The State and Revolution was written by Lenin in 1917. This text provides Lenin’s thoughts on the role of communism in the context of leading the proletarian revolution and the shape of the government afterward. The text is rather repetitive and rambling. Therefore, instead of providing a summary, which would be rather difficult, it was decided to briefly describe some of the text’s main points. These main points are…

• The purpose of the state
• The purpose of the revolution
• The stages after the revolution

None of the ideas above are in one specific place within the text. Instead, they are scattered throughout and shared repeatedly, making the text difficult to understand.

Purpose of the State

Stalin states that the state exists solely because of class antagonism. The government referees the battle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in other words. This makes sense as you cannot have property or capital unless there is someone to protect said property. A society without government would not have anything whether communist or capitalist. The capitalists need the government to protect their capital while the proletariat seeks justice from the same government.

Stalin also shares that the ruling class uses the state to oppress the poor. Again, it is hard to refute this as corporate America has teamed up with the government before. However, Lenin has left out how the government has responded to the cries of the poor in the past. For example, during Lenin’s life, the Russian Czar attempted reforms before his downfall. Even before the French Revolution the King of France tried to compromise. As such, even in monarchies tone deafness is difficult to maintain fully.

Purpose of Revolution

Lenin then shared that the purpose of revolution was to overthrow the Bourgeoisie class so the proletarians could take power. Lenin believes that overthrowing the ruling class will solve most if not all of society’s problems.

The problem with this belief is that revolution leads to a new set of oppressors in most cases. The leadership changes but the wicked hearts of man remain the same. Lenin seems to think that the system is the problem (a sentiment shared today). In reality, it is the people who are the problem. All governments have issues and problems, but they also have one thing in common: people who form, lead, and destroy them.

Stages After the Revolution

Lenin also divides the stages after the revolution into three main parts. The first stage is the proletarian dictatorship. This dictatorship involves the proletarians using the apparatus of the conquered state to crush all of the remaining bourgeoise. In other words, the tools of the enemy are used to destroy the enemy. This stage of the revolution has happened in many countries such as Cambodia, Cuba, North Korea, Russia, and Vietnam. The landholders and capitalists are rounded up and killed and the people seize their property. There is often a huge loss of life as the revolutionaries tend to kill indiscriminately in their zeal for change.

The second stage is socialism which involves the government having control over the means of production. Notice how the government is still being used but instead of for slaughtering, the focus has shifted to control of the people. In addition, contrary to popular belief, traditional communism doesn’t want to control all property just property for producing wealth. At this point, everyone only gets what they need instead of what they want, destroying all motivation and ambition to work hard. This is also the stage at which all communist governments stop. The government takes control and they never give up that control. This proves the point that communism swaps one corrupt leadership for another. The main difference between communism and capitalism is who has control, the individual or a monolith government.

The final stage of the revolution is the withering of the state. Once everyone is thoroughly communist and social classes are destroyed there is no need for the state. No communist government has achieved this as the revolution’s leaders enjoy being in charge. The common counter to this observation is that nobody has successfully completed a communist revolution. Therefore, people must try harder to achieve this. It also must be mentioned that there is no view of utopia as Lenin shares that neither he nor Marx knows what that is like. As such, the revolution must continue forever.

Conclusion

This was not a summary of Lenin’s views in his book The State and Revolution. The goal was only to share some of the main points. This is probably one of Lenin’s best-known books and required reading for hardcore leftists. Even though no one has achieved true communism many are highly motivated to make this theory a reality.

George Orwell wrote an essay entitled “Notes on Nationalism” around the time of WW II. In this brief essay, Orwell defines nationalism along with a description of the traits of nationalists. In this post, a summary of his essay will be provided along with modern examples of some of his key points.

Defining Nationalism

For Orwell, nationalism is an individual’s identification with a single nation or unit. Nation is a country but unit is much harder to define. A unit could be a religion, such as Islam, or an ideology like communism. Simply, a unit can be anything that is not a nation.

Orwell then goes on to describe two types of nationalism which are positive and negative nationalism. A positive nationalist wants to boost the prestige of his country or unit. An example of a positive nationalist would be a patriotic American who believes in “God bless America.”

The examples Orwell includes in his essay of positive nationalism include Zionism, which supports the idea of a Jewish state and is not ashamed to do so. Orwell also shared the example of Celtic Nationalism which believed in the support of the Celtic ethnicities in the United Kingdom. What both of these examples have in common is a focus on supporting a unit of people to achieve goals and objectives.

A negative nationalist is a person who wants to denigrate or lower the prestige of a country or unit. An example of this would be Americans who are ashamed or embarrassed by the past atrocities of the US and want the US to offer reparations, apologies, and to show penitence. These people are also nationalist but have a sense of shame over their country’s behavior that is baffling to a positive nationalist.

The examples of negative nationalism that Orwell shares in his essay include Anti-semitism, Anglophobia, and Trotskyism. Anti-Semitism is racism against people who are Jewish and does not require much additional explanation. Anglophobia is a negative attitude towards the UK. What makes Anglophobia pertinent is that a similar attitude has permeated the US in recent years. Trotskyism was a branch of mainly Russian communists who did not support Stalin’s leadership of the Soviet Union.

What all of these negative nationalists have in common is hatred and or resistance to another country or unit. This leads to the conclusion that whether someone is a positive or negative nationalist depends on who is asking the question. For example, someone who supports Black Lives Matter might see themselves as a patriot continuing the fight for equality which is a tradition in America. However, another person might see BLM in a negative light due to the instability that BLM brings into certain areas. In the end, whether someone is a positive or negative nationalist is based more on marketing than on the actual behavior and beliefs of the individuals involved.

There is one more group of nationalists that do not neatly fall into the two categories already mentioned and this group is called transferred nationalists. A transferred nationalist is a person who holds a contrasting position to the context in which they live. An example that Orwell uses is a communist who lives in a capitalist country, which is a minority position. Another example he shared was political Catholicism which was the promotion of Catholic social teachings through government support. Political Catholicism is a form of transfer nationalism because the use of the state to support religion in this matter is supposedly an unusual position in Orwell’s view.

As mentioned before, whether someone is a positive, negative, or transferred nationalist is a matter of perspective. The main point here is to understand how nationalism can manifest in different ways and different contexts.

Main Characteristics of Nationalism

In addition to categorizing the types of nationalism, Orwell also provides three main characteristics of nationalists which are obsession, instability, and indifference to reality. Obsession is being highly focused on the group/unit that the nationalist is supporting. For example, Zionists are highly focused on Israel and matters related to this country. Black Lives Matter support is highly focused on systemic racism and matters related to the Black community.

Instability relates primarily to transferred nationalists and it is loyalty outside of the system one is in. The previous example was a communist in a capitalist country. A more recent example is natural-born Americans supporting immigration regardless of the context. Perhaps the reason that Orwell labels this instability is that a minority position can often push for change that destabilizes the status quo.

The final trait of nationalists is indifference to reality. Reality is not defined in a traditional manner here but is more focused on morality. Nationalists see the world from their viewpoint to the exclusion of all contradictory evidence. What is good or bad is not based on behavior but rather on who did it. If the US goes and attacks another country it is a fight for freedom. However, if anybody attacks the US it is considered terrorism. For a pro-US nationalist, no information can be given to criticize US aggression or condone attacks on the US because it is not evidence or morals that matters but the group/unit that the nationalist is supporting.

We can extend this to every other example if we want. Immigration is okay for transferred nationalists no matter how much crime, unemployment or drains of social services happen. The opposite is true for US positive nationalists, immigration is a problem no matter how many hard-working, tax-paying immigrants come. The same applies to Black Lives Matter and racism. No matter what the government does systemic racism is still a threat to Blacks. On the other hand, US nationalists are convinced that nothing can be done to appease people who think they are victims of racism.

Conclusion

Orwell’s views on nationalism provide an interesting take from the WW II era. The point was not to criticize his view but rather to explain his position with a few recent examples. Nationalism is a part of the worldview of most individuals in one way or the other. What is truly important is just to be aware of one’s position concerning one’s thoughts relating to nationalism.

This post will examine chapters three and four of Herbert Marcuse’s “Essay on Liberation.” This highly influential essay, written in the 1960s, lays out many of the left’s goals and desires regarding the reshaping of society.

Subverting Forces

Chapter 3 is mostly a rehash of complaints and solutions that Marcuse has already addressed in his essay. It begins with a litany of complaints, including the terrible jobs people have to work, the exploitation of minorities, increased violence, and the waste of resources. All of these complaints are blamed on capitalism. It needs to be noted that every system has some sort of flaws and even oppression within them which includes the communist system that Marcuse supports.

Marcuse also mentions how technology can be used to end capitalism rather than support it. The challenge is that the technocrats are using technology to continue the existing system of oppression. Not only is this terrible but the current system must be abolished as reformation is not even an option for Marcuse. This is a sentiment that is shared by many leftists today regarding the destruction of the current system in order to set up a completely new one.

Marcuse also calls on universities to radicalize students by developing and/or awakening their true consciousness. A true consciousness is a mind that has awakened to its true socialist nature. It appears the universities have heeded Marcuse’s call as many of them are considered bastions of liberal left-wing thinking. Again, the problem isn’t that Marcuse believes these things but that he wants everyone else to believe them and thinks it’s okay to use the educational system for this. If we are really free we should be able to accept or reject this worldview that Marcuse so vehemently supports.

Marcuse repeats his desire to radicalize the ghetto (black) population as well. Again, the reason for radicalizing students and minorities is to replace the proletariat workers who are enjoying their middle-class lifestyle. Marcuse never mentions how the ghetto populations were to be radicalized but it would probably involve the use of former university students who have achieved their true consciousness and are educating and working among the ghetto populations and pointing out the oppression these people are facing. Paulo Friere may be one example of this as he worked exclusively among the poor and minority populations as a language teacher in Brazil pointing out oppression.

One shocking comment Marcuse makes about the black population of his time is that they are expendable. Now, expendable does not mean that blacks should be eliminated or that they have no value. Rather, Marcuse used the term “expendable” to mean that the majority of blacks are not contributing significantly to the current economic system. For Marcuse, this is an advantage because these oppressed individuals are potential recruits for the revolution.

Correlation is not causation but there was a surprising number of radical black groups that arose in the 1960s and 1970s. Examples include the Black Panthers and the Black Liberation Army. There are also a host of other left-leaning groups such as the Symbionese Liberation Army, Weather Underground, and Students for a Democratic Society. The example provided explains why Marcuse is often called the “father of the new left.”

Solidarity

The final chapter of Marcuse’s essay shares how the revolution was successful in both Cuba and Vietnam. With such recent success as this (Marcuse was writing in the 1960’s) Marcuse is implying that such success can be experienced in the US. At the time it was unclear what to expect from the communist revolutions in Cuba and Vietnam. However, history shows us that these revolutions were not blessings to the citizens of either of these countries.

Marcuse then goes on to ponder what life after the revolution will look like. He essentially implies that it is unclear what life will truly be like after the communist revolution. This is a common criticism of communism in that the proponents want a different world but have no idea what to do if they take power. Given the track record of communist governments, it is better that communists pursue power rather than obtain it.

Conclusion

Marcuse had a strong vision for what he wanted to see happen in America. His desire was for the fall of capitalism and the rise of a socialist/communist utopia. In his essay, he lays out this dream of his. Unfortunately, the general success of communist revolutions is often negative and leads to huge loss of life as people’s freedoms are curtailed for the sake of the collective.

Herbert Marcuse wrote a famous essay in the 1960’s entitled “Essay on Liberation.” The writing is somewhat difficult and convoluted which means interpretation can be challenging. However, the main thesis of Marcuse’s essay appears to be that the productivity of capitalism is inhibiting the rise of the socialist revolution. He addresses this thesis by addressing how a man can take care of himself without being dependent on the capitalist system and by asserting there can be no freedom from labor in the current capitalist system.

In this post, we will attempt to provide a summary of this essay succinctly. In particular, will focus on only chapter one of this essay entitled “Biological Foundation of Socialism”

Biological Foundation for Socialism

The first part of Marcuse’s essay addresses the biological foundation for socialism. From what I can assess the term “biological” means the innate need or basis for socialism. In other words, Marcuse builds a case for socialism as a natural state of man in the first part of his essay.

Marcuse lays out two problems with capitalism, which are the increase in production and the exploitation of products. For Marcuse, capitalist societies overproduce but at the same time do not provide enough for the people trapped in this oppressive system. For people to be free they must break their dependence on this market system with its focus on consumption. However, Marcuse later goes on to prescribe a controlled market as the alternative which has its problems of efficiency as demonstrated by other communist states such as the Soviet Union.

Marcuse also shares that capitalism is transformative. By transformative Marcuse is probably referring to how capitalism changes the nature, character, and or values of the individual. The accusation of the transformative nature of capitalism may also be why Marxists in general speak of transformation. However, when Marxists speak of transformation they believe it relates to awakening man to his true socialist nature rather than the capitalist lie. For Marcuse, the change of an individual brought about by capitalism causes exploitation as the individual buys into an oppressive system. Anyone familiar with the term “rat race” may have sympathy with Marcuse”s views.

Marcuse desires to free man from this exploitative system. This gives the impression that people should not have to do anything they don’t want to do. The problem is that many communist and socialist countries still have exploitive systems that force people to do things after the revolution. In other words, there is no system in which man is truly free. Everyone has to spend time doing things they do not want. The only difference is who is your master and what are the benefits of serving him.

Marcuse then goes on to explain why the Marxist revolution has not taken place. He claims that poverty doesn’t bring revolution, as Marx argued. With the success of capitalism, the proletariat was beginning to move into the middle class. The problem with the economic success of the middle class is that they hate the idea of revolution. This disdain for revolution is because of the middle class’s investment in the current system. In other words, capitalism blunts the desire for true freedom because it bribes individuals with economic gain.

Marcuse’s solution to the middle class’s stabilization was to focus on the radicalization of the super poor and blacks. In later parts of his essay, he adds students to this potential pool of revolutionaries. By shifting the focus away from the traditional proletariat, who are essentially sell-outs, to other oppressed groups, the revolution can continue.

The impact of this statement is felt today. Now, we have a plethora of groups who are crying out about the oppression of capitalism and other norms of society such as sexuality, health, race, etc. The idea of radicalizing various ethnic, sexual, and other minorities for the sake of revolution may have started with the ideas of Marcuse in the 1960s.

Conclusion

Marcuse lays out several key terms of his essay in this first chapter. Establishing this foundation is key as we will see how the rest of the essay is a variation of the ideas presented here.

In this post, we will look at John Holt and his views on education in the US.

Bio

John Holt was an early proponent of homeschooling in the US. What makes him unique is that Holt was a left-wing or progressive voice for homeschooling. Homeschooling has often been associated with conservatives and Christianity but this was not the case with Holt. By most accounts, Holt was a devout Atheist.

Holt viewed the traditional education experience of children as oppressive. The reason for this oppression was the students did not have control of their learning experience. For Holt, children should be able to choose what they study. The factory-style education in the US was a major criticism of Holt as he believed it stripped young people of their individuality.

Holt’s views were not limited to education. He also supported other left-leaning views involving feminism, environmentalism, and a guaranteed income for all. His motivation behind a guaranteed income was to liberate women and children from being dependent on men or the husband and father of the family. Holt is also considered the father of the Children’s rights movement. In many ways, Holt had issues with traditional views of family.

Youthism

The Children’s Rights Movement has many names such as Youth Rights or Youthism. The main premise of proponents of this belief system is that adults discriminate and oppress young people and children. This belief system is similar to other Communist/Critical Theory-inspired belief systems such as Critical Race Theory, Feminism, etc.

What all of these –isms or theories of oppression have in common is a power struggle between two groups. In Communism or Marxism, the bourgeoise control the means of production and oppress the proletariat. The proletariat needs to rise up, rebel, overthrow the bourgeoise, and seize the means of production.

In Critical Theory, the oppressors maintain the country’s current cultural structure (often portrayed as White, male, and Christian) and the various social institutions (school, church, etc.). People who are not producers of the current culture are oppressed and should rise up and overthrow those who control the production of culture.

Critical Race Theory states that the oppressors are White Americans and the oppressed are people of color. Whites control access to various things through their production of privilege or culture. People of color need to rise up, abolish the privilege of Whites, and destroy the ability of Whites to reproduce the current societal structure or have any form of privilege.

Feminism states that the oppressors are men and the oppressed are women. Men oppressed women through the use of cultural and traditional beliefs and reproduced these beliefs through various social institutions. Women need to rise up and rebel and stop the reproduction of traditional beliefs in society so that women can have emancipation from male leadership.

Queer studies state that the oppressors are people who are straight and the oppressed are people with alternative sexual identities and preferences. Heterosexuals control the means of reproducing heterosexuality through culture, families, and schools. Queer individuals need to rise up, overthrow heteronormativity, and liberate society from those false beliefs.

In Youthism the struggle is between children and adults. Adults oppress children and want to maintain their power and authority over them. Children, in turn, should rebel and seize their autonomy and rights from the adults. By leaving schools, children can seize some of the power and take control of their education. Below is a table that briefly summarizes what has been shared.

The end game is the same. To overthrow the existing society from one angle or the other. The reason for these various theories and belief systems is the same as why there are different flavors of ice cream, which is to attract the highest number of people possible. All of these various oppressed groups can agree on the need for change and can work together for this. In addition, these various movements create a mult-front assault on the existing society which is much more difficult to defend against than one enemy. Multiple groups of oppressed people also create a picture that something is seriously wrong with society when so many people are dissatisfied with it.

Holts Beliefs

Returning to the focus on Holt, he also had some unusual beliefs about children’s freedom. For example, he believed that a child should be able to drive whenever they possess the ability rather than at 16. He criticized how adults speak to children by calling them “cute” and patting them on the head. Holts also had issues with how adults are sometimes dismissive of the feelings and problems of children, which to him was a form of oppression.

Perhaps one of Holt’s most shocking beliefs was in the sexual freedom of children. Essentially, he believed that children should make their own decisions about sexuality. It may be possible that Holts’ views on this were inspired by Kinsey whose research focused on providing evidence that this was a viable position for children.

Conclusion

John Holt was a trailblazing liberal in the world of homeschooling. He radically supported a conservative idea in his unique way. His influence on homeschooling is significant, whether or not people agree with him on a personal level.

In 1920, Lenin gave a speech to the Communist Youth League of Russia. In this speech, Lenin lays out some of his theories on education, describes how communists seize power, and explains the ethics of communism.

What makes this speech so fascinating is how it has inspired directly or indirectly many arguments made today to attack the establishment. There are ideas in this speech that seem to come directly from Friere, as well as proponents of the various forms of critical studies found today. In this post, we will look at Lenin’s definition of communism as well as his views on education, power, and ethics.

Definitions

Lenin defines communism as a society in which all things are owned in common and the people work in common. This definition is much broader than the definition that is commonly shared today. Many people define communism or socialism as common ownership of the means of production. Generally, the means of production are controlled by capitalists and many today want to strip the capitalists of the means of production while allowing for individual ownership of consumer items such as cars, houses, clothes, etc.

In other words, consuming is permissible among socialist today but production must be controlled by the people. Lenin’s definition makes it clear that the people, which is really just government bureaucrats, want to control everything under the guise of common ownership.

Educational Views

While speaking to the youth, Lenin made it clear that it is the youth who will be the face of communist society. Realizing their responsibility the young people need to learn. Lenin explains that learning and teaching must be redesigned. Rote learning is not true learning as it lacks practical application. Students should not cram knowledge into their minds. Education must be practical and not theoretical with a need for participation.

Lenin’s critique of rote learning or memorization is similar to Friere’s criticism of banking education in which the the teacher deposits knowledge into the students’ heads with any form of critical thought. This style of teaching is oppressive as the student is only going to reproduce the existing society rather than transform it. It would be difficult to prove that Friere was inspired by this particular speech of Lenin but the similarities are interesting.

Friere also talks about Praxis, which is essentially a form of practical political protesting or pushback against the norms of the existing society. Once students have a critical consciousness (awakened to the oppression of the world) they need to mobilize and find ways to resist those who are oppressing them. In other words, just as Lenin stated the need for practical learning, Friere emphasized this in the political education of students.

Lenin also states that books plus struggle is what learning truly is. The choice of the word “struggle” in the English translation is another interesting choice of words. Stalin and Mao later developed criticism and self-criticism in which people would criticized themselves and other people who were not living up to the expectations of the Communist revolution. People were expected to publically confess their “sins” and call out the “sins” of others. If your confession wasn’t good enough it could lead to additional consequences. In China, this was called struggle sessions and has been accused of being a form of brainwashing.

The Plan

Lenin provides an example of how criticism was used to gain power. He states that the Communists must criticize the Bouregise to arouse hatred of them. Once the Bouregise is hated the communists can unite the people (proletariat) to take power. This is what happened in Russia. The Czar and capitalists were criticized, people began to hate them, and the working class seized power under the leadership of the communists.

In the various “studies” of today the same strategy is used. Critical race theory criticizes one racial group to stir up hatred in other groups to unite them and take power. Feminism criticizes men in order to develop hatred among women towards men in order to unite them and take power. Queer studies criticize normalcy to stir up hatred against “normal” people so that the queer will unite and take power. The whole goal is to divide the people so that a revolution takes place between those who are “woke” and those who are not. To see how this strategy was laid out over 100 years ago and is still successful is shocking.

Ethics

Lenin also explains the ethical position of communism. He states clearly that there is no belief in God in the communist worldview. Since there is no God, God is not a source of right or wrong. There is no morality outside of the morality defined by society. In other words, men will decide for themselves what is right or wrong.

Communists have a moral duty to share all resources. Nothing can belong to a person as all resources must be shared. To have private property is to encourage selfishness and is bourgeois. For society to flourish the old ways must be destroyed.

Communists have tried to impose this ethical worldview. However, it never works because people aren’t motivated unless there is something in it for them. Despite this, even to this day, people criticize the capitalist system because it inspires people to work hard for the benefit of themselves and others.

Conclusion

The foundational ideas that Lenin explains here have echoed down over the decades to have powerful effects. Lenin’s views influenced Friere, Lenin’s views influenced criticism of Stalin and Mao, and Lenin’s views have also influenced the various “studies” that have impacted society today.

This post will summarize Gloria Ladson-Billings’ critical “Just What is Critical Race Theory and What’s it Doing in a Nice Field like Education?” written in 1998 for the journal “Qualitative Studies in Education.”

Definition

Critical race theory grew out of critical legal studies. Critical legal studies attempted to move the focus of legal scholarship away from doctrinal and policy analysis to a focus on groups in cultural and social contexts. What critical race theory did that was unique was to focus primarily on race instead of other groups such as gender, class, etc. A criticism of critical race theory was its obsession only with race rather than looking at injustice in broader ways.

When dealing with ideas such as critical race theory it is impossible to find consensus on what it is about. However, according to Ladson-Billoings critical race theory has some of the following tenants.

• Racism is normal in the US
• Racial reform through traditional means is too slow and thus
• there is a need for radical reform

Race is the main idea discussed within critical race theory. However, race is not just one’s appearance or genetic phenotype. Ladson-Billings states this because who is considered white has changed throughout US history. For example, Mexicans at one time were considered white. Therefore, there is more to race than biology as race is also a social construct. Essentially, one goal of critical race theory is to break the subordination of blacks to whites by changing the dynamics of law and power even though what is defined as white has been fluid throughout history.

For critical race theory scholars, a major problem with America is that “Whiteness” is positioned as normative and everyone is categorized or ranked according to how well they align with the norms of this culture and people group. For example, a black man who goes to college, speaks American English, and dresses in a suit and tie is more aligned with being “being” than a black man who dropped out of high school, uses slang, and wears baggy clothes. However, even the black man who conforms to “whiteness” is a second-class citizen to a person who has the appearance of being white while having the behavior of the unsuccessful black man.

The goal of critical race theory is to deconstruct, reconstruct, and construct equitable power by exposing the injustice of “whiteness” as normative. All of the critical theories do this with the difference being from what angle. Critical race theory attacks race, queer studies attack everything that is normative, fat studies attack norms around weight, etc.

Traditional means of reforming the system are moving too slowly for critical race theorists. Therefore, they want rapid and radical reform. This is a polite way of saying revolution which is also at the heart of all Marxist’s derived philosophies. By stirring up racial frustration it is possible to radicalize people so that they push or cause rapid changes in the system.

Ladson-Billings also discusses the use of storytelling within critical race theory. Storytelling allows the speaker to name their reality and connect emotionally with the listener. Notice how there is no mention of reasoning or thinking as these are Western forms of communication. Sharing emotional stories of how individuals have suffered under racism helps to shame oppressors and elicit anger from people who are not considered “white.” It is difficult to refute the lived experience of someone who has experienced racism without sounding harsh and callous. It is also difficult to dispute the claims of individuals since one cannot fact-check them.

Examples of Race Relations

Ladson-Billings also shares that white people were the main beneficiaries of the Civil Rights movement. She supports this claim with the example of how anti-discrimination laws benefit white women first before people of color. Allowing white women to get jobs first helped their families which were probably also white.

Another example is Brown V Board of Education. Ladson-Billings states that this court ruling benefits whites by stopping the spread of communism in the USA mong frustrated blacks, it also reassured black WW II veterans of their place in society. To be fair the Soviet Union used to point out the racism in the US during the Cold War.

CRT and Citizenship

The latter half of the article focuses on “whiteness” as property. This argument is not unique to this article. Ladson-Billings’ point is that the US is built on property rights and not individual rights. A person was free because of property ownership and not because of self-worth. This is a problem because blacks did not have property but were rather considered property. Therefore, over time, “whiteness” becomes a form of property that provides privileges that others do not have.

Ladson-Billings then provides examples of how non-whites are pushed to the sides. Within the curriculum, black stories have traditionally been missing in place of the status quo. Another focus has been on supporting a colorblind perspective which may be something no critical race scholar would agree with. Lastly, there is an emphasis on critical thinking, reasoning, and logic in Western schools that discounts other ways of knowing.

When it comes to learning in the classroom black students are often seen as deficient. However, Ladson-Billings argues that this is due to poor curriculum and teaching. Another major problem has been school funding. Schools receive money from local property taxes. Therefore, schools in nicer neighborhoods have more tax dollars available. For Ladson-billings, this is unfair and a form of oppression.

Ladson-Billings ends the article with some warnings. First, she warns against letting critical race theory become watered down like cooperative learning and multicultural education. Cooperative learning was originally about helping students of color perform better but it was eventually reduced to workshops and lesson plans without regard to race. Multicultural education was originally about reconstructing society and examining the contradictions within it. This too was reduced by singing ethnic songs and eating foreign foods.

A much more interesting warning Ladson-Billings made was to protect critical race theory from becoming a tool of the radical left. This warning was not heeded and the political left has used critical race theory to stir up their base and to galvanize society in ways that seem prophetic after examining Ladson-Billings’ warning from the late 1990’s.

Conclusion

Ladson-Billings article provides a great overview of critical race theory and some main tenets and beliefs. The merit of this belief system is left to the individual to judge.

Decolonization is a popular term. In this post, we provide a simple definition of colonization to understand what decolonization is. From there, we will look at different approaches to decolonization within the context of education.

The ideas here are drawn heavily from the work of Hanson and Jaffe.

Definitions

There are several definitions for colonization. Colonization is viewed by some as outsiders who exploit political and economic systems to have power and authority over other people and or the resources of these people. Colonization can be so powerful that the colonized people may begin to believe that they are inferior to their oppressors in terms of knowledge and spirituality. This sense of inferiority is also known as a culture bomb which is the destruction of the people’s belief in their own culture.

As a result of this mental, physical, and psychological pressure many people in colonized countries develop a double consciousness. A double consciousness is the internalizing of the two cultures in which the colonized person finds themselves. Often there is an antagonistic relationship between these two world views.

Decolonization is the process of removing the influence of non-native worldview(s) within the context of a formerly colonized country and or people. Through this process, the people achieve self-determination and autonomy. Within education, decolonization is the determination of who is speaking for whom within the context of learning and confronting the positionality of ideas discussed in class. Decolonization in education supports epistemic pluralism, which is the belief in having multiple viewpoints within a discussion.

Approaches

Several different approaches are used to decolonize education. The liberal approach views colonization as a process of exclusion and misrepresentation. The answer to colonization for the liberal approach is to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion. By bringing a diverse group of people into the context of education multiple perspectives are ensured and the dominance of the colonizer’s perspective should be weakened.

The emancipatory approach focuses on the dynamics of domination and subordination as the main problem. The solution to this problem is the transformation of the political and socioeconomic structures. In other words, a strong overthrow of the existing standards and norms that may have been brought in by the oppressors. An example would be training women to assume non-traditional gender roles outside the home with the hope of destabilizing male dominance. Emancipatory approaches are supported by many social justice warriors of the current era.

The sentimental approach has a sense of nostalgia. This approach encourages returning to the way things were before the country or people were colonized. This look to the past encourages the use of museums and other judges of history to support this support for the past.

Emerging approaches are ever-changing and not stabilized. What is unique about this approach is that the ideas originate from people from oppressed groups rather than from outside this experience. Since these ideas are emerging there is no single definition in terms of what this group stands for.

Conclusion

Decolonization is a natural reaction to injustice. A desire to remove the influence of people who oppressed someone is a normal response. The goal here was only to show how this reaction may manifest itself within education.

This post will look at the article “The Politics of Liberation and Love in Privileged Classrooms” by Susannah Livingston. In short, this article addresses bringing critical pedagogy into classrooms of children from privileged homes enrolled in elite private schools. The author’s primary thesis is that critical pedagogy must be brought into every educational space including the space of the rich and well-to-do.

The thesis makes a strong assumption in that it is implied here that there can be no dissent from critical pedagogy since the author claims that every classroom must have critical pedagogy. This makes one wonder what will happen if people disagree.

After making such a sweeping statement of the use and value of critical pedagogy. The author provides two main questions that they want to address in this paper.

1. Is it ethical to bring in a framework designed for the downtrodden into a place of privilege?
2.  Will praxis take place in this setting?

It might be difficult to understand question 2 at this moment. Essentially, the author is wondering if rich kids will use their privilege to help the oppressed.

Freeing the Bourgeoisie

According to the author, critical pedagogy for privileged kids is about connecting them with the unfortunate and downtrodden. Friere expresses the idea that to be truly human is to be politically conscious, which is to say that a person is fully human when they are aware of the injustice and oppression in the world. Therefore, for the paper’s author, who is also a teacher in an elite private school, awakening privileged kids and making them aware of the social injustice of the world is critical in making these kids fully human.

The point made above helps one to understand why proponents of critical pedagogy are so adamant about what they are doing. They are truly convinced that they are enlightening the world with their crusade of fighting for the oppressed and downtrodden while also opening the eyes of students in particular to the injustice of the world. Doing this is not only doing a good deed but supposedly making people fully human again as if this was lost at one time. According to the author, if critical pedagogy is not in the classroom then the children are alienated from who they are which is a person who needs to be politically conscious.

The author also speaks on the important role of praxis. Praxis is the implementation of critical pedagogy, which means helping the downtrodden not only by providing support but also by organizing and awakening them as well. Praxis is critical in the author’s eyes because stopping the cycle of reproducing dehumanized students (not politically conscious) is necessary. The author believes that there is a strong need to de-normalize private education. Norms or the status quo is always a target of any critical study as it is the norms that guide and reproduce the current society. Queer studies in particular is a direct assault on any form of norms at all and this is not limited to sexuality.

The article goes on to share the struggle between fascist governments and critical pedagogy. Fascist governments are always looking to limit critical pedagogy. This implies that anything or anybody who disagrees with critical pedagogy is fascist and totalitarian. Of course, this also implies that letting critical pedagogy do whatever it wants is not totalitarian to people who disagree. In short, freedom is defined exclusively within a framework of critical pedagogy, which sounds totalitarian when freedom can only be defined a certain way.

Within this worldview, teachers are undercover agents who are looking to free students from the dehumanizing unjust system that they are subject to. Again, this is surprising that teachers, who mostly are government employees, are actively supposed to be trying to bring revolution to the government they are employed for. Even if parents and the local community may be at odds with this subversive motivation of educators.

The author goes on to share that repression must be resisted by teachers who must have and use tools to fight the status quo or what is considered normal. The idea of repression comes from Marcuse in which he states that the left should be tolerated while the right should be repressed. In other words, there are no right-winged leanings among teachers that are tolerable as all teachers should be fighting for revolution.

The implementation of Friere’s ideas is supposed to lead to a non-stratified society. A society that has no stratification implies there is no social mobility. If such a society is possible, it would be a society in which there are almost no differences and nothing to essentially strive for long-term. How people, especially highly motivated ambitious people, could be satisfied in such a system, is not explained. As people have varying degrees of talent and ability it seems unlikely that equality is possible since the driven and talented rise to the top in many instances.

Another premise that the author makes is about the focus on the group over the individual. The author is convinced that the individual should be below or submissive to the group. The problem with this is whether it applies in all situations at all times. There are examples of the group oppressing the individual. In addition, generally, it is easier for a group of people to take away the rights of others over a small handful taking away the rights of the majority. Even in places where a small cadre of people control the country they rely on a network of others who cooperate with them to maintain the status quo as seen in North Korea and China, two countries that support many of the ideas of the author at one time or another in their past. Supposedly, critical pedagogy is about connections between people within the framework of power and place, however, this seems to apply only when people agree with the proponents of critical pedagogy.

Student Reactions

Livingston also explains the reaction of privileged students to exposure to social justice matters through critical pedagogy. Some of the students would attempt to frame the injustice as abstract or they showed a lack of awareness in the manner. This reaction is an example of epistemic pushback in which a person tries to disarm an argument by feigning ignorance to avoid engaging in an uncomfortable discussion.

Other ways in which students react include showing guilt and anger when they hear about the suffering of the marginalized. Whether this is genuine or not is not shared. The last way students deal with the learning of injustice is to develop a savior complex in which they want to rescue the downtrodden. Such an approach is not unique to children and has been demonstrated by others as well.

Despite these reactions that the author documents in her paper. The author goes on to claim that bringing critical pedagogy into the classroom is relieving for many students. This may be true, however, the author never gives numbers on how many students were upset or relieved from this experience so there is no way to determine the success or failure of incorporating this approach into the classroom. 

Curricular Views

The author clearly explains that the curriculum needs to be modified to incorporate social justice into it. However, there is no discussion on what to remove to achieve this. Should students have less PE? Perhaps science should be removed? In practice, critical pedagogy is more of a worldview than a new academic subject. In other words, the existing curriculum should be taught from a perspective of the power dynamics of the privileged and the oppressed, which are concepts of major concern within critical pedagogy.

Another tool of education that needs to be addressed is reasoning. The author states that reasoning is a form of oppression as it is focused on competition and deemphasizes collectivism. She states this even though she used reasoning to attack reasoning. The main concern with this comment is that there is no evidence presented of the dangers of reasoning nor are there any discussions of the potential consequences of removing reasoning from the learning experiences of students. One can imagine a world of functioning adults who think that reasoning is bad and oppressive and have decided to make decisions using other techniques. Perhaps it is reasonable to have a segment of the population who do not reason as it would be rather easy to control and manipulate them. However, to have the majority of students undergo such an educational experience that denigrates reasoning might be destabilizing at a minimum to society and leave a population of people who cannot think for themselves at all and rely on impulsive decision-making.

Conclusion

Critical pedagogy is another approach to providing education to students whether rich or poor. The main concern with the author’s perspective is the demand for this approach to be in every school as if it would work everywhere. People are all different and no single approach will work in every context. Another concern could be with the idea that people who are not awakened through critical pedagogy are not fully human. This could lead to an elitist perspective of those who have embraced critical pedagogy and its calls for social justice versus those who question the merit of this perspective.

This post will provide a summary of the article “Queer Futurity and Childhood Innocence: Beyond the Injury of Development” by Hannah Dyer. The article addresses what the author believes are several erroneous assumptions that professionals have about child development and sexuality. By disrupting these misunderstandings the author claims that it will help children.

The author begins the paper by stating that there is a mistake in assuming that children are a-sexual and will soon be heterosexual as they mature. From there, the author builds this argument and concludes the paper with a critique of a video that makes the argument that being homosexual becomes easier once leaving school.

Introduction

It is important to explain several terms before exploring the paper in detail. The word “queer” usually means strange, however, in the context of queer theory “queer” means to challenge whatever is considered “normal.” Queer wants to unsettle all established norms even norms regarding homosexuality. For proponents of queer theory, anything normal can be considered problematic. Queer means deviance from anything normative whether gay or straight. In other words, there can be no identities as everything is always in a state of unsettled flux.

A word that appears in the title of the paper is “futurity.” Futurity in the context of queer theory is a criticism of current problems faced by queer people using ideas from several places such as historicism, utopianism, as well as death drive (negative views of non-traditional sex acts).

The author states that queer theory sees childhood as a place of heteronormative intervention. In other words, childhood is an assault on assuming that children will pursue traditional sexuality. The author provides a quote that it “is open season on gay kids” without providing any statistics to support this. For the author, there appears to be little support for raising children who are homosexual. However, this assumes that children are sexual which is an assumption that the author makes and is counter to the traditional assumption that children are not sexual.

Dyer continues by stating that early childhood theories avoid topics on sexuality because there is an assumption of innocence. The author disagrees with this and uses the term “figure of the Child” which is another way of stating this assumption of innocence. The phrase “figure of Child” is a term borrowed from queer theory. The word “Child” is deliberately capitalized.

For the author, one step in the reform of early childhood theories on development is to get rid of this assumption of innocence. This is because current theories supposedly reduce children to figures without complexity (things are always too simple for critical theorists). The current theories could harm children as they exclude the possibility of the child possessing a queer nature. However, no statistical support is given for this statement.

Another critique the author provides is her concern with childhood education wanting to stabilize and define queerness as an identity. As mentioned earlier, for Dyer, queerness is contingent and cannot be permanently defined. This is because the definition will change as what is normal changes. Since queer theory is always against normativity, its definition will change with whatever is considered normal. Right now, heterosexuality is considered normal so queer theory is in opposition to this. If heterosexuality were no longer considered normal queer theory would move on and attack whatever else is now “normal.” There will never be any fixed definitions for supporters of this theory for almost anything. For example, gender is now considered fluid.

Dyer states that queer theory provides advances in the care of children through methodology, pedagogy, and epistemology. For methodology in particular, queer theory can disrupt the assumption of sequential steps towards normalcy, which may not apply to every child. Queer theory can also help analyze how normativity is reproduced. Reproduction is a frequent complaint of Marxists with the complaint that the existing society wants to reproduce itself and one vehicle for this reproduction is education. Lastly, Dyer speaks of the need to loosen parameters around normative development as queerness destroys identity and does not support the development of identities.

Making Childhood Education “Get Better”

The final section of the paper is a critique of “It Gets Better” a video created to support youth with alternative sexual preferences. Essentially, the video states that having an alternative sexual preference will be easier as an adult. However, the author critiques this argument as untrue. In addition, Dyer criticizes this video for not taking race and class into account. As such, this video falls short of supporting kids who it claims to help.

Conclusion

This article provides an insight into what queer theory is and what it is trying to do. However, one article cannot speak for an entire field. The ideas presented here of overturning anything normal are shocking but may not be something that everybody in this domain agrees with. 

Repressive Tolerance is a famous essay by Herbert Marcuse in the 1960’s. Marcuse was a famous philosopher who heavily influenced the thought of the political left. We will look at the ideas presented in Marcuse’s essay Repressive Tolerance. However, it is important to mention that Marcuse’s writing style is highly dense and convoluted. Therefore, it would not be practical to call this a summary as his ideas are so difficult to explain.

The central thesis of Repressive Tolerance can be found in the direct quote from the essay shown below.

Liberating tolerance then would mean intolerance against movements from the right and toleration of movements from the left

Herbert Marcuse “Repressive Tolerance”

The quote above, which appears towards the end of the essay, summarizes what Marcuse is trying to explain. The left should be tolerated while the right should be repressed. The rest of the essay shares examples of this critical point in a highly difficult way to understand and appreciate.

It is also important to consider the context of this essay. It was written in the 1960s during political upheaval in the United States. Minorities were pushing for equal rights while at the same time, there was a controversial war happening. In addition, Marcuse was already an older man at this point in his life so he had seen the horrors of World War II and the right-wing fascist government of Hitler. In other words, this background played a major role in shaping his views on tolerance.

Tolerance Gone Wrong

One example that Marcuse uses to illustrate the danger of tolerating the right is Adolf Hitler. Through tolerance from other countries and even within Germany, Hitler was able to rise to power and cause untold chaos. However, Marcuse conveniently forgot to mention the untold terror of left dictators such as Stalin, Lenin, and Mao. Therefore, it seems that the problem isn’t so much the left or right of the political debate but rather the problem is people who use either the left or the right to rise to power. The danger isn’t the political position but the character of the person(s) who is in charge

Marcuse’s ultimate goal is to develop a world without fear and misery. In other words, he is seeking a utopia, a common left-wing dream. This can potentially be achieved through careful use of tolerance in which everything is not tolerated. Failure to do this could allow for tyranny to arise as the tyrants will use tolerance to take power.

Types of Tolerance and Political Violence

Marcuse also mentions two types of tolerance: active and passive. Active tolerance is tolerance that is granted to the left and the right. Passive tolerance is acceptance of traditional attitudes and behaviors. From these two definitions, it appears that Marcuse is criticizing both of them. Active tolerance is bad because it tolerates the right while passive tolerance is also bad because it supports only traditional values, which are often associated with the right as well.

Another general point of Marcuse is that tolerance cannot be indiscriminate otherwise it will be abuse. Wisdom is needed in determining what is tolerated and it appears that the left should be tolerated because they are pushing for change while the right should be repressed because they support the status quo.

Who Should be Tolerated

Marcuse also provides examples of when tolerance has been limited depending on the context. For example, he provides an example from John Stuart Mills who stated that tolerance for the selection of leadership should be limited to those with “maturity of faculties.” Another example is from Plato who suggested an educational dictatorship or a tolerance of leaders who have achieved a certain minimum level of education. In both these examples tolerance is dependent on social standing. In other words, the educated should be tolerated in positions of power while the uneducated should not.

Marcuse also provides examples of intolerance as well. He pulls several examples of heretics during the days when the Catholic Church had a major influence over Europe. Marcuse then goes on the mention the need people have for access to authentic information so that they can make properly informed decisions. In other words, it is not social standing that matters but rather the quality of information that is available to the people that matters even more. Therefore, those with quality information should be tolerated to make decisions while those without quality information should not be tolerated to make decisions. Unfortunately, determining what is quality information is another dilemma that can never be solved.

The Sharing of Information

Toward the end of the essay, Marcuse shares examples of how the way information is shared can influence tolerance. Examples included sharing positive and negative articles about the government in the same newspaper. This would send a potentially balanced message about the government. Another example was of a newscaster sharing a tragedy without emotion. Again, the way the message is shared can play a part in the tolerance that is perceived.

For Marcuse, truth is mediated by the environment or context in which it is shared. This implies that it is difficult if not impossible to be partial and unbiased. Marcuse does not say this directly but it appears he is alluding to it.

Conclusion

Marcuse is a tough read. He addresses several ideas at once and spirals back to them throughout the piece. This post was not a summary of his essay but essentially was just an attempt to try and organize the thoughts that Marcuse shared. The primary point of the article is that toleration belongs to the left while the right should be repressed or perhaps not tolerated.

This post will take a look at an article by Alison Bailey called “Tracking Privilege-Preserving Epistemic Pushback in Feminist and Critical Race Philosophy Class.” The authors’ main point was to identify epistemic pushback, provide examples of the tools of epistemic pushback, and share some of the associated problems. The context for the author’s views are taken from experiences she had as a teacher.

According to the author, the academic classroom is a place where there are unlevel fields of knowledge in which ignorance is produced. This position assumes that students are creators of knowledge rather than consumers of it. This ignorance that the author is writing about can take place when a student pushes back or disagrees with the opinion of another student. The pushback or disagreement can manifest in many different ways. One way in which it shows itself is when the concerns of a marginalized student relating to injustice are viewed as complaints. Pushing back in this way is dismissing the lived pain of another student. Within the scope of this paper, this type of pushback only seems to happen concerning social justice issues.

The pushback that was described in the previous paragraph has a technical name which is privilege-preserving epistemic pushback. Epistemic pushback is the willful use of ignorance by a dominant group to see the social injustices observed by marginalized groups. The author then provides technical examples of epistemic pushback including the use of critical thinking and shadow texts.

Tools of Pusback

Critical thinking is focused on the truthfulness or epistemic adequacy of an argument. In other words, it assesses the strength of an argument through the relevancy of the support and the development of an argument. The author considers the use of critical thinking as harmful to marginalized groups. The reason for this is that when epistemic pushback claims to use critical thinking it validates the pushback and has an unfair influence.

The author also compares and contrasts critical thinking with critical pedagogy. Critical pedagogy is focused on power dynamics and groups of people to seek justice and emancipation of those who are not in a position of power. Critical thinking in contrast is focused on the soundness of an argument. The author makes this point by stating that critical thinking cannot be used to dismantle a system that employs critical thinking with the analogy that you cannot use the tools of oppression to defeat oppression. Other ways have to be employed in order to challenge the views and opinions of others.

Shadow text is an attempt to share an idea or topic similar to the topic of the debate with the intention to change the course of the debate. The goal with shadow text is to move a person from their epistemic terrain (the topic they are debating and or where they are comfortable) to a weaker position. People struggle to see points of view that are different from theirs such as how men and women struggle to understand each other and people of various races struggle to understand each other. Moving someone from their epistemic terrain can bring a sense of discomfort for people. For example, white fragility is believed to take place when people who are white are faced with a position that challenges their worldview. However, anybody who has their own worldview challenged could potentially face a similar experience of discomfort as it is similar to cognitive dissonance.

Another concern the author has with shadow text is that it can block paths of knowledge. This can happen when people want to be convinced rather than accept the claims of people from marginalized groups as true. When people have to waste time developing arguments it distracts them from hearing the voices of the powerless

Problems with Epistemic Pushback

The author also mentions several additional drawbacks to epistemic pushback. Pushback is considered a type of manipulation called microinvalidation which are words and or actions that deny a person’s thoughts or feelings about their personal experience. Again asking for aspects related to critical thinking may be one form of microvalidation.

Epistemic violence is another problem with epistemic pushback. There are two types of epistemic violence in the paper and these are testimonial quieting and testimonial smoothing. Testimonial quieting is denying the credibility of a knower because they belong to a marginalized group which essentially silences them. For example, silencing the voice of a woman among a group of men because the person is a woman

Testimonial smoothing involves a speaker restricting their word choice out of fear that the audience may not accept or understand what they are trying to say. This self-censorship naturally weakens the individual’s ability to communicate. However, this form of self-censorship is common among the majority and marginalized.

Conclusion

Epistemic pushback is an important term to be aware of because it makes the case that tools commonly used in debating ideas are not acceptable within the context of social justice. Whether this is true or not is a matter for future debate. However, declaring time-honored tools such as critical thinking as being out of bounds within the debate of social justice is a brilliant move to protect the epistemic terrain of those who support progressive ideas within the context of social justice

This post will be a summary of the article, “Equity, Inclusion, and Antiblackness in Mathematics” by Danny Martin. The main thrust of this article is the author’s belief in the oppression blacks experience when they are learning math.

Martin makes several strong claims in his article using critical analysis. The word “critical” in this context always has to do with relations of power between the “oppressed” and “oppressor”. He states that math has held a privileged position within education. By privileged he may mean that math is held above other subjects in terms of importance. Naturally, there is no clear reason why math is somehow more important than other subjects except for perhaps its role in science and technology which are key movers of the economy.

Martin also claims that people of color are underrepresented in math. However, it is rare to find equal distribution of people in almost any field or discipline. For example, minorities often dominate sports without any complaints from people. Since professional athletes generally make more money than mathematicians focusing on athletics may make more sense in specific circumstances. For people who like the physical tools for athletic excellence, math provides another route to success.

To deal with the challenge of math supremacy and the underrepresentation of blacks in this field, Martin wants an aggressive and fast overturning of the existing system. He critiques strongly the slow incremental reform that has been used over the years as too sluggish and does not threaten the status quo. Supporting revolution is to be expected from Marxist-leaning writers as the current state of affairs is always one that is dissatisfying to them.

Major Movements in Math

Martin next breaks down how there have been three major movements for math reform in the US. The first was in the 1950’s which was math refroms in reaction to Soviet success during the Cold War. The next reform was in the 1980’s and was a standards approach in reaction to the work published in “A Nation at Risk.” The last reforms came in the 2000s and were the common core state standards. For Martin, each of these reforms found one way or another to exclude people of color from success in math. Inclusion was a goal of each of these reforms yet Martin claims that the inclusion never happened.

The inclusion that these reforms offered included marginalization or assimilation. Marginalization is essentially treating people of color as second-class citizens within the discipline of math. Assimilation involves people sacrificing their identity and or culture to be a part of the community. For Martin, either of these actions is not true inclusion.

Martin provides several examples of how the government has supported whites in math. Examples include GI Bill which allows whites to go to college and thus study math. Other examples include the New Deal and the Fair Deal. The latter two are not explained in detail in the article but were reform programs.

Violence and Dehumanization in Math

The article states that black students experience violence and dehumanization through math education. Violence is manifested by looking for deficiencies in the math ability of black students through diagnosing these weaknesses. In other words, if a black child learns that they are weak in math this is a form of violence toward the child as it labels them. Thus, math illiteracy was invented to exclude people of color from the discipline of math by telling them they were illiterate in math. Again, this is the opinion of the author of the article.

Dehumanization is not as clearly defined by Martin. However, if it is the same as Freire’s view of dehumanization it means that the students are not awakened politically to the injustice around them and the need to fight it. For Friere, if a person is not aware of their oppression they are not fully human. Martin shares Freire’s views but he did not define this term and that may be because he assumes his audience already knows this.

The violence and dehumanization that black students experience in math are examples of antiblackness within math. In other words, these tools discussed above are used to keep blacks out of math. Martin claims that math is a space for people who are not of color and that this has become a racialized experience.

Refuse

Martin ends his paper with an appeal to the axiom of black brilliance. An axiom is a self-evident truth or a claim that does not need support. In other words, the axiom of black brilliance means somebody is brilliant simply because of their skin color. This is conflicting given that stupidity can be found in all cultures and people groups. Assuming black brilliance is just as bad as assuming black stupidity given that there is a spectrum of intellectual ability in all people groups from dumb to genius. Mislabeling either way is a problem that should be avoided. Injustice on one side should not lead to injustice in the way. Performance rather than skin color should determine the success or failure of an individual.

Martin also shares the idea of refusal in and refusal of. Refusal in means refusing white benevolence and not learning math in the current system of oppression. Refusal of means refusal of current math practices. Although this is a catchy term it lacks practicality as math has a long multicultural history involving India, the Middle East, Africa, and other places of color in addition to recent contributions by Europeans.

Conclusion

Reading the works of critical race theory proponents is always interesting. The anger and frustration that come through their writing is powerful. However, seeing the world through a lens of race is just one of seeing the world. There are other interpretations of how math is taught besides the cry of racial injustice.

In most cultures, family plays a critical role not only in the lives of children but in maintaining the stability of society. By family, it is meant a traditional family of parents with their biological children. However, there are now questions as to whether genetics should play a role in the family at all.

Definition

Biologism is defined as a preference for biological inheritance. In the context of this post, this means the preference for one’s biological children. Critics of biologism state that this is outdated, old-fashioned, and even prejudical against other children who may not have a family.

There are additional critiques in terms of the patriarchal structure of the traditional home with a need to decenter this normative view for alternative approaches. in simple terms, male-led families with biological children should not be considered normal as it excludes those who cannot experience this. Some have even suggested that people should adopt rather than have their own children as this shows an altruistic nature that may be best for the larger society.

There are several reasons why biologism is not supported. People have made comments that family structures have changed. Today, there are many non-traditional family structures and there are couples who cannot have children. In addition, even traditional means of having a family are challenged through such things as surrogacy, which makes it questionable in terms of who child the newborn baby is.

One question that is asked is should genetics even matter when somebody wants to be a parent. Generally, this innately matters and this is a major criticism. People against biologism believe that parents should love unconditionally regardless of genetics. The world should be inclusive no matter the relations between people. The goal is to ultimately move people beyond family to a concern for the planet. In other words, the planet should be equal to or more important than family relations. this leaves little room for the natural individualism and tribal connections people have had throughout history.

Not New

Despite how fascinating biologism is it might not be a new idea. Plato in his Republic spoke about the dangers of family. Essentially, Plato’s concern was that when people have families they will naturally put their family ahead of the state. When this happens strife and corruption are bound to take place as people fight for their families. By removing families, people should be focused on supporting the government instead. In other words, instead of people fighting other families Plato simply wanted governments to fight each other. Moving the level at which conflict occurs probably will not stop conflict from happening.

Of course, governments need children even if there are no families and Plato had a solution for this. People would “hook up” through a lottery system and any resulting babies would be raised by the state. Children would not know who their parents were and the parents would have no idea which children were theirs because there would be a lot of hooking up to the point that nobody knew who got which person pregnant. One caveat on this is that Plato’s idea was limited to the leadership of the state or what is called the elite. Regular people would in theory at least still have the ability to pair-bond and have children in a traditional sense. Fortunately, Plato’s ideas were never implemented nor is there any evidence that being single and detached from a family is a path to world peace,

Conclusion

The main concern with attacking traditional families and having children is that it is hard to find another approach that is common and equally successful if not superior. There are examples of societies that struggle when they deemphasized or removed families such as ancient Sparta and extreme forms of Communism. Families have been around for all of human history and as with anything involving people there are pros and cons. Just because bad things happen sometimes does not imply that the entire model should be thrown out. The ultimate point is that people should be able to choose for themselves whether they want to approach from a traditional or alternative means.

Mad studies and Sansim are a form of Marxism that looks at power dynamics between those who are considered “normal” mentally and those who are not. As with all other forms of critical studies, Mad Studies wants to overturn the status quo for an untested utopia that has not been proven to solve any of the existing injustices.

Mad Studies

Mad studies is a field of inquiry that rejects how mental health has been medicalized and has become a tool of the pharmaceutical industry. Madness should not be pathologized as there should not be any norms for mental health. Proponents of this point of view call themselves “mad.”

Mad proponents are convinced that there is a need to challenge the idea that people experiencing mental distress need to regulate or control their feelings. One of the reasons they make this claim is that people who do not fall within societal norms for acceptable mental well-being can be discriminated against because of these fall norms. For example, people may lose job opportunities, lose a job they already have, and face other obstacles to success because of the oppression that comes with having what others consider to be mental health issues. In addition, people who are considered mad are also often labeled incompetent and or dangerous.

Sanism

The act of discriminating against people because of their mental well-being is called sanism. When individuals are threatened with sanism they will try and hide their mental illness. Other coping mechanisms can include self-criticism in an attempt to place blame on one’s self. Mad studies are focused on challenging the status quo in regard to mental health.

Mad studies criticize several concepts that are a part of Western culture. Neoliberalism is one frequent target and neoliberalism is an economic and social focus on the the individual and the expectation of personal responsibility. As Mad studies is a child of Marxism means that it will have issues with economic policies focused on the individual. Another issue is with personal responsibility.

Mad studies do not support the idea that people should have to control their emotions and behavior at all times. If a person is having a meltdown at work the people around them should be patient and understanding of this challenge. To go one step further, some proponents of Mad studies believe that self-regulation is harmful.

Other supporters of Mad people have stated that Mad people should be in the workplace to provide mental diversity. In other words, the workplace should include a wide variety of people with different types of mental health from people who can control their emotions and reason to people who have no control of themselves and cannot reason. This is considered a balanced workplace for Mad people.

Conclusion

It is a trying situation for anybody who is experiencing mental health issues. However, how well such people can be included in society depends on the situation. It is unwise to bar Mad people from society completely as it is equally unwise to include them completely without examining the circumstances.

This post is a summary of the article “Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy” by Gloria Ladson-Billings. One of the major contributions of this paper is attempting to define examples of culturally relevant pedagogy in the classroom of several teachers.

Problem

The problem addressed in this paper is multifaceted but can be summarized as follows. The author claims that success is defined in school for minorities by adapting their behavior to the expectations of the teacher and majority culture. For the author, this is poorly defined as meritocracy. The concern with adapting culturally for minority students is that they are not being affirmed in their own culture.

Galdson-Billings continues by stating that schools are guilty of reproducing the current system and thus reproducing the inequities of the existing system. This is a common critical pedagogy critique of the existing educational system. Therefore, students need to develop an awareness of the inequity in school, which calls for the development of a critical perspective or critical consciousness as explained by Friere.

With this background, the author shares the following proposition when she states that pedagogical practice needs a theoretical model that deals with student achievement and the affirmation of minority students’ cultural identity while also developing a critical perspective for challenging inequities in school.

The proposition above addresses the following problems

1. Student achievement of minority students
2.  Cultural affirmation of minority students
3.  Development of a critical perspective
4.  The need to challenge inequities in school

To put it simply, the other is looking for evidence of the propositions mentioned above in her research.

Questions

Galdson-BIllings lays out the following questions that she wants to answer in this paper.

1. What is student success?
2.  How can academic success and culture complement each other in settings where student alienation characterizes the school experience?
3.  How can pedagogy promote student success that critically engages larger social structural issues?
4.  What are the implications for teacher preparation generated by this pedagogy?

Notice in question two the use of the word “alienation.” Alineation is a term commonly used in Marxist literature to mean a feeling of estrangement or being marginalized. There is an assumption in this question that students are feeling alienation even before any data is collected.

In question three, the word “critical” is used. Again, the word “critical” has a different meaning and it means to question and oppose power dynamics. In this question, the author is looking for a specific predetermined answer rather than exploring the data

Methodology

Gladson-Billings collected data from 8 teachers who were considered to be excellent teachers. The method of data collection was done through participant observation in which the author was actively involved in the classes that she visited.

There were four phases to the data collection.

1. Ethnographic interview of the 8 teachers.
2.  Participant observation of the teacher’s teachings 3 days a week for 2 years.
3.  Videotaping of the teachers (this was in the 1990’s)
4.  Teachers observing each other videotaped teaching.

There was no direct explanation of how the data was analyzed but it can be assumed that this was a qualitative study and the result section is focused on summaries and the occasional vignette to provide support for propositions the other shares.

Results

Among the findings, the author shares that students struggle to achieve academic excellence while showing cultural competence. This may be due in part to who has the power to define academic excellence, which the author thinks is unjustly given to the majority culture.

Another major finding is that teachers must help students to understand and critique social inequities. The need to challenge social inequities goes back to the critical pedagogy viewpoint of the paper. Students must become activists to challenge the existing system. The author then shares several examples of students becoming involved in community activism through the support of their teachers.

The author then shares three propositions that emerged from her research.

1. The culturally relevant teacher’s conception of self and others
2.  How culturally relevant teachers structure social relations.
3.  Culturally relevant teacher’s conceptions of knowledge.

Proposition one stresses the beliefs that the teachers of the study had about students. These excellent teachers believed that all students could succeed, that teaching is an art, that they were members of the community, and that teaching was a way to give back to the community.

Proposition two is focused on social relations. Excellent teachers believed that social relations should be fluid, show connectedness, develop a community of learners, and focus on collaboration and responsibility towards each other all for critical consciousness. On the last point, the relations are developed to be aware of injustices in terms of power dynamics another key part of Marxist thought.

Proposition three addresses conceptions of knowledge or epistemology among excellent teachers. For these teachers, knowledge is not static, which implies it is relative and not fixed, teachers need to be passionate about learning and knowledge, scaffolding is necessary, and there should be multiple forms of assessment.

According to the author, culturally relevant teachers are teachers who demonstrate these propositions in their classes. The goal is to be culturally relevant for developing a critical perspective in the students.

Conclusion

For someone who is looking to understand what critical relevant teaching is this article is an excellent source. Not only is it defined but the author can provide examples from actual teachers in the classroom. Therefore, anybody can implement these examples and be able to show that they are a culturally relevant teacher.

This post will provide a summary of the the article “Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education” written by Gloria Ladson-Billings and William F. Tate IV. This paper is significant in that it proposes the idea of considering critical race theory as a key component of education.

The authors assume that anybody who reads this article is already aware of what critical race theory is. In short, critical race theory suggests that the world should be seen through a lens of power as it pertains to race. What this means is that those who have power use race to hold down and oppress those who are of a different race. This is most commonly used in the context of whites vs. blacks in the US.

In terms of the actual article itself, the authors clearly share the following propositions as the main ideas they will address in the paper.

1. Race continues to be significant in the US
2.  US society is based on property rights rather than human rights
3.  The intersection of race and property creates an analytical tool for understanding inequity

Proposition One

The first proposition is almost an axiom of someone who supports the Critical Race Theory view (CRT). Race will always be a major issue in the US because CRT believes that essentially everything begins and ends with a race dynamic. Almost all actions of injustice for blacks and justice for whites are connected with the dynamic of power differences based on race.

What is unique to the first proposition in comparison to the others is that they include several meta-propositions as listed below.

• Race is un-theorized
•  Class and gender cannot explain all the differences in school experience and performance

What the authors mean by race being un-theorized is that much of the ideas of Marxism, which laid the foundation for CRT, were developed by White Marxists who were focused on class rather than race and that they oversimplified race. Therefore, theorizing race involves adding nuance to Marxist thought in relation to CRT. For the authors, race is the main construct to consider when explaining inequity. To simplify, theorizing race means explaining the role of race in education in relation to experiences and performance of minority students primarily black students.

The second meta-proposition of the authors is that class and gender cannot explain all the differences in the academic performance of students. The authors support this point with studies about differences in academic performance and behavior when controlling for class and gender. Race must be a part of the explanation in terms of inequity in the educational experiences of students.

Proposition Two

The second proposition the authors share is that the US is based on property rights rather than human rights. The authors support this point with the reality that in the days of the early republic, only land-owning capitalists had full participation in society. They follow this with the point that a government that is focused on property rights is not concerned with the human rights of individuals since not every singe person holds property.

Governments tend to be pragmatic in that the focus on property rights is because property can be taxed. It’s hard to hide land and other large resources so the government protects property in exchange for protection of the property. The rich have generally paid more in taxes because they have more wealth that they develop from their property (or capital if this term is preferred).

The poor are hard to track and often have a smaller obligation in terms of taxes. To tie property rights to education the authors make the next point that places where there is better property have better schools because these schools get more money to spend. For the authors, this is a form of inequity. In other words, the areas of town with more money should share this money with other areas of town that have less. Better property does not imply a better education because all people are equal.

Proposition Three

The third proposition is not stated directly but the thrust of this proposition is a conclusion based on the previous two. Proposition three uses the idea from proposition one about race not being theorized and proposition two about property rights to state that the cause of poverty (lack of property) combined with poor schooling (lack of nice property) among blacks is a form of structural racism. Structural racism is a system within society that fosters racial discrimination.

From here the authors present several interesting ideas. The first is that white privilege is a form of property that is transferable, can be enjoyed, affects reputation, and can be excluded. In terms of transfer it is meant that whiteness can be transferred by having people accept certain norms (acting white). For enjoyment, it is meant that get to enjoy certain advantages in their education (better teachers, etc.). For reputation, things identified as nonwhite are stigmatized. Lastly, for exclusion, resegregation through such things as tracking or gifted programs is also a form of whiteness as property because these programs generally exclude black students according-to the authors.

Multicultural Paradigm

The authors then pivot to a light criticism of multicultural education. Multicultural education is the idea of getting all cultures to mutually respect each other. No culture is superior to any other culture. The authors critique multicultural education for not ensuring justice and becoming part of the existing system. The authors call for a radical critique of the status quo and thus of multicultural education. An incremental approach is never going to work for bringing change. CRT supporters generally disdain the current system and prefer radical change to incremental approaches to solving what they consider are systemic problems.

The authors go on to state that multiculturalism is attempting to please everybody, which is a futile effort. They then state that they are believers in the philosophy of Marcus Garvey. Garvey is famous in part for attempting to move African Americans back to Africa unsuccessfully.

Conclusion

Ladsen-Billlings and Tate provide an excellent introduction to CRT with their emphasis on the theorizing race within the classroom, pointing their views on the focus on property in a capitalist society, and showing how property and race combined can lead to inequality. The authors also state the need for radical change and call on current efforts through multicultural education is be inadequate. Whether this is right or wrong is left to the reader.

Ionia was a Greek colony in western Turkey founded around 3000 years ago by people looking for land and trading opportunities. This colony of several Greek cities has played a pivotal role in history in several ways. Not only is Ionia famous for rebelling against the Persians, but foundational ideas of science were formed in this place as well. In particular, a man named Thales played a critical part in the development of science.

Role of Greek gods

To understand the influence of Ionia and Thales, it is important to look at the worldview of these people. During this time, religion played a major role in the life of the Greeks. The problem with this was not that it wasn’t scientific. The other problem was the erratic and licentious behavior of the Greek gods. Below are just a few examples from Greek mythology demonstrating the vengeful and wild behavior of Greek gods.

• Zeus could not control his behavior around women and was notorious for his unfaithfulness to his wife, Hera.
• Hera would often attack the women with whom Zeus was unfaithful by causing the death of the woman involved or persecuting the children of these adulterous relationships such as Heracles.
• Poseidon, the god of the sea, raped a woman in Athena’s temple. The victim was then turned into the hideous Medusa by Athena for desecrating her temple.
• Behind the scenes of the Trojan War, the gods were at work, not to mention in the many poems of Homer.

This list could go on for pages. The gods were crazy, to say the least. People tried to appease the gods through sacrifices and work. This was not always successful, and people were always looking for ways to obtain security from this.

Looking Towards Nature

Due to the perceived inconsistent behavior of the Greek gods, people began to look to other ways to understand the world, leading them to seek answers in nature. Nature, in comparison to the Greek gods, was somewhat regular in its behavior.

A major proponent of examining nature over mythology was Thales, a sixth-century Ionian who was one of the first philosopher-scientists. Thales looked at facts and observations to understand the world. He believed in trusting his senses rather than the supernatural explanations of his time. This could almost be viewed as a form of atheism. Thales was a well-traveled individual who was also one of the first to take credit for his ideas by writing his name on them. Thereby demonstrates an example of individualism, which was unusual at that time.

However, Thales was not just talk. He backed his position with several major innovations. For example, Thales accomplished several mathematical/scientific feats. Such as the following.

• He predicted a solar eclipse in 585 BC. This was important because ancient Greeks viewed solar eclipses as a sign of supernatural abandonment by their unpredictable gods. For Thales to predict such a sign was utterly unbelievable and showed a regularity to nature that the gods never showed.
• Using what would later become Geometry, Thales determined the height of buildings such as pyramids by measuring their shadows on the ground. This, of course, was revolutionary at the time.
• Thales also used Geometry to calculate how far a ship was from shore. This was a groundbreaking discovery as such knowledge was important for ships always concerned with running aground.
• Thales was also one of the first to observe static electricity. He didn’t discover it, but he was one of the first to examine it scientifically.

The volume of work by this pre-Socratic philosopher was hard for people to ignore. His work encourages others to look beyond the supernatural to understand the world around them.

Conclusion

The Greek colony of Ionia was a place that contributed to modern scientific thought. In this colony, Thales began to look beyond the gods for answers and instead looked to nature. By doing so, not only did he make several major discoveries, but he also set an influential example of how people should learn about the world.