Somewhere in there Tim Wise briefly mentions white history month is every month not explicitly designated otherwise. This is obvious as he points out. However, he claims this is why there is no need for a white history month. I would suggest the opposite. Because such a month is implicit is exactly why it should be explicit. If students and media were to try to celebrate it, there would be nothing special. This could draw more attention to the hegemony of white culture.
Yes, the U.S. still has a wage gap, one that can be convincingly explained—at least in part—by discrimination. Yes, women still do most of the child care. And yes, the upper reaches of society are still dominated by men. But given the power of the forces pushing at the economy, this setup feels like the last gasp of a dying age rather than the permanent establishment.
There are anecdotal accounts of people seeing the prisoners of concentration camps for the first time and assuming they must have been terrible criminals. The first place the mind goes is the place where the world is just.
The article address the consequences of the just-world fallacy that is apparently innate. The ill, rape victims, and the impoverished deserve their misfortune. The fortunate, wealthy, and recognized are so because of their character and action. Meritocracy is a baseline for interpretation (rationalizing) and naturally extends to places (sex victims) it clearly doesn't belong. Not so clearly, it may be that merit is always an inappropriate perspective. Malcolm Gladwell has something to say here (Outliers).
I like this perspective on the demonizing of rape victims. It's not a process of patriarchy. It is the result of a natural cognitive fallacy. It's Hanlon's Razor: "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Also, Why does the author say "Why do you do this?" Should it not be "Why do we do this?"
This is a response post: "Which is the most universal human characteristic, fear or laziness?" Although alluring in nature the question seems to be of the same unanswerable level as "are humans inherently good or evil?" The inquiry is legitimate nonetheless but it compares two different human traits: emotion and behavior. While the debate of which characteristic is more prevalent in our society is something worthwhile, it seems futile when viewed with a wider lens as emotion begets behavior and behavior begets emotion. The question should not be "fear or laziness" but "fear and laziness." Based on sporadic pseudo-scientific observation, laziness is one product of fear as it encourages solitude which perpetuates inaction leading to a more constant state of being lazy. Emotion and behavior are cyclical: fear-->solitude-->laziness-->fear-->solitude-->laziness... One could argue the apprehension of fear may increase inspiration but if someone's behavior is rooted in laziness how long until the motivation subsides? Essentially the original questions asks: "which is the most universal human characteristic, emotion or behavior?" It seems this cannot be answered as stated above, emotion begets behavior and behavior begets emotion, take out emotion and we are systemic beings, robotic almost, take out behavior and we are monolithic pods expressing and not doing. Take out one of the characteristics and we are not human, thus both are the most universal characteristic as it defines what "we" are.
Thus Kuran emphasizes an important and often neglected fact: that private pressure can impair liberty, and obstacles to free speech and honest interchange often come from our fellow citizens. The desire to protect one's reputation, by declining to say things that other people think bizarre or offensive, is deeply rooted in human beings; and so Kuran finds a crucial distinction between a person's private preferences (what he actually wants) and his public preferences (what he says, in public, that he wants).
Take this in context of the discussion of Facebook privacy. The more open Facebook identities become, the more repressive the site becomes. It's a bit counter-intuitive. The quantity of information broadcast is inversely related to liberty, at least when the author can be held accountable to 'eir preference.
Is free speech only liberating when it is anonymous? Without associating the taboo with the person, the internet is at it's most infamous. Unfortunately, there is no stretch in likening the anonymous actions of the unaccountable to that exemplified by road-raged drivers. Apparently, people, liberated, are jerks without empathy. Is my misanthropic bias showing?
How much weight does vernacular play in taking a stand or stating a position on a certain subject? For example, is it global warming or is it climate change? Does it effect the end result the collective is trying to reach (e.g. sustainability of reusable energy)? Although some might parse word for manipulative purposes, in the end does it really matter? Another example: Is it Mental Retardation or Cognitive Challenges? Does it matter if the student is receiving the appropriate services? These of course aren't the only two examples.
I got into this discussion the other day. One teacher suggested age appropriate reinforcement isn't necessary if it's working (e.g. If a 16 year old girl likes her Sesame Street lunch box why would you try to fade that out? If it's what she likes then it's what she likes.) Other teachers--myself included--suggested if we as educators don't broaden our students interests then what are we doing as educators? This is not to say we are forcing our interests on students but opening up a world they might not otherwise know of instead of using 'what works'.
Comments [1]