The meaningful issue in which I will be exploring in my final product is the outdated American school system and its negative effects on children and their learning. I, as well as many researchers have found that our current school system (which was compiled all the way back during the Industrial Revolution) has now become ineffective in our ever-changing and evolving society. School systems during the Industrial Revolutions were trying to instill in their students skills in following instructions and doing exactly what they’re told to in order to produce factory workers. This does not prepare children to be successful adults in today’s world. In today’s society where attributes like critical thinking, being creative, self-ambition and communication skills are idealized, no one will get far in just following instruction and memorization/ retention. I find this issue to be meaningful enough to investigate and be vocal on because I feel that it is under-represented yet, very crucial to our world because the education of our children is what molds our future societies. I find this personally meaningful because as I reached higher levels of my education, even as early in late middle school – I started to realize that I would often disagree to what I was being taught and feel disconnected to how I was learning. I began to realize early that if I wanted to be successful and embrace all in which I individually had to offer the world, I was the one who had to work hard to express my individuality in my school system because it was not always welcomed. I am humbly but, honestly grateful that I, for whatever reason, had this self-fueled ambition and do not associate that with the American school system I was subject to. When I look back on my education, I feel as though I had to sort of “play the game” of the system in order to get to my higher, individual goals. Until later on in high school when I fortunately did get more of a say in what I was learning about – I don’t feel that any of my learning was organic or authentic. Honestly, I don’t even really remember half of the material I learned. All I can remember is studying to pass an exam or write a long essay and then forgetting about it after the fact. However, I excelled in and completed the curriculum because I realized these were the steps that I had to complete in order to reach my later goals. However, for the many students that don’t come to this realization or, deeply reflect on these flaws within the system and get lost in the fact that they can’t connect to school, there’s not really any other options for them except failure. Especially in talking about children and them being in their developmental years, the system in place is setting many up for this “failure.” No wonder why many children say that they “hate school,” where they have to sit all day and do nothing but follow orders or fail. Adults often laugh when their children tell them this but, I think it’s time to take it more seriously. If we do not upgrade our outdated system with industrial values and make children find enjoyment and freedom in learning, then they will become ambitionless in this aspect and never see a point in knowing more or critically thinking – making their adult world one filled with those factory workers from the 1800’s without any individuality and all uniform, not progressing or advancing. I believe that adults need to hear this message because many of them, including teachers and parents, have this notion in their minds that children’s points of view are not to be taken seriously and to even lightheartedly mock as they’re “just children” and “don’t know what they’re talking about.” However, I want to give them an opportunity to be heard regarding these important areas of their education and futures. I will also be choosing for my project to be presented through the medium of a short video. I plan to do this to emulate a interview- based documentary, with an informative and deterministic genre. I feel that this will be effective in not only expressing the urgency of the matter but, will also literally give these children the opportunity for their words to be heard, not filtered through my adult understanding of what they say.

The Teen Vogue article What It’s Like to be Black at a Predominantly White School is designed to empower young adults as they enter the first steps in formulating their future in that they have the power to dictate the environment in which they surround themselves around. The article is written by Stephanie Tate who is a young college student at North Carolina State University. She describes her experience as a black individual placed in predominantly white institutions. She’s originally from Brooklyn, New York and moved to North Carolina when she was eleven years old. In moving to North Carolina, her school environment drastically changed and she was placed in a predominantly white, Christian, private high school. As she spent four years in this type of environment where she felt like an outcast, her goal in picking a college to attend was for it to be a predominantly black environment. However, she ended up falling in love with NCSU and even though it was predominantly white, decided to go there anyway. She is now a very well-rounded individual who attends many of the school’s educational, social, and cultural events. She’s also involved in activism for racial equality and is the editor in chief for the school’s African American newspaper. In her experience at her university, she wrote this article with the purpose of painting a realistic picture of what’s in store for fellow young black individuals just like her. In the article, she presents to her audience what they should be prepared for and expect in going to a predominantly white college when they’re people of color. However, she does this while also relieving them in terms of sharing what they don’t need to worry about such as telling them that “for every time [she’s] been the only black student in class, [she’s] found 20 more black students willing to study with her in the library.” (Tate) She also offers them advice for how to deal with the hardships they might face if they go down a similar path in which she did. She tells her readers that their “university experience is what [they] make of it.” (Tate) This is an empowering message that she has and is what encapsulates the purpose of her article; that while they can slowly work towards eliminating racism, since they can’t directly, quickly control that – they still have the power to eliminate it from their own lives in terms of what they make their surroundings consume of. This message is important to communicate towards young teenagers, as they will soon be creating new lives for themselves. This is why the intended audience for this article is most likely high school students that are beginning to decide where they’re gearing their life towards after graduating. As this is an article in a teen magazine and has this tone of guidance regarding topics like deciding where to go to college and social relations, it’s pretty clear that the intended audience is teenagers about to take this next step in their life. As the context of the article surrounds around the topic of racism towards African Americans, the underlying message goes beyond that sub-topic. To elaborate, even though the article touches on racism, the overall message to young people is that they get to dictate their surroundings and mold their own positive environments for themselves. This is a wide-scale message that can apply to anyone whose about to make a new life for themselves. Also, although the article is indirectly doing this, I don’t believe the main focus of the article is to combat racism nor is it geared towards racist individuals for enlightenment. I see the article being intended towards people who are the victims of any discriminatory act, enlightening them on what they can do to eliminate acts of hate in their own life. Tate is discussing her own experiences that have taught her “to face conflict with poise and professionalism.” (Tate) She doesn’t spend as much time in her article dwelling on the unfortunate racist acts that have happened to her but, instead she sheds light on what she did to remain positive and not let it affect her too deeply. This is why I find the genre of the article to be an informative, empowering, and hopeful piece. This is because it doesn’t focus completely on the negatives or, even trying to change those negatives that aren’t directly in their control but, focuses what is in the victims’ control. She focuses on the power that young people have to dictate their futures. This is why the medium that it’s presented in works so well for its context. As it’s an article in Teen Vogue that’s clearly directed towards teenagers, this is a really efficient outlet to get her message across to the appropriate audience. The only disadvantage I can find within this medium is hidden within its greatest advantage – that it will mostly only been seen by teenagers. While this is a good thing, it’s typically not as obtainable to older individuals who have a lot of influence on a young person throughout their early life such as teachers or parents who can influence this important notion in them throughout their upbringing. This type of message can also work well in an adult magazine or a parenting/ teaching article as well. However, the author, purpose, intended audience, genre and, medium all function well together in delivering Tate’s important message. All of these aspects of rhetoric are present in Tate’s formulation of her effective article.

In her article “Critical Race Theory Counterstory as Allegory: A Rhetorical Trope to Raise Awareness About Arizona’s Ban on Ethnic Studies,” Aja Y. Martinez “define[s] allegory as a trope by which to render invisible forms of racism (structural or colorblind,) visible.” (Martinez pg.1, p.1) This definition goes deeper than just the already wide-scale concept of racism. It highlights the importance behind all forms of storytelling mediums and why their creations will forever be timeless. There’s no book, film, or any other form of creative media that does not have an underlying meaning behind its surface context. As an undergrad student studying creative writing in many different forms, there’s a rule that must be followed in developing your story-lines and context. This rule is simple – first, you must write from experience (identifying a real problem that you’ve either directly or indirectly struggled with) and then masking it with a metaphor. Simply to elaborate, if one were to write a story about leaving an abusive, addictive relationship – it could be written as a compelling story of one overcoming an addiction to drugs. So, the metaphor comes after as it has to work for the story so, where one truly writes from is from personal experience and struggles, however wide-scale, large, or small they may be. This is a very powerful tool to be able to utilize because it encompasses the idea of showing as opposed to telling. Showing will always be more effective than just telling in any kind of argument or method of persuasion. This important concept is directly displayed within the structure of Martinez’s article. After her quick introduction introducing this concept of allegories and metaphors being more effective in delivering ideas, she gets right into this allegory. She allows the audience to decode and interpret these significant metaphors within the allegory for themselves, which is effective in delivering her point that they are more effective. The audience knew that this was an allegory about Arizona’s anti-ethnic studies climate as it was in her introduction, but she didn’t give away all of the allegory’s hidden, effective metaphors. There’s significant moments throughout the allegory between the prominent, meaningful characters that truly hold these metaphors – which one would only understand from actually, actively reading the piece. For example on page 7 of the article, the moment where the characters of Senator Borne and Doctor Benitez are sort of fighting for this dominance during her presentation – this demonstrated the shutting out of any different culture or language. Senator Borne explains to Dr. Benitez that “it’d be really great if you could just pump the breaks a bit and use some layman’s terms for us regular folk here,” (Martinez, pg.7, p.1) when she was explaining her scientific discovery. This sophisticated, scientific-term filled way of speaking was something Benitez’s character worked hard to learn and an area of her individual life that she took pride in. Senator Borne asking her to reject this and conform to the way all the other people in the room speak represents this force of conformation that he’s placing on the Hispanic community. This interaction followed Senator Borne neglecting to call her by her proper, earned title of “Dr.” All of these significant exchanges between these meaningful characters display for the readers this ridding of individuality that these right-wing individuals are advocating for. This is a small metaphor that I interpreted and picked up on within my own reading of the allegory – not just a repetition of Martinez’s explaining of the metaphors that follow her allegory. This individual interpretation is what leads to genuine understanding of the issues the author is exploring, not just the author directly explaining the meaning behind the allegory herself. This is why Martinez’s structure of her article is so effective, as her allegory is followed by her blatantly explaining all of its underlying meaning. She is directly demonstrating for her audience the difference between showing and telling – exactly proving her point behind her whole article, that it will always be more effective.                                                         

Today, Min-Zhan Lu is a widely successful, published Writing & Composition professor in the United States. She has made so many accomplishments within her field that she has even created her own pedagogy. Within it, she advocates for a blending of students’ individual and educational discourses. To elaborate, in her teaching, she practices negotiating between what students are being taught in the classroom and what they know from home by applying them to each other. She invites her students to interpret what she’s presented to them in reflection of their personal upbringings, regardless if they’re conflicting or not. This opens the door for discussion and genuine understanding as opposed to promoting memorization and conformation amongst students. This is a very significant pedagogy. Not only because of its effectiveness as it pushes for educators to be more open-minded overall (even to the possibility of learning something from their students,) but also because it’s a reflection of Lu’s personal, educational upbringing.

Lu has not always been this successful professor in the United States and she certainly did not have a typical upbringing of one. She was born and grew up in China throughout the later 1900’s. Throughout this time, China was undergoing many revolutionary changes such as the 1949 Chinese Communist Revolution and the Anti-Rightist Movement. The main idea behind all these changes was switching to a socialist country, with an emphasis on the working class. As wide-scale as these changes were – they personally effected everyone in China because of the way society was structured as a result of them. One particular area of society that was effected by these changes significantly was the students that were subject to the Chinese school system. The material in which Lu was being taught throughout her educational career was a product of the new Chinese society’s political values. For example, Lu was only able to speak Standard Chinese at school. This was just a small example of the collective identity that the new Chinese school system was trying to create amongst its students. With characteristics of this collective identity being an appreciation of communism and a celebration of the working class, Lu’s home values were completely discouraged. This is because this collective identity was not something the school system simply suggested but, a conformation to it was forced amongst the students.

In growing up in this kind of society with its oppressive school system, Lu began to develop this sort of “double-identity.” One side of her identity was the one she put on when she went to school, writing formulaic essays about how the collective taught the individual a lesson. However, the other side of her identity stemmed from her home life, which idealized the opposing Western world. To elaborate, English was the language spoken at Lu’s household, as her parents emphasized their belief in knowing it to be important. Her parents also valued capitalism as opposed to communism and individualism as opposed to this “collective identity,” explaining to young Lu that they wanted her to write honestly like Dickens and Hawthorne, not these formulaic essays. They also taught her that economic success was something to celebrate, not something to be ashamed of because it makes you different than the working class. As encouraging as her parents’ ideologies were, the fact that both of her identities directly conflicted one another made Lu seriously struggle internally in developing her own identity.

In later becoming an educator herself, Lu set out for no student to have to struggle with a double identity between their home and school discourses ever again – forming this pedagogy surrounded around blending these two worlds.

In the spirit of Lu’s pedagogy, when reflecting on my own educational upbringing – I definitely see a sort of connection between Lu and I. As I’ve mentioned in a previous blog post, because of my Italian grandmother’s heavy role in my early childhood (around when I was beginning to speak,) her accent as well as her inaccurate way of structuring her sentences rubbed off on me. So, when I did enter school, I immediately knew I was a little different and my teacher did change something about me that I had walked in with. I definitely was a little insecure that I was different from the other kids in the very beginning but, the problem I had was easily fixed and to be honest, I was pretty young so I really didn’t think much into it. As an adult now in higher education, looking back on it, although I had similar feelings of being an outsider and that I had a problem that needed to be fixed – it truly wasn’t at the level in which Lu’s situation was. I relate this observation to the fact that Lu and I grew up in completely different political environments. I grew up in America which is not communist like China and actually embodies all the Western, individualist ideologies that Lu’s family idealized (most of the time.) So, a conforming to my classmates and communal language definitely occurred but, nowhere in my experience was it oppressive or forceful. To me, it was giving me the tools to get my points across clearly to those around me, opening up the door for further, individualist conversation. Unfortunately, for Lu, the opposite was the case. However, she turned this oppressive experience of hers into the root of all the significant, individualist work she has done. With it, she has hopefully set a precedent for all educators with her efficient pedagogy in educating our youth.

In terms of my home life and heritage playing a role in my English language, I’ve honestly had to adjust in and out of many different speech patterns. My mother comes from a very large, passionate Italian family. This was the first thing I was exposed to in my earlier, developmental years. Every time my mother spoke to all her siblings and her parents, it was all in Italian because that was the first language they all learned as my grandparents emigrated from Naples. Although my mother and all of her siblings spoke English fluently through their American school systems as children, I was exposed to an equal amount of Italian as I was to English. Especially when I became a little older and my mother became pregnant with my younger sister, my grandmother was around a lot more – and doing a lot in terms of taking care of me. Though my grandmother also spoke English (certainly not fluent, just enough to get by,) she spoke it with a very heavy Italian accent. Not only the accent but, she framed her English sentences a little odd because the Italian language is very different from English. In English, we structure our basic sentences with the subject of it first, then the verb and then the object. In Italian, the basic sentence structure is the opposite – the sentences usually start with the object, then followed by the subject, then followed by the verb. For example, the English sentence “I like apples,” would be structured in Italian as “Apples, I like.” So, before kindergarten – although I was speaking English and hardly knew Italian besides a few words, I was speaking it similar to my grandmother and a little differently than everyone else in terms of structure. I also had a slight accent that made some of my words difficult to understand. It was very minor and honestly only with a couple letters, such as R’s – I always struggled to not roll mine in the beginning. These little glitches in my English were quickly corrected as I went to school, in an environment where everyone around me was learning how to perfect their English language in terms of grammar. In getting older, my exposure to school and perfecting English was much more apparent than spending time with my grandmother so, I never had problems speaking it again in my life. So much so that when middle school came around and we had to pick a second language to learn (where I chose Italian,) it was actually pretty difficult to me to adjust back to that way of speaking. I even struggled to roll my R’s for the longest time. However, eventually (like when I was younger in learning English) I soon adjusted through practice/ teaching and am now able to communicate in both languages.

So, even though I was really young when the perfecting of my English was going on – I know the feeling of having to adjust to a different way of speaking. And, if I’m going to be honest – I personally wasn’t negatively affected by it and have never felt “othered” because of it. Completely given that I am white and have that privilege, I never thought too much into it. I saw it as my teachers giving me the tools so everyone else can understand me and I can communicate better with my peers. I’ve personally never felt that any of my educators have ever shut down my culture or denied “the right to [my] own patterns and varieties of language.” (SRTOL) To me, I was just learning how to properly speak in terms of what language I was learning. Also, with the opportunity that most public schools provide for students to choose another language to learn – I felt that I was able to connect back to my roots and embrace the culture I come from in my education system. Under full acknowledgement that I don’t know everyone else’s experiences and there are certainly students who do experience racial backlash in relation to their dialect, I don’t see the root of this problem to be language. I see language as a skill and tool that is learned and, languages all have their own set of rules in order to maintain consistency – which is what allows for mutual understanding. I experienced nothing but an encouragement of inclusiveness in learning how to speak like everyone around me did. I believe the root of this problem of students feeling “othered” truly stems from separate problems of racism and egocentrism that is often, mistakenly affiliated with language. Language is supposed to be something that brings people together as it gives people tools to communicate themselves. It’s what people choose to do with their communication skills that causes this rift. Language doesn’t divide us, people do.

“It has preached against colonializing Indians, and in favor of individualizing them.” (Pratt) These are the ironic words of Captain Richard H. Pratt in his discussion of the education of the Native American society. I say ironic because of his emphasis on the individualization of the Native Americans in which he describes the Carlisle Indian School will provide. This is because throughout his introduction to the Carlisle School within his speech titled “Kill the Indian, Save the Man,” he demonstrates nothing but colonial force on the Native American societies and a complete disregard for their individuality, even encouraging an abolishment of it. Pratt makes this idea the theme of his speech throughout his offensive general language and demonstration of how American society has been successful in forcing other groups of people to conform to their own way of life.

A common pattern I’ve noticed throughout Pratt’s speech is his use of general and, more significantly – impersonal language. The main idea Pratt is trying to convey is a rejection of Indian genocide and a replacement of it with the education of the Indian youth to try to “save” the industrialized (white, American) men they have the potential to be. In delivering this message, Pratt fills his speech with historical examples of other groups of people becoming “civilized” through American influence as well as historical events and facts that took place to support his argument. He begins this pattern through introducing the conflict with the Indians in terms of past presidents’ policies towards them. He explains how “Washington believed that commerce freely entered into between us and the Indians would bring about their civilization, and Washington was right,” and “was followed by Jefferson, who inaugurated the reservation plan.” In doing this, he’s introducing the Indian population as though they were a debate to be discussed and through the view of government officials that came before him. He then goes further into his argument through utilizing widespread events in general as examples – such as battles and massacres between them and the Native Americans. He explains how “It is a sad day for the Indians when they fall under the assaults of our troops, as in the Piegan massacre, the massacre of Old Black Kettle and his Cheyennes at what is termed “the battle of the Washita,” and hundreds of other like places in the history of our dealings with them.” After many other references to our Constitution and explanations of how the Indian population is living as of now in terms of the laws in place, he goes on to point out how the African community became civilized through the African Slave Trade. He discusses the period of our history of slavery through an analytical lens, concluding how the black men who escaped slavery are now walking semi-free and civilized through association with Americans. He explains how if they were “left in Africa, surrounded by their fellow-savages, our seven millions of industrious black fellow-citizens would still be savages.” In conclusion, what I take away from Pratt’s speech is just more words and numbers spewed out by another government official. I relate the way that Pratt discusses the civilization of Native Americans as though it were a business matter and statistical debate. There’s no genuine humanity or lives being discussed – it’s all impersonal information coming from someone who has deemed themselves as superior.

This is a problem within his speech – and, argument in general, because at the end of the day, it’s personal narrative that leads to true historical understanding. It’s not the number of people who died during massacres but who are the ones that lost their lives and what they left behind. It’s the stories within Native Americans’ everyday life that allows us to understand how they live, not the laws in place over them. This is demonstrated through Zitkala-Sa’s work in American Indian Stories, but most significantly in my opinion, within the short story Impressions of an Indian Childhood. Throughout her piece, Zitkala-Sa begins with describing the land around her where she grew up. She includes so much detail – it was as though the land around her wigwam was a character. She describes how “a footpath wound its way gently down the sloping land till it reached the broad river bottom; creeping through the long swamp grasses.” Though Pratt describes the lack of industrialization within the Native American’s purchased land as an example of un-civilization, Zitkala-Sa demonstrates the role that nature plays in their culture and why they wouldn’t want to corrupt it with “mak[ing] use of their large and rich estate,” as Pratt puts it. Then, Zitkala-Sa goes in to describe life with her sad mother, as they depend solely on one another after the massacre of most of their family. She describes how her mother “was only of medium height,” and how “often she was sad and silent.” She then explains how she often “begged to know what made the tears fall,” out of “her black eyes,” in which “shadows fell under.” In Zitkala-Sa’s detailed description of her mother and her mourning, we understand that those massacres in which Pratt lightly mentions have results that are not just undetailed casualties. These recognizable historical events have real effects on real humans involved, leaving Zitkala-Sa and her mother for example, with a “hill where [her] uncle and [her] only sister lay buried,” as well as her father who “has been buried in a hill nearer the rising sun.”

In conclusion, though official government words can have somewhat of a blissful censorship and sound nice and controlled – it’s what they typically ignore or leave out that holds most significance. Zitkala-Sa directly challenges Pratt’s claim of advocacy for Native American individuality in her work by demonstrating what individuality and identity actually encapsulate – a story of human suffering, identities stolen, and a valued culture that was stripped, not a list of “instructions to those controlling Indian matters.”

In analyzing Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed, after my close look at just the first chapter alone – I am in complete understanding that it’s breaking apart the way in which humans understand oppression and the roles it plays in society. At least in the first chapter, Freire explores specifically the relationship between oppressors and the oppressed. He identifies combating concepts that play a role in their relationship, and why it’s so superior/inferior based.

One of these concepts is that of dehumanization, which is present within any oppressor/ oppressed relationship. Freire defines dehumanization as the stealing of one’s humanity, on both sides. He describes how dehumanization “marks not only those whose humanity has been stolen but also, those who have stolen it.” In developing this relationship, the oppressor continuously dehumanizes the oppressed while, actually dehumanizing themselves as well because they define their existence solely as the taking away of others’. This is why Freire describes dehumanization as “a distortion of the vocation of becoming more fully human,” a blurred view or bump in the road within the process of humans discovering what makes them themselves and, human.

He then goes to explain how dehumanization is not one, specific historical event that you can just pinpoint – it’s not just switching a light switch. However, it’s something that occurs over time through inevitable conflicts and mistreatment that arise in this quest for humanity. He goes on to explain that dehumanization is “a concrete historical fact, not a given destiny but the result of unjust order.” I say inevitable because, in a community full of humans trying to define themselves and their role in the world and, in turn, relations to each other – there is no specific rulebook to follow and that inevitably leads to instability. And, in a pool of instability – humans will always crave stability, a set order. This is where the need for an established superior party and inferior party chimes in; humans subconsciously need one to win and one to lose. Freire explains how this mentality amongst humanity in terms of stability is what “engenders violence in the oppressors, which in turn dehumanizes the oppressed,” or, in other words, perpetuates this toxic cycle of oppression.

A real-life, direct example of humans’ natural need for this order is the Stanford Prison Experiment back in 1971. This experiment was led by psychology professor Philip Zimbardo in attempt to study the psychological effects of perceived power. The subjects of the experiment were paid students who were split in half, one half was established as the officers while the other was established as the prisoners. And, as the groups got their roles, they immediately embodied them in undergoing a process of complete dehumanization of each other. The officers even literally stripped the prisoners of their identity, referring to them as numbers throughout the experiment. Many films and documentaries have been made about this important experiment in psychology and human relation. The officers’ treatment of the prisoners is sometimes hard to watch as it was so inhumane and brutal. The experiment was eventually called off because both parties of the experiment soon lost their concepts of humanity and got lost in the comfort of power/ order, after only six days. Though this is an example of extreme mistreatment and oppression, I feel that it completely encapsulates and exemplifies humans’ need for an established order with a winning and losing party, as misfortunate as that is.

In the end, my view is that humans don’t have to be subject to this unfortunate order in which we have become so dependent on. I say “become,” because a cycle only becomes a cycle because we adjust to routine – we’re not truly dependent, that’s just our perception, what we’re used to. This is actually good news in that it means that cycles can be broken and changed – all with an adjustment of our universal mentality. Even though one party is established as superior and one is deemed as inferior, both parties are really both just humans that are going through the same struggle of defining themselves and finding a place where they fit in this large world. An understanding of this concept is what can help lessen the occurrence of oppression as we’ll hopefully depend less and less on this order we’ve established throughout history. Though there is a level of comfort in an established order, we truly do not need to constantly observe one side win while the other side loses and dehumanize each other as well as ourselves.