Multiculturalism came into wide use in the early 1980's in the context of public school reform.
· "Eurocentric" bias.
This term talks about how the content of class curriculums rarely included women, people of color, or people outside the western European tradition. It was interpreted as a value judgment that reinforced racist attitudes. I can agree with the prior statement because you mold a child from birth. First a child is taught mechanical things like eating, walking, and not to cry. Later they are given a foundation of right and wrong (this though is based on the way I was raised). as they enter school and slowly begin to form their own opinions with increasing age, the curriculum can be seen as a guide to what is right, wrong, important and unimportant. With an absence of Women, black people, and any other non-western European race, I can see where the image of dominant white culture would have been instilled in their brains. Growing up today with great athletes, CEO's, and even the president being non-white, I feel that I am much more comfortable living side by side with all different cultures and races.
Critical Multiculturalism- Chicago Group
I'm not very well versed in the political jargon and postcolonial studies language that flows throughout this piece. I can take some things away from this reading. Multicultural education derives its pull because it challenges the conceptual norms that some people have. I do not exactly know who they decide is the norm because normal is indefinable. This reading was by far the most informative so far, and I would have taken more out of it if I was a social work major. This reading begs the question "will a multi-cultural emphasis on education bring about a more democratically critical society or one with more subtle international abilities.
Crenshaw: The Intersection of Race and Gender
· Black Women in Los Angeles who are battered and seek help are mostly Unemployed or poor.
· Have poor friends.
This combination, makes it impossible for the women to escape because they live in poverty. It is a sort of vicious circle that exists for some groups of minorities, genders, and sexualities. Because the people affected by this know that they are poor and minorities, they compound the segregation because their perception of the way things are is altered. Crenshaw mentions multiple times that government trying to make things better for a minority only makes it worse because the institution has its own policies to counteract behavior towards these minorities.
this is because:
· Many Immigrant women depend on their spouse for legal status so most will choose to be abused and treated badly in place of seeking shelter. this is because they will be deported if they choose to leave their spouse. So in trying to help people, laws and regulations tend to trap some people in the same vicious circle.
Gunther--I think you've identified a very key question for this class in particular, "will a multicultural emphasis on education bring about a more democratically critical society?" It seems the authors for last week and this week have strong opinions about the benefits and consequences of service learning and multicultural education as well as naming the difficulties conceptualizing these slippery terms. Do these authors believe service learning and multicultural education are important? What are the problems with executing such programs in higher education? Who benefits?
ReplyDelete