
I did enjoy reading the books written by Deborah Ellis because it provided many different perspectives that I wasn’t aware existed. It was great to read different novels because it allowed me to understand the concepts of children and childhood and that there are myths that are untrue. The books were educational, informative, and enjoyable. It was also critical enough for me to analyze the meanings of what was being said and what was not.
2. What do you think is the purpose of her books?
The purpose of her books was to bring more awareness of children and the surroundings of children. Ellis wanted the intended audience to be aware of the issues and obstacles that children face that we may not be aware of.
3. What was your favourite Deborah Ellis book? Why?
The Breadwinner was my favorite book because it sparked my interest towards the personalities of the characters which in turn relates to reality because there are many diverse personalities towards children. It was also an interesting novel to read because I never knew children had to sacrifice for their family like how Parvana had to become a boy in order to bring in money in the family household since her father was taken away and girls and women were not allowed to work. I was not aware of these type of sacrifices that children had to make in order to survived which is particularly why I liked this book, because it was something different than I ever read before.
4. What was your least favourite Deborah Ellis book? Why?
I didn’t like “Our Stories, Our Songs” simply because of the arrangement of the book itself. There are many issues involved such as authenticity towards the responses of the children. We also don’t even know what were the specific questions that Ellis asked the children or how Ellis overcame the language barriers (whether if it meant using translators,if that is the case, then we must question how accurate can the translator really be and if the translator is ‘speaking’ correctly according to what the child is stating). In comparison to the other books, this book was my least favorite.
5. Do you think you can hear the child’s voice in these books? If so, which one? If no, why so?
I do think I can hear the children’s voice in “Our Stories, our Songs” and “the three wishes” because actual children’s opinions were asked, but at the same time, we must question the specific questions that Ellis asked these children in order to make sure that these actual children’s opinions weren’t altered in any form.
6. Do you think children enjoy her books? Do you think children are able to understand the meaning of her books?
I think children would appreciate the fact that Ellis is gearing towards children, which is on their level, therefore children reading these novels would be able to relate to the storyline and understand what is occurring in these novels.
7. Do you think important details are left out in order to protect the young readers from serious information? If so, in which book?
It is hard to tell if important details are left out in order to protect the young readers from serious information, because since Ellis is the author, she is also the writer, so she controls the intended audience, therefore she has authority in what she says and in what she does. But what we can do is take into consideration of what Ellis has stated and what she has not stated as well.
8. Please share any comment you have in regards to Deborah Ellis books.
Her books seem to go all over the place, there doesn’t seem to be a solution in any of the novels.
Post a Comment