I recall Erika coming back from a particularly challenging class where some of our classmates expressed confusion about something or other. I want to say it was the question about why it was necessary to use a google document when one can achieve the same ends by just writing on the blog itself. That probably wasn't it since there's no connection between that question and the lecture that Erika delivered the next class. Anyway, Erika deviated from her original course outline in order to clarify her expectations of us. She said something to the effect of, if you gain nothing else from this class, you will learn to be a better listener.
I think she delivered on her promise. I've become better at picking up allusions more readily than when I began this course and I'm more willing to consider the social context in which an author is writing especially when it may inform me about how s/he feels about (being in) Canada. While I see the value in extending texts to become even more informed about issues than one would be from just reading the book, I think there is also the possibility to misrepresent the author’s original purpose. Through the course of our time together in this class—especially lately during the group presentations—I have witnessed a few of my classmates trying to masquerade tangents as extensions and generally building bridges to nowhere.
Green Grass, Running Water was eye-opening because King’s allusions were precise. The extensions that he made were all relevant to his agenda of informing readers about another side of the Canadian story. Through the incorporation of elements which satirized the dominant white culture, King’s message was unequivocal: throughout history, Indians get screwed. His extensions informed our class discussions because they were compelling and they were compelling because they were grounded in fact.
Lately our discussions have dealt more directly with race issues and how that affects Canadian identity. While I appreciate the earnestness with which some of my classmates comment on such matters, I’m concerned by how unfocused and uninformed the thought process is. It’s as though we are trying to reinvent the wheel instead of building off of the meta-narrative of race studies that already exists today.
For starters, some of us don’t seem to define racism clearly. It’s not just a blanket term to cover anything to do with race. In a scholarly context most academics find it worthwhile to define racism as behaviour that perpetuate a system of advantage based on race.
Race is a sensitive issue because it matters. We shouldn’t dive into it headlong just off the weight of our own experiences. I find that it cheapens the real struggles of those that have gone before and are going through it now when we speak on it unaware of our ignorance. We can’t use terms like “assimilation” and “integration” interchangeably; they mean very different things. We can't claim that “black” is offensive when in reality it's the term that's been reclaimed--there was a whole movement dedicated to it--and commonly used by scholars and plebeians to talk about race issues. I know that the hearts of my classmates are in the right place but that kind of sloppiness and ignorance has to be addressed especially at a place of higher learning like The University of British Columbia. We shouldn’t ignore the work that’s already been done. Canada has already adopted a policy that enshrines integration beautifully in its Charter of Rights and Freedoms along with the Multiculturalism Act; we should build upon that, instead of misrepresenting facts and making a big deal of nonissues.
“You make a mistake with carpet, and you got to live with it for a long time.”
“Everyone makes mistakes, auntie.”
“Best not to make one with carpet.”
Far be it for me to tell people what to think or say especially when this class is all about bringing other perspectives to the fore. But while Erika encourages us to offer “‘another’ perspective and together our perspectives grow … and this is a good thing”, I think the emphasis in that quote is on the word “grow”. In a postmodern world where people feel entitled to spout whatever they want and have many available media through which to do it, we have to be very precise in order not to polarize and make sure our different perspectives stimulate growth. They should inform, not trivialize.
Even native pedagogy, which focuses more on experiential methods, serves practical purposes. At the root of interrelatedness and seeing the world around us as family instead of resources to be exploited is the goal of having something worthwhile to pass down to future generations. To tie it back to this class, I think we have touched on many complex issues and there’s a temptation to dismiss it all as abstract and subjective. They’re not. Even though some of us may be unaware of the meta-narrative taking place around us, this class has provided us with enough to start laying the groundwork to affect future generations.
I think she delivered on her promise. I've become better at picking up allusions more readily than when I began this course and I'm more willing to consider the social context in which an author is writing especially when it may inform me about how s/he feels about (being in) Canada. While I see the value in extending texts to become even more informed about issues than one would be from just reading the book, I think there is also the possibility to misrepresent the author’s original purpose. Through the course of our time together in this class—especially lately during the group presentations—I have witnessed a few of my classmates trying to masquerade tangents as extensions and generally building bridges to nowhere.
Green Grass, Running Water was eye-opening because King’s allusions were precise. The extensions that he made were all relevant to his agenda of informing readers about another side of the Canadian story. Through the incorporation of elements which satirized the dominant white culture, King’s message was unequivocal: throughout history, Indians get screwed. His extensions informed our class discussions because they were compelling and they were compelling because they were grounded in fact.
Lately our discussions have dealt more directly with race issues and how that affects Canadian identity. While I appreciate the earnestness with which some of my classmates comment on such matters, I’m concerned by how unfocused and uninformed the thought process is. It’s as though we are trying to reinvent the wheel instead of building off of the meta-narrative of race studies that already exists today.
For starters, some of us don’t seem to define racism clearly. It’s not just a blanket term to cover anything to do with race. In a scholarly context most academics find it worthwhile to define racism as behaviour that perpetuate a system of advantage based on race.
Race is a sensitive issue because it matters. We shouldn’t dive into it headlong just off the weight of our own experiences. I find that it cheapens the real struggles of those that have gone before and are going through it now when we speak on it unaware of our ignorance. We can’t use terms like “assimilation” and “integration” interchangeably; they mean very different things. We can't claim that “black” is offensive when in reality it's the term that's been reclaimed--there was a whole movement dedicated to it--and commonly used by scholars and plebeians to talk about race issues. I know that the hearts of my classmates are in the right place but that kind of sloppiness and ignorance has to be addressed especially at a place of higher learning like The University of British Columbia. We shouldn’t ignore the work that’s already been done. Canada has already adopted a policy that enshrines integration beautifully in its Charter of Rights and Freedoms along with the Multiculturalism Act; we should build upon that, instead of misrepresenting facts and making a big deal of nonissues.
“You make a mistake with carpet, and you got to live with it for a long time.”
“Everyone makes mistakes, auntie.”
“Best not to make one with carpet.”
Far be it for me to tell people what to think or say especially when this class is all about bringing other perspectives to the fore. But while Erika encourages us to offer “‘another’ perspective and together our perspectives grow … and this is a good thing”, I think the emphasis in that quote is on the word “grow”. In a postmodern world where people feel entitled to spout whatever they want and have many available media through which to do it, we have to be very precise in order not to polarize and make sure our different perspectives stimulate growth. They should inform, not trivialize.
Even native pedagogy, which focuses more on experiential methods, serves practical purposes. At the root of interrelatedness and seeing the world around us as family instead of resources to be exploited is the goal of having something worthwhile to pass down to future generations. To tie it back to this class, I think we have touched on many complex issues and there’s a temptation to dismiss it all as abstract and subjective. They’re not. Even though some of us may be unaware of the meta-narrative taking place around us, this class has provided us with enough to start laying the groundwork to affect future generations.
RSS Feed