6th Grade - Fitting In

Fitting in during middle school is hard, whether you have the "cool" gene or not. All of the texts we looked at for the sixth grade unit were centered around trying to fit - being cool - through our appearances. The Macklemore video focused on how shoes make us not only look cool but have athletic ability, the Abercrombie and Fitch readjustment video focused on Abercrombie and Fitch - a brand centered around the cool kids to look cooler, the Merchants of Cool documentary clip tried to identify just what makes kids cool - for clothing companies to use for their new trends, and The Style Quiz is designed for people to identify with a unique style that says something about what kind of person they are. I kind of struggled with this unit because these texts are perpetuating a message that is exactly what I would not want to send to my students. Fitting in shouldn't be all about appearances and what we wear - but it is. Showing the younger generations how important our appearance is in American society only reinforces that idea. Teachers are hard-pressed to change kids minds about the socially engrained idea about the importance of looks; so we should do everything in our power to try and change that importance. The only reason appearance is so important in our society is because we have been socialized to think that way. So, when discussing these texts, I would be very careful to steer discussion not onto: how does one become cool? but more like: how does consumerism control and affect our success in school, in terms of "fitting in?" I think this is a more valuable message for the students to get out of these texts because trying to become cool without already understanding what makes someone cool is nearly impossible. In the documentary the interviewees even said that it is extremely difficult to find these innovative kids who define what "cool" even is. I wouldn't want to help my students try and fit in to a system that is so unforgiving (because so little people are deemed "cool"). Instead, I want the younger generations to focus on how products maybe affect and control aspects of our lives - and how we as a consumer can control that. In the documentary they discussed how the trend-setting companies are actually getting their ideas from trend-setting kids. So, if the students are the ones who set the trend, they have a lot of control in what makes people cool.

At my high school, a lot of styles were designated "cool." Yes, fitting in was a big factor for middle school and high school kids, but fitting in didn't revolve around clothing and products. This isn't because we were isolated from the greater society or anything, it's just because we decided as a community what we would accept as "cool" behavior. As a result, the kids who could afford the coolest Jordans weren't the only ones who were considered cool - the kid who bought his shoes second hand was just as accepted. The spectrum of cool clothing and products and behavior was extremely large, and I think that made for really successful students, both in academics and in social aspects. If kids understood their possibility for impact on consumerism and fitting in, I think the standard for cool might be a little different - or at least broader.

7th Grade - Animals

Each of the texts for this week shed some sort of positive light on animals and their abilities. Rikki-Tikki-Tavi shows the intelligence of mongoose, Primal Compassion showcases the compassion of gorillas, the Blackfish trailer highlights the cruelty toward Orcas at SeaWorld, the New York times article shows the benefits of a population of trout, and the Scarecrow video also highlights animal cruelty in the way that we feed America. It would be extremely easy to do a unit on the importance of animals and all the fascinating things about them. However, I think that 7th graders and a lot of people in general already have respect for animals - the main reason animals are treated with cruelty is that people aren't aware enough about it for something to be done. So, for this unit I would make that a focus. Instead of highlighting the interesting or good qualities in different animals, I would try to get  my 7th graders to think critically about the way humans interact with animals, and ask them to question what we immediately see in regards to our treatment of animals.

Rikki-Tikki-Tavi, Primal Compassion, Don't Fear the Feral, and the New York Times are good texts to start out with, because their main purpose is showcasing those amazing animal stories. I could introduce the unit with something smaller like discussing the different qualities of different animals, and where we can see immense compassion from animals that we otherwise would not believe is capable of the feeling. I would also showcase the importance of animals to our everyday lives by using the New York Times article and talking about all the revenue that the new trout population brought to that small town. However, I wouldn't spend too much time on these texts, because I think for the seventh grade level it would be easier to discuss this idea of animal cruelty and the fact that its being hushed up in the other texts.

I then would have the students look at the Scarecrow video, and finally, the Blackfish trailer. The food industry is sort of out-of-sight out-of-mind for 7th graders - my brother is in 7th grade and I know he doesn't think about where the food on his plate came from. He doesn't grocery shop, so he has no concept of the path his food took to get to him. I would discuss this topic of the food industry and where our food comes from before diving into the issues held here. If nothing else, just getting the students to think the production process for their food would be a start to get them thinking critically about the food industry. I would try and get a discussion going about what the actual slaughterhouses look like. Is our world that different from the Scarecrow's world? How long do we think it will take for it to look like that? And, what can be done? Finally, I would look at the SeaWorld case and try and get a lengthier discussion going. SeaWorld would probably hit close to home for 7th graders because it is something they cherished as a kid - like Disneyland. It is easy to spot the animal cruelty going on here, so I don't think it would be hard to get the students thinking and talking about it.

8th Grade - The Prince and the Pauper

One of the things that was most striking to me about the texts we analyzed this week was how much my personal opinions wavered back and forth. I usually have a pretty strong opinion that I stay firm to in each of these units we are covering. There are compelling arguments in all of the texts we looked at.

The Seattle Times' article and letter-to-the-editor coupled with the NPR News article were particularly interesting. The Seattle Times guest speaker represents a large population of people who are working on minimum wage with little benefits, while also supporting a family. When I read the letter-to-the-editor, I was offended by the ignorance of the writer. To say that people shouldn't complain about  minimum wage because they could just move or go get a different job or not have children is acting as if everyone has an equal opportunity to move or get any job they want that one would deem as a "career." The writer said people need to get new skills that would be applicable to higher paying jobs. Where does one acquire those skills? Usually through education, and education costs a lot of money. So then one asks - where do they get the money for education? If all the people who are on well-fare or work minimum wage jobs for their only income went to school on scholarship, there wouldn't be nearly enough money in each of those scholarships to go around. The writer is completely disregarding the circumstances that these minimum-wage-workers might come from.

The NPR News article highlighted some interesting points regarding workers supporting their families on minimum wage. These families rely on programs like food stamps, which are funded by income tax payers. This poses the issue that a lot of people's livelihood is supported by other peoples taxes. Whether or not this is a good system to help people support their families, it causes a lot of people to resent these people on minimum wage who rely on food stamps to feed their families. So... where does it end? We need people to occupy these jobs, but we need people to be able to support their families. But we also need people to support the people that sell them their fast food, and they will be extremely disinclined to do so if it comes out of their pocket.

The Mark Twain short story is a prime example of someone becoming extremely successful in a capitalist economy, using only a bank loan to gather the necessary funds for his life, his wife's life, and his friend's life. However, this story is extremely idealized - yes, it does show the possibility of the "rags to riches" scenario, but with extremely unrealistic sequences of events. People can become successful off of bank loans, but the problem is no bank would loan money to someone with extremely low income or a bad credit score. So if the story were to actually represent a real capitalist economy and its ins and outs, the Brothers - representing the bank - would have never made a loan to such a man. They based their decision off of the fact that he seemed intelligent and honest - but how can one possibly place those characteristics on someone based off a first glance? So -- is a communist economy actually a good idea for America, like the movie trailer Inequality for All suggests? With the top 1% in control of the United State's business and politics, I highly doubt that sort of economy will show its face in American economics anytime soon.

9th Grade - Man vs. Man

The impression I got from the 9th grade texts is that they are not only focused on man vs. man, but also on the different ways of operationalizing men and how those categories affect the way men view each other. For some reason, I think people of the same sex feel a certain competitiveness with each other. With men, this competitiveness is more apparent than women. It is often manifested violently.

Football is one of the most physical sports that exists - and men love it. That's not to say women don't, but football is generally a sport that takes more interest among men than women. A lot of men like to play and watch football all throughout their lives. So what makes it so appealing? Well, it's an intelligent sport with a lot of thinking that goes into play-making that isn't necessarily always evident. But for those who don't really get the play-making, maybe part of the appeal is in the fact that it is so physical. Football fans love to watch hard hits; it's thrilling. Maybe part of the appeal of football is just to watch these extremely athletic men fight so hard to get the job done. Seahawks fans love Marshawn Lynch because he can fight through multiple defenders with simple brute force. If that's not a pure love of the physicality of the sport, I don't know what is.

So - this battle the New York Times article and the PBS visual essay highlight is a hard one to fight because part of what makes football football is the physical nature of the sport. Just like the Villapiano family, young boys are not going to stop playing football because of the possibility of head injuries, and parents are going to struggle to tell their children to give up on their dream. So, football is a success because it's a physical sport that showcases what is essentially an extremely organized battle between athletic men. Men especially love that, because of the competitiveness they feel toward each other. And to top it off, football is especially physical and violent. The NFL and NCAA have made rules and regulations to try and combat this issue - like if a player's helmet comes off, they have to sit out for one play. But football fans dislike these rules because it keeps their favorite players out of the game for a play that could be extremely important. I have trouble seeing this battle against brain injuries in football going very far very soon.

Chris Rock's "Chris Rock Tiger Woods" piece plays into the way men are operationalized and how that might affect the competitiveness that exist between men. Chris focuses on golf's popularity among African Americans. In general, the video showcases fantastically how unpopular golf is in communities with a high population of African Americans (Harlem). Chris is asking why - why is golf so unpopular among blacks? And, more specifically, black males? Well, golf is considered a "gentleman's sport"... and therefore is followed by a large population of wealthy white men. There's no wonder that blacks aren't drawn to golf. On top of that, golf is probably the least physical sport out there. It is mentally calculating and ensues very little physical competitiveness. Men in general are not as attracted to golf as football, possibly because it is less physical, and African Americans are not attracted to it because of the simple lack of African American golfers. The black bird-watching piece falls under a similar category as the golf video - bird-watching is considered a sport, and it is not physical at all. Also, like the article states, there are very few black birdwatchers. So again, no wonder black males are not attracted to bird-watching.

The news reports of racial targeting among young black males is another example of man vs. man and the way men are operationalized. It is possible that the later cases reported in the news article occurred not only because the teens were black, but also because of the competiveness that exists among men. Maybe the attacks were spurred by both competiveness and racism.

The Most Dangerous Game follows a similar theme, except without the racism attached. The game played here is completely based upon the competiveness of the commander; his sport would be entirely different if his victims were female. The commander was so attracted to hunting men because of the innate competitiveness he felt toward them.