|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 22 2020 10:37 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
Another avenue of critical pedagogy might be looking at something like Classic's conscription and investigating if we can find any connections between that and US foreign policy past and/or present. What is Classic?
A 1965 Shelby Cobra 
I'm talking about Classic's conscription
EDIT: I should add with good faith participants there's not really a wrong way to contribute to such an investigation. Whether it's an elaborate connection between the Korean war and the military industrial complex or simply an observation on their choice of uniforms, exercise regimes, or the most popular TV program among soldiers (will other soldiers recognize him?), there's a multitude of ways to contribute.
Alternatively anything can be investigated like this and I simply picked that because it was an easy example that I at least thought would overlap established interests and US politics where such a Freireian example could be made.
|
Senate votes three times 53-47 against looking at either White House, State department or Office of management and budgets documents regarding the impeachment case, despite everything that is known about the involvement of those offices. It's pathetic. Just don't look at evidence and then claim there is a not enough evidence. Banana republic status official now.
+ Show Spoiler +
Trumps defense team literally only has the same old fox news quote stuff, it sounds so sad. Yet hearing some of the C-Span callers, it's all they need. People who can barely string together sentences repeating the Jim Jordan mantra 'only hearsay, call was fine, where is Hunter Biden?'
edit: Also 53-47 against hearing from Mick Mulvaney. Totally not necessary to ask him questions /s
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On January 22 2020 11:28 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Senate votes three times 53-47 against looking at either White House, State department or Office of management and budgets documents regarding the impeachment case, despite everything that is known about the involvement of those offices. It's pathetic. Just don't look at evidence and then claim there is a not enough evidence. Banana republic status official now. https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1219736534024359936+ Show Spoiler +Trumps defense team literally only has the same old fox news quote stuff, it sounds so sad. Yet hearing some of the C-Span callers, it's all they need. People who can barely string together sentences repeating the Jim Jordan mantra 'only hearsay, call was fine, where is Hunter Biden?' edit: Also 53-47 against hearing from Mick Mulvaney. Totally not necessary to ask him questions /s + Show Spoiler +
It is interesting that this evidence they're now trying to get the Senate to subpoena was already subpoenaed by the House. The House then withdrew its lawsuit after the lawsuit was able to generate some headlines about how outrageous it was that the Trump administration was taking the same position regarding executive privilege that the past 4-5 administrations have taken. Now they've kicked things to the Senate where they can generate some more headlines, even though the House could have easily taken more time with its impeachment proceeding (considering the magnitude of impeachment), let the lawsuits play out and gather all the potential evidence. For the House to take more time and gather all the evidence would also be more consistent with actual trials, where there is a pre-trial fact investigation phase and there are protections against "surprise" evidence at trial. But of course the way the Democrats are playing this is to leverage their media allies by maximizing sensational headlines.
|
On January 22 2020 11:46 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2020 11:28 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Senate votes three times 53-47 against looking at either White House, State department or Office of management and budgets documents regarding the impeachment case, despite everything that is known about the involvement of those offices. It's pathetic. Just don't look at evidence and then claim there is a not enough evidence. Banana republic status official now. https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1219736534024359936+ Show Spoiler +Trumps defense team literally only has the same old fox news quote stuff, it sounds so sad. Yet hearing some of the C-Span callers, it's all they need. People who can barely string together sentences repeating the Jim Jordan mantra 'only hearsay, call was fine, where is Hunter Biden?' edit: Also 53-47 against hearing from Mick Mulvaney. Totally not necessary to ask him questions /s + Show Spoiler + It is interesting that this evidence they're now trying to get the Senate to subpoena was already subpoenaed by the House. The House then withdrew its lawsuit after the lawsuit was able to generate some headlines about how outrageous it was that the Trump administration was taking the same position regarding executive privilege that the past 4-5 administrations have taken. Now they've kicked things to the Senate where they can generate some more headlines, even though the House could have easily taken more time with its impeachment proceeding (considering the magnitude of impeachment), let the lawsuits play out and gather all the potential evidence. For the House to take more time and gather all the evidence would also be more consistent with actual trials, where there is a pre-trial fact investigation phase and there are protections against "surprise" evidence at trial. But of course the way the Democrats are playing this is to leverage their media allies by maximizing sensational headlines.
Alternatively, the White House could comply with subpoenas from it's own countries congress...? Instead of going for maximum legal stalling? Why on earth should the democrats play that game. When they have all these people telling about serious misconduct. They should sit on it for 1.5 years until Trumps endless lawsuits come to a conclusions? Look how long it's taking in the tax returns case, that's now ended up at the supreme court.
|
On January 22 2020 11:48 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2020 11:46 Doodsmack wrote:On January 22 2020 11:28 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Senate votes three times 53-47 against looking at either White House, State department or Office of management and budgets documents regarding the impeachment case, despite everything that is known about the involvement of those offices. It's pathetic. Just don't look at evidence and then claim there is a not enough evidence. Banana republic status official now. https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1219736534024359936+ Show Spoiler +Trumps defense team literally only has the same old fox news quote stuff, it sounds so sad. Yet hearing some of the C-Span callers, it's all they need. People who can barely string together sentences repeating the Jim Jordan mantra 'only hearsay, call was fine, where is Hunter Biden?' edit: Also 53-47 against hearing from Mick Mulvaney. Totally not necessary to ask him questions /s + Show Spoiler + It is interesting that this evidence they're now trying to get the Senate to subpoena was already subpoenaed by the House. The House then withdrew its lawsuit after the lawsuit was able to generate some headlines about how outrageous it was that the Trump administration was taking the same position regarding executive privilege that the past 4-5 administrations have taken. Now they've kicked things to the Senate where they can generate some more headlines, even though the House could have easily taken more time with its impeachment proceeding (considering the magnitude of impeachment), let the lawsuits play out and gather all the potential evidence. For the House to take more time and gather all the evidence would also be more consistent with actual trials, where there is a pre-trial fact investigation phase and there are protections against "surprise" evidence at trial. But of course the way the Democrats are playing this is to leverage their media allies by maximizing sensational headlines. Alternatively, the White House could comply with subpoenas from it's own countries congress...? Instead of going for maximum legal stalling? Why on earth should the democrats play that game. When they have all these people telling about serious misconduct. They should sit on it for 1.5 years until Trumps endless lawsuits come to a conclusions? Look how long it's taking in the tax returns case, that's now ended up at the supreme court.
Congress' oversight authority is not unlimited. It's only natural for the executive branch to assert privilege over stuff that is at the very center of the executive branch, i.e. the President's own work. That's true executive power type stuff that the executive is very much interested in keeping confidential. I mean I don't know, maybe the courts would say the argument doesn't work in the case of an impeachment, but there could at least be protections put in place i.e. the evidence wouldn't become public.
|
On January 22 2020 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2020 04:10 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I know that a lot of people have been annoyed at GreenHorizons' "refusal to answer questions and only talk about revolution," and I'm not really sure what side of that argument I fall on. However, I've thought of two questions that I think would be interesting to hear his opinion on that concern policy, and two that he might feel compelled to answer.
1. You mention Friereian critical pedagogy a whole lot, and not many people ever go into detail on it here. What would an education system look like if it was based on that model instead of what you see and the "banking" or "pitcher" model of education in place today, and how would it be applicable to such a large scale as the United States? Additionally, could executive actions and the power the executive branch has over the department of education help move our country onto that path, or must it be done though means outside of the government?
2. Would the reinstatement of FDR's fireside chat, adapted to a global medium, help this goal of critical pedagogy or be part of the end goal? I've been thinking about how something like the fireside chat could be very effective on today's digital mediums and help inform the public about what's going on. 1.It's a bit hard to describe from scratch but presuming others understand the basic differences between the banking model and critical pedagogy it reshapes the entire social construction of education. People are familiar with the banking model, an example being the forced wrote memorization geography we talked about here before. Critical pedagogy is the formally thought out (pedagogically) conception of what everyone was saying they would prefer. Chapter 3 of Pedagogy of the Oppressed is what you'll want to read if you want to get into the more gritty details, but generally speaking it's a dialogical engagement where everyone are students and everyone teachers the curriculum is determined by them collectively, and at it's heart it functions to empower people with the steadfast belief that the world is what we make it, not a void we can only reactively adapt to. Critical pedagogy isn't like a tech school or something, it's a way of life if that makes sense? I don't think about the president in relation to critical pedagogy it's much more of a ground up operation. It's mass movement education along the style of the Panther's breakfast program. 2.Like redistributing wealth the fireside chat without the pedagogical underpinnings is pretty useless but generally speaking yeah. The idea is that we're all able to dialogue about the issues of the day in such a way that when we're done we arrive at a more enlightened vision/description of the world. EDIT: As an example I'd like/think it would be instructive if someone wants to know more about critical pedagogy to pick a page (at random if they wish) from Pedagogy of the Oppressed to ask about/discuss.
I'm not sure I fully understand yet, as I haven't had time to read the full book yet, but what I'm starting to glean from chapter 3 is that students are no longer passive in their leaning. Teachers teach in critical pedagogy by engaging with students in "dialogue," only made with "true words" (words containing reflection and action), and do not participate as teachers today do.
The teachers of this kind of pedagogy would not write out ideas on a board and tell students that they are the truth or what the students must understand and believe, like a classroom of today does; the lecture hall college class would disappear. Rather, the teacher would begin with a subject relevant to the class topic, and begin by discussing with the students (not telling them, but a two-sided discussion) the reality of the world they live in can lead to the conclusions that would have been stated as ideas in the banking model, and what that means for the way to change the world for the better. The only thing transferred to the students is the set of facts and observations about the world, and the rest is generated through dialogue. I am going to write my thoughts as if what I said is true, and if it's wrong, then I can adjust accordingly in a later post.
I think that stuff like the Panther's breakfast program, while good, can't reach a majority of people. The only way to reach many a community, and, in the end, every community, to promote this model of education, must have some interaction with the current education structure of the United States. Our department of education helps set standards and devise regulations, protect civil rights and privacy rights in regards to the current accepted education system, and administer assistance to schools. I don't think any kind of education system like this critical pedagogy model could ever compete with the banking model on a large scale without executive intervention, especially because of the sheer inertia that the banking model has.
I mean, high schools and below are essentially required for kids to go to, that kind of power over the lives of children is so incredibly strong. 40 hours of school a week can change a child much more than programs that aren't required by law, simply because there's not much more time left in their week, and you certainly can't just get all these kids to stop going to school. Even before I understood the real details behind the concept (I probably still don't ), my main thought was how you could change the schools that kids basically have to attend into places where critical pedagogy is practiced.
I don't see that happening in red states without federal prodding, nor do I see I it happening in many wealthier parts of cities in blue states, since those people probably don't feel the need for immediate change nearly as strongly. I want to know if you have any idea on how to change federal regulations to allow for critical pedagogy in public school classrooms nationwide, with the method I suggested being the president using executive actions and being able to nominate the head of the department of education. I want to hammer out how to get around that roadblock, since it's probably the most important step in your plan to change the world.
|
On January 22 2020 14:55 Howie_Dewitt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2020 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 22 2020 04:10 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I know that a lot of people have been annoyed at GreenHorizons' "refusal to answer questions and only talk about revolution," and I'm not really sure what side of that argument I fall on. However, I've thought of two questions that I think would be interesting to hear his opinion on that concern policy, and two that he might feel compelled to answer.
1. You mention Friereian critical pedagogy a whole lot, and not many people ever go into detail on it here. What would an education system look like if it was based on that model instead of what you see and the "banking" or "pitcher" model of education in place today, and how would it be applicable to such a large scale as the United States? Additionally, could executive actions and the power the executive branch has over the department of education help move our country onto that path, or must it be done though means outside of the government?
2. Would the reinstatement of FDR's fireside chat, adapted to a global medium, help this goal of critical pedagogy or be part of the end goal? I've been thinking about how something like the fireside chat could be very effective on today's digital mediums and help inform the public about what's going on. 1.It's a bit hard to describe from scratch but presuming others understand the basic differences between the banking model and critical pedagogy it reshapes the entire social construction of education. People are familiar with the banking model, an example being the forced wrote memorization geography we talked about here before. Critical pedagogy is the formally thought out (pedagogically) conception of what everyone was saying they would prefer. Chapter 3 of Pedagogy of the Oppressed is what you'll want to read if you want to get into the more gritty details, but generally speaking it's a dialogical engagement where everyone are students and everyone teachers the curriculum is determined by them collectively, and at it's heart it functions to empower people with the steadfast belief that the world is what we make it, not a void we can only reactively adapt to. Critical pedagogy isn't like a tech school or something, it's a way of life if that makes sense? I don't think about the president in relation to critical pedagogy it's much more of a ground up operation. It's mass movement education along the style of the Panther's breakfast program. 2.Like redistributing wealth the fireside chat without the pedagogical underpinnings is pretty useless but generally speaking yeah. The idea is that we're all able to dialogue about the issues of the day in such a way that when we're done we arrive at a more enlightened vision/description of the world. EDIT: As an example I'd like/think it would be instructive if someone wants to know more about critical pedagogy to pick a page (at random if they wish) from Pedagogy of the Oppressed to ask about/discuss. I'm not sure I fully understand yet, as I haven't had time to read the full book yet, but what I'm starting to glean from chapter 3 is that students are no longer passive in their leaning. Teachers teach in critical pedagogy by engaging with students in "dialogue," only made with "true words" (words containing reflection and action), and do not participate as teachers today do. The teachers of this kind of pedagogy would not write out ideas on a board and tell students that they are the truth or what the students must understand and believe, like a classroom of today does; the lecture hall college class would disappear. Rather, the teacher would begin with a subject relevant to the class topic, and begin by discussing with the students (not telling them, but a two-sided discussion) the reality of the world they live in can lead to the conclusions that would have been stated as ideas in the banking model, and what that means for the way to change the world for the better. The only thing transferred to the students is the set of facts and observations about the world, and the rest is generated through dialogue. I am going to write my thoughts as if what I said is true, and if it's wrong, then I can adjust accordingly in a later post. I think that stuff like the Panther's breakfast program, while good, can't reach a majority of people. The only way to reach many a community, and, in the end, every community, to promote this model of education, must have some interaction with the current education structure of the United States. Our department of education helps set standards and devise regulations, protect civil rights and privacy rights in regards to the current accepted education system, and administer assistance to schools. I don't think any kind of education system like this critical pedagogy model could ever compete with the banking model on a large scale without executive intervention, especially because of the sheer inertia that the banking model has. I mean, high schools and below are essentially required for kids to go to, that kind of power over the lives of children is so incredibly strong. 40 hours of school a week can change a child much more than programs that aren't required by law, simply because there's not much more time left in their week, and you certainly can't just get all these kids to stop going to school. Even before I understood the real details behind the concept (I probably still don't ), my main thought was how you could change the schools that kids basically have to attend into places where critical pedagogy is practiced. I don't see that happening in red states without federal prodding, nor do I see I it happening in many wealthier parts of cities in blue states, since those people probably don't feel the need for immediate change nearly as strongly. I want to know if you have any idea on how to change federal regulations to allow for critical pedagogy in public school classrooms nationwide, with the method I suggested being the president using executive actions and being able to nominate the head of the department of education. I want to hammer out how to get around that roadblock, since it's probably the most important step in your plan to change the world.
The interpretation of the text matches mine more or less. I appreciate the engagement and taking the time to familiarize yourself. Seems we agree it's a superior model to what we have now (nuanced specifics can be sorted out later).
So the rest is about how to implement this better system. I recognize the desire to pursue it electorally and through existing federal systems. I'd hope for that to be the case. My engagement with how the federal, state and local governments treated things like the panthers breakfast program and the people that created it makes me skeptical it is a viable option. I could rattle off a list of other examples from times past to present domestic and international as well.
With that in mind I'm hopeful someone like Sanders can win, help facilitate a movement capable of massive change like healthcare, free and modern (based in critical pedagogy and interdisciplinary practices) higher (as well as "pre-K through 12") learning, housing as a human right etc...
I don't think even the people avidly supporting him think that is a very realistic scenario though, so from a practical point of view, I focus more on what I view as more probable circumstances.
I recognize your doubt in the Panthers program, but in order to undermine it, a similar program (without the critical pedagogy and community organizing aspects) was taken on nationally and now you'll find a free breakfast/lunch program in many districts.
That wouldn't have happened if the Panthers were out focused on elections instead of simply building self-reliant support networks that spread organically. Admittedly the program was co-opted, the Panthers killed, imprisoned, bribed, marginalized, etc... I however, view that as an opportunity to learn how to be more resilient to such efforts rather than a reason to fall back into what I see as a circle of electoralism that one can argue objectively made things worse over the last 40 years if not at least stagnate.
Not a lot of worse candidates for the position than the current occupant but I don't know enough about the specific powers of the president and cabinet regarding education to even imagine how that would work, but perhaps someone more familiar with those particulars can lay out how much/what the Executive can do to implement a critical pedagogy at the systemic level.
EDIT: As you read on you'll find Freire uses the term "contradictions" and stresses the importance of highlighting them and digging in. One that stuck out to me in your post was:
my main thought was how you could change the schools that kids basically have to attend into places where critical pedagogy is practiced.
I may be misunderstanding your intentions but perhaps you also see the contradiction in that? Hard to engage in critical pedagogy when your being forced into it. I don't think it's impossible to work around though.
EDIT2: Because it comes up frequently it's probably a good time to mention the issue you're asking about regarding implementation and some people needing "prodding" is the tension in socialism between a Centralized State and more anarchistic models. You think this thread is fun, wait till you argue with a bunch of anarchists lol (still love ya comrades).
|
On January 22 2020 12:07 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2020 11:48 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On January 22 2020 11:46 Doodsmack wrote:On January 22 2020 11:28 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Senate votes three times 53-47 against looking at either White House, State department or Office of management and budgets documents regarding the impeachment case, despite everything that is known about the involvement of those offices. It's pathetic. Just don't look at evidence and then claim there is a not enough evidence. Banana republic status official now. https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1219736534024359936+ Show Spoiler +Trumps defense team literally only has the same old fox news quote stuff, it sounds so sad. Yet hearing some of the C-Span callers, it's all they need. People who can barely string together sentences repeating the Jim Jordan mantra 'only hearsay, call was fine, where is Hunter Biden?' edit: Also 53-47 against hearing from Mick Mulvaney. Totally not necessary to ask him questions /s + Show Spoiler + It is interesting that this evidence they're now trying to get the Senate to subpoena was already subpoenaed by the House. The House then withdrew its lawsuit after the lawsuit was able to generate some headlines about how outrageous it was that the Trump administration was taking the same position regarding executive privilege that the past 4-5 administrations have taken. Now they've kicked things to the Senate where they can generate some more headlines, even though the House could have easily taken more time with its impeachment proceeding (considering the magnitude of impeachment), let the lawsuits play out and gather all the potential evidence. For the House to take more time and gather all the evidence would also be more consistent with actual trials, where there is a pre-trial fact investigation phase and there are protections against "surprise" evidence at trial. But of course the way the Democrats are playing this is to leverage their media allies by maximizing sensational headlines. Alternatively, the White House could comply with subpoenas from it's own countries congress...? Instead of going for maximum legal stalling? Why on earth should the democrats play that game. When they have all these people telling about serious misconduct. They should sit on it for 1.5 years until Trumps endless lawsuits come to a conclusions? Look how long it's taking in the tax returns case, that's now ended up at the supreme court. Congress' oversight authority is not unlimited. It's only natural for the executive branch to assert privilege over stuff that is at the very center of the executive branch, i.e. the President's own work. That's true executive power type stuff that the executive is very much interested in keeping confidential. I mean I don't know, maybe the courts would say the argument doesn't work in the case of an impeachment, but there could at least be protections put in place i.e. the evidence wouldn't become public.
Maybe the blanket refusal to answer ANY congressional subpoena served by the House, on any topic, openly stated by Trump does not mean it's Congress overreaching, but the WH abusing its powers ? Along with it selectively releasing FOIA requests granted by a judge.
I'd have preferred for congress to continue pushing the issue in courts. It'd have taken a long time, but should have brought results down the line, in a year or two.
In this specific case, the WH did NOT have the legal rights to withhold aid, because it was not its decision to make. So there's no "executive power type stuff" in OMB or others testifying. It was not an executive task or decision making, or counseling the president, just shady shit to go around laws.
|
Bot edit.
User was banned for this post.
|
All it took was Clinton anti-endorsing Bernie after Warren's laughable sexism attack and suddenly Bernie #1.
Warren's deserved fall reminds me of 2016 Republican primary. Lots of people wanted crazy, but not too crazy, so they went with Cruz. Eventually they decided Cruz was just a shitty version of trump and said "fuck it, give me the whole thing". When you choose to just be a shitty Bernie, people eventually figure it out. And a long primary rewards ideological purity because it's a race to base appeasement and the base gets more partisan as the primary goes on.
|
I’m hearing more and more pro-Bernie talk from folks who have otherwise been cold on him, let’s goooooooo 
|
On January 23 2020 02:46 farvacola wrote:I’m hearing more and more pro-Bernie talk from folks who have otherwise been cold on him, let’s goooooooo
Yeah my politically uninvolved friend is like full force Bernie now. Hates CNN now and whatnot. I love it.
Lots of people saying "fuck it, let's do it"
|
On January 23 2020 02:46 farvacola wrote:I’m hearing more and more pro-Bernie talk from folks who have otherwise been cold on him, let’s goooooooo
I as much as anyone can appreciate frustration at the whole bandwagoning aspect, but that is also sort of a main point of politics, so I welcome the news overall.
After Trump is cleared by the Senate, I'm not sure what guarantees we have at a legit general election though.
|
On January 23 2020 02:46 farvacola wrote:I’m hearing more and more pro-Bernie talk from folks who have otherwise been cold on him, let’s goooooooo
Consider me on the train as well.
I can't even really quantify why, maybe I'm just jumping in with the sentiment of my twitter feed
|
On January 23 2020 02:46 farvacola wrote:I’m hearing more and more pro-Bernie talk from folks who have otherwise been cold on him, let’s goooooooo
That's how I feel about this forum comparing 2016 and 2020 tbh. Feels fucking amazing, I'm still managing expectations but it's something.
|
On January 23 2020 03:08 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2020 02:46 farvacola wrote:I’m hearing more and more pro-Bernie talk from folks who have otherwise been cold on him, let’s goooooooo That's how I feel about this forum comparing 2016 and 2020 tbh. Feels fucking amazing, I'm still managing expectations but it's something.
I have to agree and I know sometimes it seems like I'm never happy about anything but it is really invigorating to be honest.
|
I credit GH almost entirely for the changes in my political philosophy regarding not settling and being more progress ambitious
GH does an outstanding job at showing people they aren't actually expressing the ethics they hold and convincing people the world doesn't need to be awful forever
|
On January 22 2020 15:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2020 14:55 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On January 22 2020 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 22 2020 04:10 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I know that a lot of people have been annoyed at GreenHorizons' "refusal to answer questions and only talk about revolution," and I'm not really sure what side of that argument I fall on. However, I've thought of two questions that I think would be interesting to hear his opinion on that concern policy, and two that he might feel compelled to answer.
1. You mention Friereian critical pedagogy a whole lot, and not many people ever go into detail on it here. What would an education system look like if it was based on that model instead of what you see and the "banking" or "pitcher" model of education in place today, and how would it be applicable to such a large scale as the United States? Additionally, could executive actions and the power the executive branch has over the department of education help move our country onto that path, or must it be done though means outside of the government?
2. Would the reinstatement of FDR's fireside chat, adapted to a global medium, help this goal of critical pedagogy or be part of the end goal? I've been thinking about how something like the fireside chat could be very effective on today's digital mediums and help inform the public about what's going on. 1.It's a bit hard to describe from scratch but presuming others understand the basic differences between the banking model and critical pedagogy it reshapes the entire social construction of education. People are familiar with the banking model, an example being the forced wrote memorization geography we talked about here before. Critical pedagogy is the formally thought out (pedagogically) conception of what everyone was saying they would prefer. Chapter 3 of Pedagogy of the Oppressed is what you'll want to read if you want to get into the more gritty details, but generally speaking it's a dialogical engagement where everyone are students and everyone teachers the curriculum is determined by them collectively, and at it's heart it functions to empower people with the steadfast belief that the world is what we make it, not a void we can only reactively adapt to. Critical pedagogy isn't like a tech school or something, it's a way of life if that makes sense? I don't think about the president in relation to critical pedagogy it's much more of a ground up operation. It's mass movement education along the style of the Panther's breakfast program. 2.Like redistributing wealth the fireside chat without the pedagogical underpinnings is pretty useless but generally speaking yeah. The idea is that we're all able to dialogue about the issues of the day in such a way that when we're done we arrive at a more enlightened vision/description of the world. EDIT: As an example I'd like/think it would be instructive if someone wants to know more about critical pedagogy to pick a page (at random if they wish) from Pedagogy of the Oppressed to ask about/discuss. I'm not sure I fully understand yet, as I haven't had time to read the full book yet, but what I'm starting to glean from chapter 3 is that students are no longer passive in their leaning. Teachers teach in critical pedagogy by engaging with students in "dialogue," only made with "true words" (words containing reflection and action), and do not participate as teachers today do. The teachers of this kind of pedagogy would not write out ideas on a board and tell students that they are the truth or what the students must understand and believe, like a classroom of today does; the lecture hall college class would disappear. Rather, the teacher would begin with a subject relevant to the class topic, and begin by discussing with the students (not telling them, but a two-sided discussion) the reality of the world they live in can lead to the conclusions that would have been stated as ideas in the banking model, and what that means for the way to change the world for the better. The only thing transferred to the students is the set of facts and observations about the world, and the rest is generated through dialogue. I am going to write my thoughts as if what I said is true, and if it's wrong, then I can adjust accordingly in a later post. I think that stuff like the Panther's breakfast program, while good, can't reach a majority of people. The only way to reach many a community, and, in the end, every community, to promote this model of education, must have some interaction with the current education structure of the United States. Our department of education helps set standards and devise regulations, protect civil rights and privacy rights in regards to the current accepted education system, and administer assistance to schools. I don't think any kind of education system like this critical pedagogy model could ever compete with the banking model on a large scale without executive intervention, especially because of the sheer inertia that the banking model has. I mean, high schools and below are essentially required for kids to go to, that kind of power over the lives of children is so incredibly strong. 40 hours of school a week can change a child much more than programs that aren't required by law, simply because there's not much more time left in their week, and you certainly can't just get all these kids to stop going to school. Even before I understood the real details behind the concept (I probably still don't ), my main thought was how you could change the schools that kids basically have to attend into places where critical pedagogy is practiced. I don't see that happening in red states without federal prodding, nor do I see I it happening in many wealthier parts of cities in blue states, since those people probably don't feel the need for immediate change nearly as strongly. I want to know if you have any idea on how to change federal regulations to allow for critical pedagogy in public school classrooms nationwide, with the method I suggested being the president using executive actions and being able to nominate the head of the department of education. I want to hammer out how to get around that roadblock, since it's probably the most important step in your plan to change the world. The interpretation of the text matches mine more or less. I appreciate the engagement and taking the time to familiarize yourself. Seems we agree it's a superior model to what we have now (nuanced specifics can be sorted out later). So the rest is about how to implement this better system. I recognize the desire to pursue it electorally and through existing federal systems. I'd hope for that to be the case. My engagement with how the federal, state and local governments treated things like the panthers breakfast program and the people that created it makes me skeptical it is a viable option. I could rattle off a list of other examples from times past to present domestic and international as well. With that in mind I'm hopeful someone like Sanders can win, help facilitate a movement capable of massive change like healthcare, free and modern (based in critical pedagogy and interdisciplinary practices) higher (as well as "pre-K through 12") learning, housing as a human right etc... I don't think even the people avidly supporting him think that is a very realistic scenario though, so from a practical point of view, I focus more on what I view as more probable circumstances. I recognize your doubt in the Panthers program, but in order to undermine it, a similar program (without the critical pedagogy and community organizing aspects) was taken on nationally and now you'll find a free breakfast/lunch program in many districts. That wouldn't have happened if the Panthers were out focused on elections instead of simply building self-reliant support networks that spread organically. Admittedly the program was co-opted, the Panthers killed, imprisoned, bribed, marginalized, etc... I however, view that as an opportunity to learn how to be more resilient to such efforts rather than a reason to fall back into what I see as a circle of electoralism that one can argue objectively made things worse over the last 40 years if not at least stagnate. Not a lot of worse candidates for the position than the current occupant but I don't know enough about the specific powers of the president and cabinet regarding education to even imagine how that would work, but perhaps someone more familiar with those particulars can lay out how much/what the Executive can do to implement a critical pedagogy at the systemic level. EDIT: As you read on you'll find Freire uses the term "contradictions" and stresses the importance of highlighting them and digging in. One that stuck out to me in your post was: Show nested quote +my main thought was how you could change the schools that kids basically have to attend into places where critical pedagogy is practiced.
I may be misunderstanding your intentions but perhaps you also see the contradiction in that? Hard to engage in critical pedagogy when your being forced into it. I don't think it's impossible to work around though. EDIT2: Because it comes up frequently it's probably a good time to mention the issue you're asking about regarding implementation and some people needing "prodding" is the tension in socialism between a Centralized State and more anarchistic models. You think this thread is fun, wait till you argue with a bunch of anarchists lol (still love ya comrades).
I guess that contradiction comes from the opinion that critical pedagogy is a necessary thing and the fear that children won't want to participate in it unless they're corralled into a place like a school for significant amounts of time every week. I believe critical pedagogy is necessary to to get everyone to really care about the world around them and understand it in a way that can spur revolution without everything going to shit first. However, I think the idea of kids all having to go to school is an important and good one that is one of the only reasons impoverished and vulnerable communities are able to get education funding at all in a capitalist system, and so I think it needs to be mixed with critical pedagogy.
Additionally, kids tend to like immediate gratification and learning doesn't always provide that unless the kid is taught to love it from a young age. You can't barge into the homes of parents and force them to parent better, and there's not much of a way to improve parenting from within a family. So, school can help make kids take steps away from their parents' ideologies while forcing them to be in a place that will eventually show them how much dialogue can improve them and the world.
I acknowledge that the Panthers were dunked on by the government, and I guess fear of that happening to everyone who proposes these changes without a voice in the government drives my desire to see this happen through the official channels and monopoly on acceptable violence that the government has instead.
My best friend is actually an anarchist, but I'm going to go tell him to read this book since I know he hasn't. He's more focused on creating a parallel power structure to the government through labor and communal living structures/seizing means of production by laborers on small scales over and over, and I want to know what he thinks.
Lastly, as others like Mohdoo have said, I would credit you as one of the largest reasons why I transformed my views into what they are today. I argued for Clinton on a basis of electability in the 2016 primary, and now I'm here. The other two who probably had an equally great influence would be farvacola and KwarK, since their views played the "reasonable voice" against many ideas of yours that I tended to avoid really thinking about past the eye test. I also didn't fully understand them, even though my instinct was often to agree, and that helped me realize I wasn't offering your ideas the same level of consideration. Or, perhaps, this journey of mine was a natural consequence of the change from the high school me to college me, and how I've learned so much since then. Either way, I'm glad you're all here, and thank you for engaging with me. I'll continue to read pedagogy of the oppressed, and actually start from chapter 1
|
On January 23 2020 03:18 Mohdoo wrote:
I credit GH almost entirely for the changes in my political philosophy regarding not settling and being more progress ambitious
GH does an outstanding job at showing people they aren't actually expressing the ethics they hold and convincing people the world doesn't need to be awful forever
I agree. He's done a lot to continue stoking conversations that we wouldn't have had otherwise, and it's caused me to do a lot of reevaluating my positions. Even if I ultimately still disagree with him on something, the important thing was that new questions are being asked, and I keep examining my beliefs in new ways, and not getting cozy with a belief just because it makes me feel good. I already feel like I've changed a lot in the past few years, and GH's presence here has been a big part of that. So cheers to him, and the mods who reconsidered his ban.
It may be slightly off topic at this point, or maybe this goes in feedback. shrug Just thought I'd echo your feelings.
|
On January 23 2020 04:53 Howie_Dewitt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2020 15:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 22 2020 14:55 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On January 22 2020 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 22 2020 04:10 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I know that a lot of people have been annoyed at GreenHorizons' "refusal to answer questions and only talk about revolution," and I'm not really sure what side of that argument I fall on. However, I've thought of two questions that I think would be interesting to hear his opinion on that concern policy, and two that he might feel compelled to answer.
1. You mention Friereian critical pedagogy a whole lot, and not many people ever go into detail on it here. What would an education system look like if it was based on that model instead of what you see and the "banking" or "pitcher" model of education in place today, and how would it be applicable to such a large scale as the United States? Additionally, could executive actions and the power the executive branch has over the department of education help move our country onto that path, or must it be done though means outside of the government?
2. Would the reinstatement of FDR's fireside chat, adapted to a global medium, help this goal of critical pedagogy or be part of the end goal? I've been thinking about how something like the fireside chat could be very effective on today's digital mediums and help inform the public about what's going on. 1.It's a bit hard to describe from scratch but presuming others understand the basic differences between the banking model and critical pedagogy it reshapes the entire social construction of education. People are familiar with the banking model, an example being the forced wrote memorization geography we talked about here before. Critical pedagogy is the formally thought out (pedagogically) conception of what everyone was saying they would prefer. Chapter 3 of Pedagogy of the Oppressed is what you'll want to read if you want to get into the more gritty details, but generally speaking it's a dialogical engagement where everyone are students and everyone teachers the curriculum is determined by them collectively, and at it's heart it functions to empower people with the steadfast belief that the world is what we make it, not a void we can only reactively adapt to. Critical pedagogy isn't like a tech school or something, it's a way of life if that makes sense? I don't think about the president in relation to critical pedagogy it's much more of a ground up operation. It's mass movement education along the style of the Panther's breakfast program. 2.Like redistributing wealth the fireside chat without the pedagogical underpinnings is pretty useless but generally speaking yeah. The idea is that we're all able to dialogue about the issues of the day in such a way that when we're done we arrive at a more enlightened vision/description of the world. EDIT: As an example I'd like/think it would be instructive if someone wants to know more about critical pedagogy to pick a page (at random if they wish) from Pedagogy of the Oppressed to ask about/discuss. I'm not sure I fully understand yet, as I haven't had time to read the full book yet, but what I'm starting to glean from chapter 3 is that students are no longer passive in their leaning. Teachers teach in critical pedagogy by engaging with students in "dialogue," only made with "true words" (words containing reflection and action), and do not participate as teachers today do. The teachers of this kind of pedagogy would not write out ideas on a board and tell students that they are the truth or what the students must understand and believe, like a classroom of today does; the lecture hall college class would disappear. Rather, the teacher would begin with a subject relevant to the class topic, and begin by discussing with the students (not telling them, but a two-sided discussion) the reality of the world they live in can lead to the conclusions that would have been stated as ideas in the banking model, and what that means for the way to change the world for the better. The only thing transferred to the students is the set of facts and observations about the world, and the rest is generated through dialogue. I am going to write my thoughts as if what I said is true, and if it's wrong, then I can adjust accordingly in a later post. I think that stuff like the Panther's breakfast program, while good, can't reach a majority of people. The only way to reach many a community, and, in the end, every community, to promote this model of education, must have some interaction with the current education structure of the United States. Our department of education helps set standards and devise regulations, protect civil rights and privacy rights in regards to the current accepted education system, and administer assistance to schools. I don't think any kind of education system like this critical pedagogy model could ever compete with the banking model on a large scale without executive intervention, especially because of the sheer inertia that the banking model has. I mean, high schools and below are essentially required for kids to go to, that kind of power over the lives of children is so incredibly strong. 40 hours of school a week can change a child much more than programs that aren't required by law, simply because there's not much more time left in their week, and you certainly can't just get all these kids to stop going to school. Even before I understood the real details behind the concept (I probably still don't ), my main thought was how you could change the schools that kids basically have to attend into places where critical pedagogy is practiced. I don't see that happening in red states without federal prodding, nor do I see I it happening in many wealthier parts of cities in blue states, since those people probably don't feel the need for immediate change nearly as strongly. I want to know if you have any idea on how to change federal regulations to allow for critical pedagogy in public school classrooms nationwide, with the method I suggested being the president using executive actions and being able to nominate the head of the department of education. I want to hammer out how to get around that roadblock, since it's probably the most important step in your plan to change the world. The interpretation of the text matches mine more or less. I appreciate the engagement and taking the time to familiarize yourself. Seems we agree it's a superior model to what we have now (nuanced specifics can be sorted out later). So the rest is about how to implement this better system. I recognize the desire to pursue it electorally and through existing federal systems. I'd hope for that to be the case. My engagement with how the federal, state and local governments treated things like the panthers breakfast program and the people that created it makes me skeptical it is a viable option. I could rattle off a list of other examples from times past to present domestic and international as well. With that in mind I'm hopeful someone like Sanders can win, help facilitate a movement capable of massive change like healthcare, free and modern (based in critical pedagogy and interdisciplinary practices) higher (as well as "pre-K through 12") learning, housing as a human right etc... I don't think even the people avidly supporting him think that is a very realistic scenario though, so from a practical point of view, I focus more on what I view as more probable circumstances. I recognize your doubt in the Panthers program, but in order to undermine it, a similar program (without the critical pedagogy and community organizing aspects) was taken on nationally and now you'll find a free breakfast/lunch program in many districts. That wouldn't have happened if the Panthers were out focused on elections instead of simply building self-reliant support networks that spread organically. Admittedly the program was co-opted, the Panthers killed, imprisoned, bribed, marginalized, etc... I however, view that as an opportunity to learn how to be more resilient to such efforts rather than a reason to fall back into what I see as a circle of electoralism that one can argue objectively made things worse over the last 40 years if not at least stagnate. Not a lot of worse candidates for the position than the current occupant but I don't know enough about the specific powers of the president and cabinet regarding education to even imagine how that would work, but perhaps someone more familiar with those particulars can lay out how much/what the Executive can do to implement a critical pedagogy at the systemic level. EDIT: As you read on you'll find Freire uses the term "contradictions" and stresses the importance of highlighting them and digging in. One that stuck out to me in your post was: my main thought was how you could change the schools that kids basically have to attend into places where critical pedagogy is practiced.
I may be misunderstanding your intentions but perhaps you also see the contradiction in that? Hard to engage in critical pedagogy when your being forced into it. I don't think it's impossible to work around though. EDIT2: Because it comes up frequently it's probably a good time to mention the issue you're asking about regarding implementation and some people needing "prodding" is the tension in socialism between a Centralized State and more anarchistic models. You think this thread is fun, wait till you argue with a bunch of anarchists lol (still love ya comrades). I guess that contradiction comes from the opinion that critical pedagogy is a necessary thing and the fear that children won't want to participate in it unless they're corralled into a place like a school for significant amounts of time every week. I believe critical pedagogy is necessary to to get everyone to really care about the world around them and understand it in a way that can spur revolution without everything going to shit first. However, I think the idea of kids all having to go to school is an important and good one that is one of the only reasons impoverished and vulnerable communities are able to get education funding at all in a capitalist system, and so I think it needs to be mixed with critical pedagogy. Additionally, kids tend to like immediate gratification and learning doesn't always provide that unless the kid is taught to love it from a young age. You can't barge into the homes of parents and force them to parent better, and there's not much of a way to improve parenting from within a family. So, school can help make kids take steps away from their parents' ideologies while forcing them to be in a place that will eventually show them how much dialogue can improve them and the world. I acknowledge that the Panthers were dunked on by the government, and I guess fear of that happening to everyone who proposes these changes without a voice in the government drives my desire to see this happen through the official channels and monopoly on acceptable violence that the government has instead. My best friend is actually an anarchist, but I'm going to go tell him to read this book since I know he hasn't. He's more focused on creating a parallel power structure to the government through labor and communal living structures/seizing means of production by laborers on small scales over and over, and I want to know what he thinks. Lastly, as others like Mohdoo have said, I would credit you as one of the largest reasons why I transformed my views into what they are today. I argued for Clinton on a basis of electability in the 2016 primary, and now I'm here. The other two who probably had an equally great influence would be farvacola and KwarK, since their views played the "reasonable voice" against many ideas of yours that I tended to avoid really thinking about past the eye test. I also didn't fully understand them, even though my instinct was often to agree, and that helped me realize I wasn't offering your ideas the same level of consideration. Or, perhaps, this journey of mine was a natural consequence of the change from the high school me to college me, and how I've learned so much since then. Either way, I'm glad you're all here, and thank you for engaging with me. I'll continue to read pedagogy of the oppressed, and actually start from chapter 1
I agree on critical pedagogy's necessity. So I agree there has to be some sort of systematic implementation supported by a federal system. I think resources are more important than orders if that makes sense? So I think that manifests more by way of facilitation than orchestration.
I can easily be read in a more confrontational tone than I desire so I want to express here that what's coming is my interpretation/opinion/perspective and part of the process is reconciling the two, which doesn't always mean complete agreement.
No idea if you have kids (I don't) but part of the reason kids feel "forced" to go to school is the experience. Learning, interacting and sharing ideas with other kids is typically something they enjoy (there are exceptions that deserve attention as well) when it is centered around things that interest them.
Parents, even ones that aren't especially involved in what we would generally consider "good parenting" typically aren't opposed to putting their children under someone else's (qualified) care/responsibility. An important exception to this (especially outside of the US) are parents that push kids to work instead of attending grade school. Not that it makes them bad parents, just to note there are pressures under capitalism to choose alternatives to what I would basically call high school. Which is to acknowledge it is an additional hurdle to consider when positing such a radical change. "That new fangled school is for the birds!" basically.
That considered, I think we'd agree it will take a 'both, and' rather than an 'either, or' approach. Part of this process is rather than prescribing to the kids what they need to know, you let them observe their surroundings and tell you what they think they need to know. It is a lot easier to keep them engaged when they both emotionally feel and literally see that the things they are learning are directly applicable to the issues they face.
Whether they start with grandiose issues like War or 'small' issues like a leaky pipe in their apartment complex, or petty personal stuff like a comment in the hallway, well facilitated critical pedagogy can result in the kind of transformational changes to both education and society we're after. By asking questions, researching answers, discussing them and pursuing a plan of action they learn the real-world skills necessary to both tackle the practical issues of existing in the modern world and the larger revolutionary changes we'll need them to enact to preserve the parts of society that make all this work worth it.
I don't want to squash any optimism you've found but theory says you need to know what you're up against. They beat people to death in the streets for demanding weekends to be a thing. Every bit of freedom we do have (in the Freireian sense, not US Patriotism) has come by the blood, sweat, and tears of folks before us. Those in power won't let us challenge the banking model without fighting back and history suggests there is no blow to low for them. Real challenges to their power will be met by those in power with comparable resistance and then some. I prefer a strategy of readiness rather than avoidance if that makes sense?
That you're recommending the text to someone else is great news and Mohdoo, Sunshine, as well as your own (and others that have said as much before) kind words don't go unappreciated. I thought to myself the other day that this is thankless work, but then I thought about it and realized it really isn't. I mean capitalism ain't givin me shit for it (so it feels like a waste sometimes when I should be focused on other work) but it is necessary grinding that's gotta happen all over imo and this was one place where I thought I could make a difference. To know it wasn't in vain is a reward I wish I could show the bank in exchange for cash, but even without that, it is more meaningful than the money I missed out on could ever be.
Lastly I'd be remiss to not thank everyone (including folks like zlefin, P6, and others) for helping me along this path as well. I wouldn't be here politically without all (or literally without some [travis, I'm lookin at you, sorry if that gets you in trouble]) of you as well. It hasn't been an easy line to walk and I admit to slipping, but I appreciate the patience and understanding demonstrated by everyone, even when I may have pushed too much.
I don't want to name drop everyone in what is already a wall of text but I want those unnamed to know I appreciate your efforts on all fronts as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
