One drawback of teaching in an unfamiliar language, to students who speak a completely foreign language, in a subject that is both technical and at times culturally trying, is having to talk about subjects that have as a main description, a cognate in that third language which means something completely different.
In case the run-on sentence above made no sense, I'll explain again. I teach in Portuguese, a language I know only mildly well. They speak Changana, a language I'm only just beginning to learn. I have to say words in broken Portuguese that have meanings in Changana. Bad ones.
For instance. Consistencia (consistency) in Portuguese, "masturbation" in Changana. The name McKenzie means "testicles" in dialect, and enzima (enzyme) and xilema (xylem) both have unflattering meanings. Which brings me to estoma.
The estoma (stoma) is a very important part of the leaf. I have an entire lesson devoted to it. Unfortunately, and inevitably, the Changana for the female anatomy sounds very similar. And not the innocuous "vagina", but the almost unutterable "c" word. As if this weren't bad enough, I have to draw the estoma. If you remember this part of biology, you'll see where this is going.
The stoma is a hole in the outer layer of the leaf which opens and closes, allowing gases to be exchanged. It is composed of two sausage-shaped cells that dilate. A drawing looks almost exactly like a rough sketch of a vagina. So really, I have no choice but to milk this lesson. I'm going to make every possible cognate reference I can and maybe I won't die laughing. It's really the only choice.
I've found that I don't cry when I need to, but only when I'm prompted to. This reminds me of after the death at my school, teaching the class the next day. I didn't need to cry, but the emotions of the students were overwhelming and it was everything I could do to maintain my composure. (Now, I think about what would have happened if that incident happened now and how much differently it would affect me and how much I could help the kids out. Not to say that I want it to happen. Not at all.)
There are things that make my want to cry, like how my students demonstrate a complete failure in understanding that I'm a human being, being away from everyone, etc. But these things aren't suddent events but gradual and well up inside me. I've even sat down a couple times and told myself to get it out, but to no avail.
And then it all comes pouring out when it's safe and can be easily justified. Like tonight, watching "I am Sam". A good movie, but nothing groundbreaking. I was like a faucet. And something inside just let go - found an opportunity and ran with it.
I find it dangerous to open myself up here, because of my students. And it isn't their fault. I'm as strange a subject to them as the biology I teach. They don't know where to begin, so like teaching, I have to start out simple and work my way up.
What am I going to do with my life? I really hate that question. It's as if there's a mandatory objective for everyone, that there's some finish line. And it implies that life is not being lived in the current moment. I don't wonder too hard about the next step, because it's so far off - and even when it is close, every situation is only what you make of it. So why bother spending all of my time looking for something "perfect" when even perfection is a lot of hard work. There's a very real unspoken aspect of "What are going to do..." that has to do with external rather than internal motivation. You have to look good to others, rather than feel good about yourself. And honestly, for all of the selflessness going around, we're only doing it for ourselves in the end. Which is fine - selfishness that betters others' lives is selfishness put to good use. And then when you look at this issue really closely, you see that there is only the unfortunately named "selfishness" and it has no opposite. So really, it is a concept that does not exist. There's nothing bad about it, because there's no good to be had in its absence.
So was it selfish to come here? Yes, and I hope more people benefit from my doing it than if I hadn't in the first place.
Peace
John
Friday, July 04, 2003
06/12/2003
I'm continually amazed by the curiosity and fascination of my students. They are quite often drawn to the simplest of challenges, wanting to find out what "right" is, more than save face.
I've been talking about the processes that bring water from the roots up to the leaves of a plant, in very broad terms. I introduce guttation as a process that brings water to the surface of the leaf in liquid form, and transpiration as a process that brings water to the surface of the leaf in vapor form.
I asked the students today what the difference is between the two processes. The goal of the question not being able to say what each does, but how they differ. It's a subtle difference, but exposes exactly the memorization vs understanding conflict.
A girl stood up, and almost on cue read the definitions off the board, confident in her ability to see the difference between the definitions. I said, "Good, you can read the definitions. Now, what is the DIFFERENCE between the two?" Usually a blank stare or smile creeps across the student's face, as if to say "What, you actually expect us to believe you can grade us on anything but the definitions?"
But this was different. She immediately responded, "Well, transpiration is what happens when water evaporates and guttation is when it doesn't." Perfect! However dumbed down my definitions were, I found a subject that challenged their ability to truly understand. And when this student got it, she was (expectedly) unimpressed with her relatively informal answer. 95% of the time, I get the first answer. But the other 5% of the time, I get some truly insightful if often erroneous answers.
But I held her response up as an example of thinking about the information and using your own words to explain the relationship.
In my next class, I had a few "aha" moments when I was able to sit down and explain a couple of questions. But by far, the best moment was at the end of the lesson, explaining the same two concepts. I asked if it was clear, and they said in response, "No, it's dark." This wasn't a language thing. They were just playing with me. Being my favorite turma, they knew they could. But they emphasized that they didn't quite understand. I thought for a moment, then called on one of my best and most cooperative students.
"Come here", and he did. "Let's say you're a plant," as I faced him toward the amused class. "Now, you need what three things?"
"Water, carbon dioxide and solar energy."
I placed my well-known water bottle on the ground in front of him and announced that I was the sun. I said that transpiration and guttation are responsible for bringing water to the leaves so they can make food (through photosynthesis). I explained that I was the sun during the day (waving my hands wildly to the delight of the class) and the plant was receiving my energy. I asked the class whether his leaves needed water.
"Yes!"
My "plant" grabbed the water and brought it up to eye level. Then, I had the plant put the water back down, turned around and "going to sleep", said that it was night. Does the plant need the same amount of water?
"No!"
And what's responsible for bringing water to the leaves? "Guttation, transpiration." So do these processes happen as much during the night?
"No!"
"Is it still dark?" I ask.
Laughs, smiles. The plant sits down.
"No, it's clear, teacher. We understand now."
Since the students look to understand, though they know it risks not being fully informed, it really is my responsibility to make sure concepts are understood, even if only a couple students are listening.
Peace
John
I've been talking about the processes that bring water from the roots up to the leaves of a plant, in very broad terms. I introduce guttation as a process that brings water to the surface of the leaf in liquid form, and transpiration as a process that brings water to the surface of the leaf in vapor form.
I asked the students today what the difference is between the two processes. The goal of the question not being able to say what each does, but how they differ. It's a subtle difference, but exposes exactly the memorization vs understanding conflict.
A girl stood up, and almost on cue read the definitions off the board, confident in her ability to see the difference between the definitions. I said, "Good, you can read the definitions. Now, what is the DIFFERENCE between the two?" Usually a blank stare or smile creeps across the student's face, as if to say "What, you actually expect us to believe you can grade us on anything but the definitions?"
But this was different. She immediately responded, "Well, transpiration is what happens when water evaporates and guttation is when it doesn't." Perfect! However dumbed down my definitions were, I found a subject that challenged their ability to truly understand. And when this student got it, she was (expectedly) unimpressed with her relatively informal answer. 95% of the time, I get the first answer. But the other 5% of the time, I get some truly insightful if often erroneous answers.
But I held her response up as an example of thinking about the information and using your own words to explain the relationship.
In my next class, I had a few "aha" moments when I was able to sit down and explain a couple of questions. But by far, the best moment was at the end of the lesson, explaining the same two concepts. I asked if it was clear, and they said in response, "No, it's dark." This wasn't a language thing. They were just playing with me. Being my favorite turma, they knew they could. But they emphasized that they didn't quite understand. I thought for a moment, then called on one of my best and most cooperative students.
"Come here", and he did. "Let's say you're a plant," as I faced him toward the amused class. "Now, you need what three things?"
"Water, carbon dioxide and solar energy."
I placed my well-known water bottle on the ground in front of him and announced that I was the sun. I said that transpiration and guttation are responsible for bringing water to the leaves so they can make food (through photosynthesis). I explained that I was the sun during the day (waving my hands wildly to the delight of the class) and the plant was receiving my energy. I asked the class whether his leaves needed water.
"Yes!"
My "plant" grabbed the water and brought it up to eye level. Then, I had the plant put the water back down, turned around and "going to sleep", said that it was night. Does the plant need the same amount of water?
"No!"
And what's responsible for bringing water to the leaves? "Guttation, transpiration." So do these processes happen as much during the night?
"No!"
"Is it still dark?" I ask.
Laughs, smiles. The plant sits down.
"No, it's clear, teacher. We understand now."
Since the students look to understand, though they know it risks not being fully informed, it really is my responsibility to make sure concepts are understood, even if only a couple students are listening.
Peace
John
06/11/2003
I received two packages today from my mother in eight days! Incredible. (A NOTE FROM MOM -- Actually, it took about 3 months,but it was only eight days from the last place they ended up in...) Yet it often takes months for things to arrive. How many hands does a package pass through? And how many of these hands simply say, "Ahh, that can sit here for a while longer..."? But the real question is, how far does that 70 cents go? I forget whether I wrote about this before, but when Dan's letter stamped with 70 cents, 10 cents short, returned to him six weeks after being sent, Adam commented "I wonder how far it got before it was sent back?" Maybe 79 cents gets it to the postmaster's hands (Sr. Machava) but he has to send it back immediately. I dare someone to try (note: if it does arrive, please write something interesting beyond "Did it get there?" because I'll be tempted to write back simply "Yes".)
Among the packages was a book on education, specifically primary and secondary school and how the educator has to be an active, aware learner. Which I completely agree with. But her thesis seems to be that learning is active and the methods should depend on informational resources. Which is fine, but does active learning apply for every educational situation? And is it education if it can't involve learning?
She points to the teacher who stands up in front of her class and simply talks about the subject, leaving the students to memorize and repeat the information back to her, as the counter-example of education. She makes the point that information is endless, and so methods should be the focus of education instead. I completely agree, in societies where the information is readily available.
So this got me to thinking that our educational goal here is quite Western in approach and naive (hah! I knew I'd stick the naivete on someone else at some point). We have learned in an information-saturated environment. We have computers, libraries, highly educated teachers, and textbooks. An educated person is one who can absorb and make sense of this information.
Here, school's purpose is to disseminate information, which is difficult to come by. The focus of education is on memorization because the information exists more readily in peoples' minds than in books. Intelligence is much more easily quantified.
Yet a Western observer calls this educational system poor and the intellectual elite, intellectually devoid. Put simply, many Westerners see people here as "stupid" at first glance. What they don't realize is that Africans, specifically Mozambicans, would say the same thing about someone who didn't know a set amount of facts.
The issue here is that the difference between the two ways of thinking is not philosophical - they are simply two points along the same long road - it is develomental. But the manifestation of the differences seems philosophical, and so it becomes equated with ideas of education.
This conflict aside, what can be done about the development aspect? As I've seen, donation without work rarely turns out well because there is no investment in the donation by the receivers (other than rarity or actual cash value). So as a development worker, is it my role to be a liaison and motivator for my school to obtain and maintain resources? I think so, and I think as far as bringing in materials, this is the limit. but there is plenty to do in this area.
On the other end of my work, as an educator, how do I balance the local need for internalized information with the more modern idea (or should I say "developed") that learning is the processing and analysis of information? Is a student capable of both absorbing the information and processing it in a curriculum designed for the former system? Or, instead of looking in between these two lines for my answer, is there a solution that resides outside the lines? I think there is.
Even in my quick skim of this book, it was clear that my problems are not unique or solved. This is an issue that frustrates thousands of teachers. The idea that the information mandated in the curriculum is too ambitious to be properly absorbed in the time allotted seems to be a curse. Curriculum developers all over the world are some of the most optimistic and cautious members of the educational system.
In the book, this is seen as a cycle because the products of the curriculum that has no room for "learning" go on to teach in the very same way, and develop curricula in the same fashion.
But I think change MUST begin with the curriculum, and with the view that every subject is independent of the other subjects. There is always a meta-objective of an education, and it should be as specific and broadly engaging as possible. I suppose the ultimate objective would be to create a student who is able to understand and use all manner of information, utilizing and and all resources available. And so, does a curriculum that has a student learn about the differences between two functions of a lead that are both responsible for water delivery to the leaf, achieve this goal? Or is a curriculum that infuses in the student the ability to discover these differences and why these functions are in fact the same function with different end products, a curriculum that strives for learning?
Clearly, the latter curriculum is more ideal, but in reality is impossible to achieve with the presence of standardized testing, an entirely different issue.
So where along this continuum of information vs analysis should Mozambique reside?
I promised a solution outside the lines, and though it's not groundbreaking, it somewhat undermines the authority of the curriculum developers. And that is to semi-randomly deem parts of the curriculum unnecessary. Very large parts in some cases. And in order to compromise, give the information required, but don't focus on it in any way whatsoever. Focus on the concepts that can be used to inspire an analytical approach, and let the rest be statis information.
However anticlimactic a solution this may sound, it's a solution I've seen and heard of in many shapes, but never formalized. Either do it 100% or don't do it at all. Choose your battles and fight hard. And then, as more information is available, less choosing needs to happen and the battles can be fought in more analytical ways.
For some reason, the feeling side of me is uncomfortable with the smoothness of this approach. Everything, after all, has very rough edges when looked at closely enough.
But I think it's a matter of loose ends - where exactly does this battle fit in with the idea that all concepts start out as one indivisible "Way", "One", "God", whatever, and finds its own way out of this singularity by finding an opposite? Light's dancing partner is dark. We discovered nothingness when we discovered the idea of matter. Pulling an idea out of the Yin-Yang that is everything requires something equally abstract to leave as well. So taking an idea like "learning" requires there to be an opposite. Memorization is not the opposite, for there is some overlap here. Even the recognition of letters on a page is in some sense "learning". I think "forgetting methods or facts" is the closest things to an opposite - it is the decay that marks a brain that is unchallenged and unseeking. So really, in the big scheme, education can be seen as a way to avoid the attrition of our brains that occurs with disuse. What worlds this opens up to education! To be continued...
Peace
John
Among the packages was a book on education, specifically primary and secondary school and how the educator has to be an active, aware learner. Which I completely agree with. But her thesis seems to be that learning is active and the methods should depend on informational resources. Which is fine, but does active learning apply for every educational situation? And is it education if it can't involve learning?
She points to the teacher who stands up in front of her class and simply talks about the subject, leaving the students to memorize and repeat the information back to her, as the counter-example of education. She makes the point that information is endless, and so methods should be the focus of education instead. I completely agree, in societies where the information is readily available.
So this got me to thinking that our educational goal here is quite Western in approach and naive (hah! I knew I'd stick the naivete on someone else at some point). We have learned in an information-saturated environment. We have computers, libraries, highly educated teachers, and textbooks. An educated person is one who can absorb and make sense of this information.
Here, school's purpose is to disseminate information, which is difficult to come by. The focus of education is on memorization because the information exists more readily in peoples' minds than in books. Intelligence is much more easily quantified.
Yet a Western observer calls this educational system poor and the intellectual elite, intellectually devoid. Put simply, many Westerners see people here as "stupid" at first glance. What they don't realize is that Africans, specifically Mozambicans, would say the same thing about someone who didn't know a set amount of facts.
The issue here is that the difference between the two ways of thinking is not philosophical - they are simply two points along the same long road - it is develomental. But the manifestation of the differences seems philosophical, and so it becomes equated with ideas of education.
This conflict aside, what can be done about the development aspect? As I've seen, donation without work rarely turns out well because there is no investment in the donation by the receivers (other than rarity or actual cash value). So as a development worker, is it my role to be a liaison and motivator for my school to obtain and maintain resources? I think so, and I think as far as bringing in materials, this is the limit. but there is plenty to do in this area.
On the other end of my work, as an educator, how do I balance the local need for internalized information with the more modern idea (or should I say "developed") that learning is the processing and analysis of information? Is a student capable of both absorbing the information and processing it in a curriculum designed for the former system? Or, instead of looking in between these two lines for my answer, is there a solution that resides outside the lines? I think there is.
Even in my quick skim of this book, it was clear that my problems are not unique or solved. This is an issue that frustrates thousands of teachers. The idea that the information mandated in the curriculum is too ambitious to be properly absorbed in the time allotted seems to be a curse. Curriculum developers all over the world are some of the most optimistic and cautious members of the educational system.
In the book, this is seen as a cycle because the products of the curriculum that has no room for "learning" go on to teach in the very same way, and develop curricula in the same fashion.
But I think change MUST begin with the curriculum, and with the view that every subject is independent of the other subjects. There is always a meta-objective of an education, and it should be as specific and broadly engaging as possible. I suppose the ultimate objective would be to create a student who is able to understand and use all manner of information, utilizing and and all resources available. And so, does a curriculum that has a student learn about the differences between two functions of a lead that are both responsible for water delivery to the leaf, achieve this goal? Or is a curriculum that infuses in the student the ability to discover these differences and why these functions are in fact the same function with different end products, a curriculum that strives for learning?
Clearly, the latter curriculum is more ideal, but in reality is impossible to achieve with the presence of standardized testing, an entirely different issue.
So where along this continuum of information vs analysis should Mozambique reside?
I promised a solution outside the lines, and though it's not groundbreaking, it somewhat undermines the authority of the curriculum developers. And that is to semi-randomly deem parts of the curriculum unnecessary. Very large parts in some cases. And in order to compromise, give the information required, but don't focus on it in any way whatsoever. Focus on the concepts that can be used to inspire an analytical approach, and let the rest be statis information.
However anticlimactic a solution this may sound, it's a solution I've seen and heard of in many shapes, but never formalized. Either do it 100% or don't do it at all. Choose your battles and fight hard. And then, as more information is available, less choosing needs to happen and the battles can be fought in more analytical ways.
For some reason, the feeling side of me is uncomfortable with the smoothness of this approach. Everything, after all, has very rough edges when looked at closely enough.
But I think it's a matter of loose ends - where exactly does this battle fit in with the idea that all concepts start out as one indivisible "Way", "One", "God", whatever, and finds its own way out of this singularity by finding an opposite? Light's dancing partner is dark. We discovered nothingness when we discovered the idea of matter. Pulling an idea out of the Yin-Yang that is everything requires something equally abstract to leave as well. So taking an idea like "learning" requires there to be an opposite. Memorization is not the opposite, for there is some overlap here. Even the recognition of letters on a page is in some sense "learning". I think "forgetting methods or facts" is the closest things to an opposite - it is the decay that marks a brain that is unchallenged and unseeking. So really, in the big scheme, education can be seen as a way to avoid the attrition of our brains that occurs with disuse. What worlds this opens up to education! To be continued...
Peace
John
05/30/2003
I walked to the post office today and saw a couple of my students on the way. They said hi and I waved back, which naturally brought laughing because, well, I did something. Then, I let them enter the post office first, saying "Faz favor", and as they entered, they mockingly repeated it. Right in front of me. It's not just a lack of respect. It's a lack of thinking that I am a human being. I'm so weird to them that none of the feelings that they associate with humanity could really apply to me. Granted, this isn't everyone, but a good number of my students act this way.
And I am weird. I don't use violence to release my frustration and anger. I show up every day and teach full lessons. I emphasize understanding the material and not memorizing it. I speak from a different place in the body and use different ideas because my mind seeks to explain itself differently. I sit and wait for the class to be quiet instead of yelling over them. I ask them to answer questions in their own words. They're allowed to say "I don't know" to a question. I catch most of the crap they try to pull, but I don't always let on right away. I am an alien, but one who wants desperately to just get past it.
We're spoiled in the States because we are exposed to many different cultures, however "artificial" and capitalized our culture has become. Differences are differences, and yes they're weird and funny, but we accept them and move on.
However, when someone comes along who threatens us because of their fundamental unchangeable being, we methodically try and tear them apart to see that they, too, are in fact human. But where does that leave us?
Peace
John
And I am weird. I don't use violence to release my frustration and anger. I show up every day and teach full lessons. I emphasize understanding the material and not memorizing it. I speak from a different place in the body and use different ideas because my mind seeks to explain itself differently. I sit and wait for the class to be quiet instead of yelling over them. I ask them to answer questions in their own words. They're allowed to say "I don't know" to a question. I catch most of the crap they try to pull, but I don't always let on right away. I am an alien, but one who wants desperately to just get past it.
We're spoiled in the States because we are exposed to many different cultures, however "artificial" and capitalized our culture has become. Differences are differences, and yes they're weird and funny, but we accept them and move on.
However, when someone comes along who threatens us because of their fundamental unchangeable being, we methodically try and tear them apart to see that they, too, are in fact human. But where does that leave us?
Peace
John
05/29/2003
I was talking with Charles tonight about family - and the conversation turned insular. I talked about the members of my family, and as far as direct relatives go, there's my mom, my dad and my grandmother (on Dad's side). That's about it. I have cousins in Virginia and California (I think), but that's blood family to me.
So I got to thinking about my grandmother out on the West Coast, which is as far away from Mozambique you can get and still be on earth. I've seen it on maps and done the estimation - it's a long way.
Since I was on my way home, I looked down at the dirt road I was walking along. It's funny, when you point to the ground and say it's the ground or that it's earth, you never really fully comprehend that beneath it lies this enormous hunk of minerals that is so large, we are drawn to it by forces we can't explain. But when you look - really LOOK - at the ground and try to see that you're looking at the outermost layer of a dizzyingly huge rock spinning and hurtling through space, it looks completely different. I had to orient myself with the horizon a couple of times just to check that this was THE ground and not a hill or second level that I was walking on.
Then I thought back to these 2-dimensional maps on which I located the West Coast and Mozambique, and really for the first time, SAW that if I could somehow look through the Earth, I would see California or one of those states around there. On the complete opposite side of the world.
I thought of being a kid and building a "tunnel to China" in the playground sand that always smelled of cat poop. There were usually 2 or 3 other kids, and we would build cities or roads with tunnels, but it seems so long ago as to not even be real. Likewise, at that age, I couldn't have imagined this - where I'm living, what I'm doing, my clothes, my appearance, my experiences - to be real.
And to think, that hole wouldn't have brought me to China after all - 15 or so years later, I made my way to the other side. And now that I'm here, part of me always wants to go back. Well, me, I'm here for a while and I'm going to make the most of it.
I smelled something on the air like fast food the other day, and memories flooded back for a good 10 minutes. I just smelled airplane food somehow - wow. How odd.
Peace
John
So I got to thinking about my grandmother out on the West Coast, which is as far away from Mozambique you can get and still be on earth. I've seen it on maps and done the estimation - it's a long way.
Since I was on my way home, I looked down at the dirt road I was walking along. It's funny, when you point to the ground and say it's the ground or that it's earth, you never really fully comprehend that beneath it lies this enormous hunk of minerals that is so large, we are drawn to it by forces we can't explain. But when you look - really LOOK - at the ground and try to see that you're looking at the outermost layer of a dizzyingly huge rock spinning and hurtling through space, it looks completely different. I had to orient myself with the horizon a couple of times just to check that this was THE ground and not a hill or second level that I was walking on.
Then I thought back to these 2-dimensional maps on which I located the West Coast and Mozambique, and really for the first time, SAW that if I could somehow look through the Earth, I would see California or one of those states around there. On the complete opposite side of the world.
I thought of being a kid and building a "tunnel to China" in the playground sand that always smelled of cat poop. There were usually 2 or 3 other kids, and we would build cities or roads with tunnels, but it seems so long ago as to not even be real. Likewise, at that age, I couldn't have imagined this - where I'm living, what I'm doing, my clothes, my appearance, my experiences - to be real.
And to think, that hole wouldn't have brought me to China after all - 15 or so years later, I made my way to the other side. And now that I'm here, part of me always wants to go back. Well, me, I'm here for a while and I'm going to make the most of it.
I smelled something on the air like fast food the other day, and memories flooded back for a good 10 minutes. I just smelled airplane food somehow - wow. How odd.
Peace
John
05/28/2003
I don't know exactly why, but I've been thinking about a discussion that keeps coming up at interesting points in my life. Race.
I think it first came about in high school, when I was a member of and later president of the "Multicultural Committee". We did some interesting things, and had some good ideas for exposing our fellow students to the diversity within our region and how that reflected global diversity. It was there that the idea of Race first got discussed at length, and all of the problems inherent in the word Race. Culture was considered a nice euphemism for the great "black vs white" struggle and was a nice politically correct way to approach the subject.
Later in high school, I was involved in the Connecticut Forum, junior edition. Connecticut Forum is a group committed to discussing hot issues in a formal setting among experts. The high school version was an outgrowth of this spirit, bringing together inner city and suburban schools from all around the state. In one meeting, discussing Race, I made some fairly inflammatory remarks - though completely honest - about equality and suffering. They were only inflammatory because of how sensitive the Race issue is in the States - and that a white person said it. That led to interesting discussions for a few weeks, and just like in my own high school, no conclusions.
Then I went to CWRU, a "white" school in "black" Cleveland, where these ideas of Race sat and festered, almost completely ignored. There is significant racial tension in Cleveland, though most of it isn't violent. It's an unspoken perceived class difference and more than that, a basic cultural difference. This stirred around in me for a while, until I hit upon a class my fourth year that addressed culture and race very directly, in the form of communication. We had some very interesting culture and race discussions over the course of the semester, leaving more questions than answers at the end.
And then I left for Mozambique. In training, we had a discussion on Race that once again brought out some honest and trying remarks on what exactly race and culture are. I posed the still unanswered question to Charles, "Is Race skin color, culture or somewhere in between?"
About 10 years of on-again off-again discussion of Race all boiled down to a very simple question of defining the word. And no answers.
During my first month at site, and again over the past couple weeks, I read "Zen and Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" which poses and analyzes the idea of Quality, of being the one undefinable thing which begets all of reality and the perception of reality. Different spiritual beliefs have different names for Quality, such as God, The Way, The One, Truth, etc. But problems lie in trying to define this entity that binds life together. It is only after painstaking thought - or a flash of clarity - that it's seen that this one thing can never be defined because the descriptors (words) we use to define it are created by that single entity itself. All that can be done is to describe its various manifestations and try to understand its inaccessibility and make peace with that.
The idea of a concept that exists in nme only because its meaning is undefinable is very interesting to me. I think it makes sense that the term Race is such a concept.
Many of us are taught that Race is the difference between black people and white people, because of the multitude of issues surrounding this relationship. My dictionary says it's a "group of persons of common origin", tantalizingly vague. Other definitions only require one commonality, others point to culture as the origin of Race. The problem is, there are no discrete measures of skin color, origin or culture. Who's "black"? I live in an area where there is a full spectrum of colors - including albinos. Are albinos "black"? By a skin color definition, no.
OK, so how about origin? Sure, everyone was born someplace, but does that determine your Race? What if you were born in the States to parents of African descent (they were born in Africa) and the next day you left for Africa? Do you lost your racial status as African because you were born in the States and lived there for one day?
And then there's culture. Good luck defining culture. I don't think I want to even touch this one. Let's just say it's impossible to separate cultures in discrete ways.
So all of a sudden the very foundation of Race is seen to be a pile of sand, full of a thousand different pieces that can be molded into whatever shape the owner desires. The fact is, Race does not exist. We have cultural differences, nationalistic differences, skin color differences, but there is no such thing as a racial difference. The very word Race is a blanket term for expressing frustration, ignorance and unfortunately hatred in terms of interpersonal relationships. What we do with race is inexcusable and dumb. We draw lines, dividing up cities, states and nations upon perceived differences in race. People are assumed to be different because of this racial inequality. But there is nothing inherent in the Human Race that determines these classifications. In fact, the only true race is the Human Race, a philosophical realization that might save a lot of grief within some circles.
So when someone says "I'm black" or "I'm white", as happens all the time here in Mozambique, that's all they mean. They point to their skin and then point to yours, just to emphasize the point. But that's all it is. Color.
At school, my sense of humor is finally coming through. I think it was a language barrier and not a cultural barrier, because I trade pretty good barbs with students who are giving me problems, to the delight of the class.
But as far as language goes, I'm realizing how hard it is for them to do all this in Portuguese - harder than it is for me. I know what letter-perfect Portuguese is. With focus and patience, I can even speak it. But it's not well understood - and if I had presented myself as a Brazilian or Portuguese person, it would be better understood because the students would try harder.
But they know the burden of understanding is on me. It frustrates me greatly to pronounce something perfectly only to be met with "Huh?" and then have it repeated with a Changana accent.
And listening to the Changana of younger kids, more and more Portuguese seems to be slipping in. The earmark of a creole. Rumor has it that local languages will be taught starting next year in primary school - so hopefully that will improve the quality of both languages!
And since in the 6th grade, English instruction will begin, in a few years students in the 6th grade will be learning three languages at the same time - how exciting!
I miss roller hockey. I miss going over the boards, stealing the ball, checking a defender, shipping a pass over to the middle for a one-timer and seeing it fly past the goalie. I miss blocking shots, too. Laying in front of the shooter and seeing his frustration when the ball bounces off my legs, knowing my goalie is happy he had to deal with one less shot.
Peace
John
I think it first came about in high school, when I was a member of and later president of the "Multicultural Committee". We did some interesting things, and had some good ideas for exposing our fellow students to the diversity within our region and how that reflected global diversity. It was there that the idea of Race first got discussed at length, and all of the problems inherent in the word Race. Culture was considered a nice euphemism for the great "black vs white" struggle and was a nice politically correct way to approach the subject.
Later in high school, I was involved in the Connecticut Forum, junior edition. Connecticut Forum is a group committed to discussing hot issues in a formal setting among experts. The high school version was an outgrowth of this spirit, bringing together inner city and suburban schools from all around the state. In one meeting, discussing Race, I made some fairly inflammatory remarks - though completely honest - about equality and suffering. They were only inflammatory because of how sensitive the Race issue is in the States - and that a white person said it. That led to interesting discussions for a few weeks, and just like in my own high school, no conclusions.
Then I went to CWRU, a "white" school in "black" Cleveland, where these ideas of Race sat and festered, almost completely ignored. There is significant racial tension in Cleveland, though most of it isn't violent. It's an unspoken perceived class difference and more than that, a basic cultural difference. This stirred around in me for a while, until I hit upon a class my fourth year that addressed culture and race very directly, in the form of communication. We had some very interesting culture and race discussions over the course of the semester, leaving more questions than answers at the end.
And then I left for Mozambique. In training, we had a discussion on Race that once again brought out some honest and trying remarks on what exactly race and culture are. I posed the still unanswered question to Charles, "Is Race skin color, culture or somewhere in between?"
About 10 years of on-again off-again discussion of Race all boiled down to a very simple question of defining the word. And no answers.
During my first month at site, and again over the past couple weeks, I read "Zen and Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" which poses and analyzes the idea of Quality, of being the one undefinable thing which begets all of reality and the perception of reality. Different spiritual beliefs have different names for Quality, such as God, The Way, The One, Truth, etc. But problems lie in trying to define this entity that binds life together. It is only after painstaking thought - or a flash of clarity - that it's seen that this one thing can never be defined because the descriptors (words) we use to define it are created by that single entity itself. All that can be done is to describe its various manifestations and try to understand its inaccessibility and make peace with that.
The idea of a concept that exists in nme only because its meaning is undefinable is very interesting to me. I think it makes sense that the term Race is such a concept.
Many of us are taught that Race is the difference between black people and white people, because of the multitude of issues surrounding this relationship. My dictionary says it's a "group of persons of common origin", tantalizingly vague. Other definitions only require one commonality, others point to culture as the origin of Race. The problem is, there are no discrete measures of skin color, origin or culture. Who's "black"? I live in an area where there is a full spectrum of colors - including albinos. Are albinos "black"? By a skin color definition, no.
OK, so how about origin? Sure, everyone was born someplace, but does that determine your Race? What if you were born in the States to parents of African descent (they were born in Africa) and the next day you left for Africa? Do you lost your racial status as African because you were born in the States and lived there for one day?
And then there's culture. Good luck defining culture. I don't think I want to even touch this one. Let's just say it's impossible to separate cultures in discrete ways.
So all of a sudden the very foundation of Race is seen to be a pile of sand, full of a thousand different pieces that can be molded into whatever shape the owner desires. The fact is, Race does not exist. We have cultural differences, nationalistic differences, skin color differences, but there is no such thing as a racial difference. The very word Race is a blanket term for expressing frustration, ignorance and unfortunately hatred in terms of interpersonal relationships. What we do with race is inexcusable and dumb. We draw lines, dividing up cities, states and nations upon perceived differences in race. People are assumed to be different because of this racial inequality. But there is nothing inherent in the Human Race that determines these classifications. In fact, the only true race is the Human Race, a philosophical realization that might save a lot of grief within some circles.
So when someone says "I'm black" or "I'm white", as happens all the time here in Mozambique, that's all they mean. They point to their skin and then point to yours, just to emphasize the point. But that's all it is. Color.
At school, my sense of humor is finally coming through. I think it was a language barrier and not a cultural barrier, because I trade pretty good barbs with students who are giving me problems, to the delight of the class.
But as far as language goes, I'm realizing how hard it is for them to do all this in Portuguese - harder than it is for me. I know what letter-perfect Portuguese is. With focus and patience, I can even speak it. But it's not well understood - and if I had presented myself as a Brazilian or Portuguese person, it would be better understood because the students would try harder.
But they know the burden of understanding is on me. It frustrates me greatly to pronounce something perfectly only to be met with "Huh?" and then have it repeated with a Changana accent.
And listening to the Changana of younger kids, more and more Portuguese seems to be slipping in. The earmark of a creole. Rumor has it that local languages will be taught starting next year in primary school - so hopefully that will improve the quality of both languages!
And since in the 6th grade, English instruction will begin, in a few years students in the 6th grade will be learning three languages at the same time - how exciting!
I miss roller hockey. I miss going over the boards, stealing the ball, checking a defender, shipping a pass over to the middle for a one-timer and seeing it fly past the goalie. I miss blocking shots, too. Laying in front of the shooter and seeing his frustration when the ball bounces off my legs, knowing my goalie is happy he had to deal with one less shot.
Peace
John
Thursday, July 03, 2003
05/13/2003
I think more and more students are getting what learning in my classes is about, but it's still the vast minority.
I had my shoe fixed today because the sole was coming off. I paid 700 Met for the shoes ($29 US) and 8 Met to get them fixes (33 cents US). And it was done so caringly, that I felt better after I had them fixed than after I had bought them. Plus I know that the shoe repairman (in his 5th year of business on a street corner, on the ground) counts every Met.
Speaking of customer service, you can buy many things on the street from vendors walking around - hats, shirts, capulanas, bananas, cashews, etc. Before I went to Xai-Xai, I grabbed some cashews so I could make friends and bide some time. I stopped a vendor, asked the prices and I asked for a cup's worth (10 Met). He precisely and carefully searched and found the roll of plastic bags, and with full concentration on the bag, he proceeded to open it and then transfer his attention to the cashews. Clearly, he was completely focused on his job, and made sure the cup was overfilled, giving me a little extra at the end in a very deliberate but gentle manner. I walked away with tears in my eyes.
Here was a man, doing what many others would consider to be "getting by". And when you think of a job in these terms, you don't put your all into it because it's just a transitional job. But this man was dedicated to cashew-selling, regardless of the pay or the prestige. He demonstrated pride without knowing it, by simply seeking perfection in the simplicity. He made me realize how rare it is to find people who are content enough to make every moment as thoughtful as possible.
Peace
John
I had my shoe fixed today because the sole was coming off. I paid 700 Met for the shoes ($29 US) and 8 Met to get them fixes (33 cents US). And it was done so caringly, that I felt better after I had them fixed than after I had bought them. Plus I know that the shoe repairman (in his 5th year of business on a street corner, on the ground) counts every Met.
Speaking of customer service, you can buy many things on the street from vendors walking around - hats, shirts, capulanas, bananas, cashews, etc. Before I went to Xai-Xai, I grabbed some cashews so I could make friends and bide some time. I stopped a vendor, asked the prices and I asked for a cup's worth (10 Met). He precisely and carefully searched and found the roll of plastic bags, and with full concentration on the bag, he proceeded to open it and then transfer his attention to the cashews. Clearly, he was completely focused on his job, and made sure the cup was overfilled, giving me a little extra at the end in a very deliberate but gentle manner. I walked away with tears in my eyes.
Here was a man, doing what many others would consider to be "getting by". And when you think of a job in these terms, you don't put your all into it because it's just a transitional job. But this man was dedicated to cashew-selling, regardless of the pay or the prestige. He demonstrated pride without knowing it, by simply seeking perfection in the simplicity. He made me realize how rare it is to find people who are content enough to make every moment as thoughtful as possible.
Peace
John
05/12/2003
The Peace Corps experience is challenging because you have to give up control over the things you've always controlled, and control the things you don't know how to control.
My Changana is really coming along. I'm starting to speak it with my students outside of class, and they're psyched that I'm giving it a go.
There are about a thousand ways that two plus years is extremely long and also extremely short. I think it wouldn't be either if I were closer to the people I care about. Why does that always weigh on me?
Peace
John
My Changana is really coming along. I'm starting to speak it with my students outside of class, and they're psyched that I'm giving it a go.
There are about a thousand ways that two plus years is extremely long and also extremely short. I think it wouldn't be either if I were closer to the people I care about. Why does that always weigh on me?
Peace
John
05/11/2003
(Sitting in the restaurant "Chave d'ouro" or "Golden Key" early on a Sunday afternoon, visiting friends in another city.)
I'm sitting inside on an 80-degree day at a table by myself, listening to a couple different flavors of Portuguese being spoken by people of every color, waiting for a cheese sandwich. Amazingly, there is no smell in the air - either that or I've completely accustomed myself to a constant odor of stale urine and picked-through garbage. I can see the road, the main road in Mozambique, occupied by typically light Sunday traffic. A boy outside is being chased by bees that don't sting. But it's keeping him occupied. The combination of a cold cheese/tomato/onion sandwich and equally chilled Coke seems to be perfect, and I don't know why.
Last night was fun, drinking with some of the guys and getting a South African (a white one) pissed off at us simply for being inquisitive Americans. At one point, I found myself staring at the wrong end of a very large and angry elbow as this man was leaning over me to discuss economics with Phillip.
My chapa ride here was largely uneventful. I met one of the workers at the bread store, which I visit nearly every day - he's one of the bakers. Blake and I have had a pipedream of working in the bakery one night, joining in the songs and comaraderie tht come with one of the oldest professions. Maybe now we'll get our chance.
Saturday morning I found out that three professors from every school in my province will be HIV/AIDS advocates and give some sort of lesson every week. Luckily (in a way), this is just a "trial run" and so it's not being sold to all the students. I'm still going to work with the rest of the students in giving my lessons, so there's no problem there.
I guess that gets me back to where I left off, with the link between language and primitive thought. I need to get going, however, and enjoy my walk to catch the next chapa.
OK, language and thought. The way I see it, language is to thought what television is to real life. A television has pixels, or discrete bits of information (colors) that are much bigger than the discrete bits of real life. Sometimes, when dealing with big objects, those pixels are exactly right. But when describing something minute, even the best television can't do it justice.
And so it is with language. Language blurs thoughts a bit when the thought is jumping between speakers. Someone on TV holds up a box of Juicy Fruit. But it's a small box and you can't read the writing on the big TV pixels. But if the color scheme is recognizable - if the context of the conversation implies deeper meaning to the words - we'll know it's Juicy Fruit and not Jujubes. But if we've never seen this package before, it's only a package and we don't see any name at all. In terms of language, words are meaningless if the thought behind it isn't understood. Languages are approximations of thought like TVs (which also vary considerably) are approximations of reality. Good languages are like good TVs...expensive. A good language is inherently complex, with subtle shifts in meaning and physical gestures a part of communication.
And because there are so many interpretations of reality (thoughts), there must be only one reality (language of thought), or learning other languages would most likely be impossible. I think I've got Stephen Pinker on my side for this one.
So my question is, can you derive the language of thought by examining all of the languages in the world? If you find that the idea of "wait" is never interpreted by two different words in any language, then it must be in the language of thought. I'm sure this is being explored right now, but it's fascinating to me. What's more, is if you isolated this language of thought, you could figure out how to make a computer think - or at least have a better idea. Because "think" is not some abstract term, but a very readily defined set of rules that have yet to be discovered. Computers are sets of rules, so why not?
Peace
John
I'm sitting inside on an 80-degree day at a table by myself, listening to a couple different flavors of Portuguese being spoken by people of every color, waiting for a cheese sandwich. Amazingly, there is no smell in the air - either that or I've completely accustomed myself to a constant odor of stale urine and picked-through garbage. I can see the road, the main road in Mozambique, occupied by typically light Sunday traffic. A boy outside is being chased by bees that don't sting. But it's keeping him occupied. The combination of a cold cheese/tomato/onion sandwich and equally chilled Coke seems to be perfect, and I don't know why.
Last night was fun, drinking with some of the guys and getting a South African (a white one) pissed off at us simply for being inquisitive Americans. At one point, I found myself staring at the wrong end of a very large and angry elbow as this man was leaning over me to discuss economics with Phillip.
My chapa ride here was largely uneventful. I met one of the workers at the bread store, which I visit nearly every day - he's one of the bakers. Blake and I have had a pipedream of working in the bakery one night, joining in the songs and comaraderie tht come with one of the oldest professions. Maybe now we'll get our chance.
Saturday morning I found out that three professors from every school in my province will be HIV/AIDS advocates and give some sort of lesson every week. Luckily (in a way), this is just a "trial run" and so it's not being sold to all the students. I'm still going to work with the rest of the students in giving my lessons, so there's no problem there.
I guess that gets me back to where I left off, with the link between language and primitive thought. I need to get going, however, and enjoy my walk to catch the next chapa.
OK, language and thought. The way I see it, language is to thought what television is to real life. A television has pixels, or discrete bits of information (colors) that are much bigger than the discrete bits of real life. Sometimes, when dealing with big objects, those pixels are exactly right. But when describing something minute, even the best television can't do it justice.
And so it is with language. Language blurs thoughts a bit when the thought is jumping between speakers. Someone on TV holds up a box of Juicy Fruit. But it's a small box and you can't read the writing on the big TV pixels. But if the color scheme is recognizable - if the context of the conversation implies deeper meaning to the words - we'll know it's Juicy Fruit and not Jujubes. But if we've never seen this package before, it's only a package and we don't see any name at all. In terms of language, words are meaningless if the thought behind it isn't understood. Languages are approximations of thought like TVs (which also vary considerably) are approximations of reality. Good languages are like good TVs...expensive. A good language is inherently complex, with subtle shifts in meaning and physical gestures a part of communication.
And because there are so many interpretations of reality (thoughts), there must be only one reality (language of thought), or learning other languages would most likely be impossible. I think I've got Stephen Pinker on my side for this one.
So my question is, can you derive the language of thought by examining all of the languages in the world? If you find that the idea of "wait" is never interpreted by two different words in any language, then it must be in the language of thought. I'm sure this is being explored right now, but it's fascinating to me. What's more, is if you isolated this language of thought, you could figure out how to make a computer think - or at least have a better idea. Because "think" is not some abstract term, but a very readily defined set of rules that have yet to be discovered. Computers are sets of rules, so why not?
Peace
John
05/09/2003
Sometimes I find myself walking along the street, feeling pain and sadness for the people I miss back in the States. I think of all the times I've needed them and vice versa, and of all the little things I'm missing - and the inevitable growing we all do. I really get myself down thinking about this, and wondering why I'm still here, messing things up.
Then I pass a woman who's walking on one good foot and one arched foot, painfully taking every step while carrying her daily supply of food and water.
This is when I realize that this pain I feel is really quite silly. If these are truly my friends, then my absence will be but a hiccup and if we haven't changed too much, we can continue to be friends. It's actually so silly that I feel bad, feeling bad for myself! I have so much...
And in the same vein, I got to thinking about how I learned about artificial intelligence in college, and how utterly inapplicable that seems now. But really, AI is just the very low-level study of human thought. And human thought is expressed by language in its many forms. The key to thought is not in words, but meanings. And what things really mean is only apparent when taken from the perspective of several different languages.
Tired. Will finish later.
Peace
John
Then I pass a woman who's walking on one good foot and one arched foot, painfully taking every step while carrying her daily supply of food and water.
This is when I realize that this pain I feel is really quite silly. If these are truly my friends, then my absence will be but a hiccup and if we haven't changed too much, we can continue to be friends. It's actually so silly that I feel bad, feeling bad for myself! I have so much...
And in the same vein, I got to thinking about how I learned about artificial intelligence in college, and how utterly inapplicable that seems now. But really, AI is just the very low-level study of human thought. And human thought is expressed by language in its many forms. The key to thought is not in words, but meanings. And what things really mean is only apparent when taken from the perspective of several different languages.
Tired. Will finish later.
Peace
John
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)