P.S. Rest In Peace Patrick Swayze. Now you're the top bouncer at the big roadhouse.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Inquiry 2 Cyclical Motion
Being that a penny saved is a penny earned, how is it described when a penny is inherited? The most frequent way a person acquires GREAT wealth is by inheritance. Before slavery ended approximately eleven percent of African Americans were free and could own property. Of course that leaves eighty-nine percent of African Americans owning nothing in terms of property the day they gained their independence, or nothing inherited and literally having to work for every penny they get. Even though slavery ended around 140 years ago African Americans today on average make about seventeen cents for every dollar White Americans make. This being said doesn't it seem to make sense that the students described in the first part of the introduction by Lisa Delpit would rather receive a present from a person who is wealthier than poorer? The scary thing about the study isn't the perception of the children but the truth that even at such a young age children could see the actual inequalities in our system. There is a certain cyclical motion in everything. Those that start with nothing will more often than not end with nothing while those in power and wealth will probably stay there with no regard to what anyone actually "earns". Looking at everything in a culture, especially language, we must keep it in mind that over time most wealth or power just stays where it is and the language of power will be with who has the power. So, if you seem shocked by the racist ideas in these children just remember that there is truth in what they see. Of course a big part of growing up is breaking through false generalizations we create as children, which is what we need to strive for until we die.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This post illustrates concisely one of the major problems in American culture as a whole, and the point can be narrowed to include inherited education. What you said is exactly true: those who inherit wealth tend to end up with wealth, and those who grow up in poverty tend to stay in poverty. This can be directly translated to learning. A person whose family does not have a great deal of education is likely to not get a great deal him/herself. If there is not a focus on the value of getting higher education from early in life, the chances significantly diminish that the child will end up pursuing it as a serious goal. (I base this point on complete, shameless speculation, and I have no statistical basis for this claim in any way.)
ReplyDeleteI wonder, then, how much of this inheritance of educative practices or inclination stems from language differences. Is a student who speaks a different dialect (at least) or language (at most) less likely to continue on in his or her education than someone who speaks the standard dialect being taught? Common sense would seem to dictate that this would be the case, and it is easy to imagine the sense of disenfranchisement that one could prolongedly feel upon entering a school where one's way of life, or more specifically, way of speaking, is not valued in any way and is in fact discouraged at every turn. An inherited language may lead to inherited educational attitudes and practices, as it certainly seems to for both Linda and Tanya.
Interesting stuff, here. You certainly hit upon the power of the status quo--or rather, the powers that are devoted to maintaining it. In your reading, it would appear that schools' treatment of language is in fact one of those powers that works to keep things as they are. I know of several prominent and reform-minded educators who would wholeheartedly agree with you.
ReplyDelete