Differing Political/Economic Frameworks For Making Sense Of The World

From Learning Activities Using "The Yes Men Fix the World"

Jump to:navigation, search

Contents

1 Differing Political/Economic Frameworks For Making Sense Of The World

“ At an international conference in Austria, about the importance of free markets, we [posing as representatives of The World Trade Organization] said we have a giant free market, it's called democracy, and the only problem is that corporations can't buy and sell votes, we want to open a free market and democracy by allowing people to sell their votes to the highest bidder. The audience of highly educated lawyers and government officials said, "You're right. Great idea. Let's implement it. Let's figure out how to do it." And they just accepted it because it stayed within their logic of the free market. ”
  — The Yes Men

Researchers at the Ohio State University can add support to ’s conclusion. In “the Irony of Satire,” they found that both liberal and conservative students thought Stephen Colbert was funny—liberals thought Colbert was being satirical and conservatives thought he was serious[endnotes 1].

The Fix the World both documents The ’s culture jamming satirizing of various corporate actions, and presents their thoughts about the connections among the various situations in which they intervene. In their analysis, they use economic concepts such as the “free market.” In order to appreciate their ideas, learners need to have some broad understanding of three of the prevailing frameworks for making sense of the economic and political structures of our world—conservative, liberal, and left—and how these perspectives view the “free market.”

The broad tenets of a conservative perspective involve the belief in a “free market” whose operations—buying and selling stuff—guarantees a good life for all. This philosophy focuses on individuals, who are assumed to act in their own self-interest. The “natural” competition among individuals and the drive of businesses to make a profit, maximizes the efficient use of resources and, the meeting of everyone’s needs. “Firms, to meet their own interests in competitive markets, must produce exactly what consumers want at the lowest price. One further implication of conservative economics, is that, since markets operate efficiently and produce economic growth, the government need not take an active role in the operation of the economy…most conservatives argue that excessive government intervention in the economy is the source of many of our economic problems [1].” This philosophy assumes “competitive markets were not the product of history, shaped by concrete political actions, but rather the natural form of economic organization and one to which all nations should aspire. In competitive markets, free individuals could work or reject work, buy or decline buying. Exploitation was ruled out by definition. If you work for $5 a day, that is your decision. You could just as easily choose to hold out for a higher wage or not to work at all[2].”

The liberal view questions some of the assumptions and consequences of following a conservative economic framework, while supporting the basic ideas of a capitalist free market. That perspective points to all the government services that allow businesses to function, from building and maintaining an infrastructure of roads and highways to preserving the existence of private property through the government’s public laws and judiciary. They point to a number of ways in which the free market does not give people “free” choices, from misrepresenting the products people are choosing to creating desires for unnecessary products through advertising. The liberal view focuses on individual blame for these situations, however, in contrast to systemic responsibility. So, individual company CEOs, for example, might hire unscrupulous advertisers. But the structure of advertising to create needs is not the culprit. They acknowledge that, for many, the “choice” to work, no matter how oppressive the job, is not really “free,” but rather, made because the alternative is to try to live without basic human needs, such as food and shelter. But, the liberal view attributes bad working conditions to individual greedy capitalists, not to the exploitative structures of “profit before people” capitalist institutions. So, the liberal perspective supports government intervention in the economy to ameliorate the problems that arise from individual corruption in the totally unfettered operation of the capitalist market system.

The left framework challenges the idea that the limited intervention proposed by the liberals can create a just society where everyone can develop their full potential. Although the left perspective accepts that capitalist institutions have created enormous economic growth, it also argues that those institutions cannot produce a good life for all, and actually have produced a miserable life for hundreds of millions, possibly billions, of people. The left perspective considers the history that has led some to own the factories and the banks, and others to own only their own labor that they must sell to bosses in order to live. Their philosophy is that this division can only produce the kinds of vast inequalities that exist in the world today. Further, they challenge the idea that a “free market” even exists in our current system of globalized monopoly capitalism where a tiny number of giant corporations dominate most markets, preventing any kind of real competition (Freeman, 2009). So, left economists “conclude that capitalist production and growth are inherently unable to provide for public goods, ignore the social costs of productive activity, and lead to economic instability[3].” They also challenge the “naturalness” of this arrangement, and argue that theft, deception, exploitation and murder, inextricably intertwined into the institutions of capitalist organization, account for these class divisions (i.e., owners vs. workers). They contrast this with a liberal view that the system functions well when regulated to eliminate the few “bad” individuals. From this, they conclude that other arrangements of economic institutions, such as social, collective ownership and control of productive resources, are both possible and necessary in order to guarantee a good life for all people in the world[endnotes 2][endnotes 3].

Lefty educators like me argue that a goal of education should be to have students understand the importance of developing their own frameworks for making sense of the many events and ideas and sound-bites and images and tweets that bombard us all every minute of every day. Being able to see the connections and patterns by which these individual pieces fit together is needed in order to figure out how to act to make changes that will disrupt the current design of our world in order to fix it.

The trouble is that the statistics, measurements, and field studies of empirical society and political…science are not rational enough. They become mystifying to the extent to which they are isolated from the truly concrete context which makes the facts and determines their functions. The context is larger and older than that of the plants and shops investigated, of the towns and cities studied, of the areas and groups whose public opinion is polled or whose change of survival is calculated… This real context in which the particular subjects obtain their real significance is definable only within a theory of society[4].

Finally, exiled South African scholar Chris Nteta [5] uses evidence from the history of his country to argue for the activist effects of the development of theory. He states that “revolutionary self-consciousness [is] an objective force within the process of liberation.” He shows how the aim of Steve Biko’s theories, and of the Black Consciousness Movement in South Africa, was “to demystify power relations so that blacks would come to view their status as neither natural, inevitable nor part of the eternal social order…[creating] conditions that have irreversibly transfigured South Africa’s political landscape[6].”

Following are some exercises and resources to help students think about how to identify which of the various perspectives discussed above underlies the situations and analyses presented. Anticipating one of the key points about media literacy that The make in the movie, about how language frames our ways of thinking, you might want to introduce this lesson (or group of lessons) asking students to think about what is private, what is public and how do we know? This discussion can set the stage for a review of a broad outline of the frameworks, since one of the great points of difference among them is the role of the public and private sectors. In addition, this discussion underlines the ethical arguments that can sometimes be underplayed in a purely economic and political analysis.

Unjust Deserts: How the Rich are Taking our Common Inheritance and Why we should Take it Back[7] is a superb resource that explores many philosophical arguments about who should own what, and who owes what to society. It contains a quote you might use to start the discussion about “public” versus “private:”

Who has made a larger contribution to the operation of General Electric—its chief executives or Albert Einstein or Michael Faraday or Isaac Newton[8]?

Further, some information and arguments that can be useful in the introductory discussion:

“…if today’s high earners are typically highly educated, this is clearly not because they are more intelligent or work harder, and it is not mainly because they were lucky in the ‘birth lottery,’ as some argue. Above all, they are highly educated because there is more knowledge for them to obtain and more opportunity to do so… All of this knowledge—the overwhelming source of all modern wealth—comes to us today through no effort of our own[10].”

Finally, in order to introduce a brief discussion about the various frameworks, I suggest asking students what they think the terms mean. I have found, even among my politically active adult students, many are not familiar with the set of ideas that shape those various perspectives. Depending on who your students are, you might decide to discuss the frameworks, at first, without labeling them, focusing on the different ideas each has about the free market and the public and private sectors, and individual and collective responsibility. Then you can ask students which framework they think would be labeled conservative, liberal, left. After examining the various frameworks, you can ask students to identify an economic problem, like homelessness, and discuss what solution would be offered by economists who hold each of those perspectives. Then, you can choose from the following additional exercises to further explore this topic.

1.1 Conservative, Liberal and Left

1.1.1 What is the author/artist’s political framework?

Political graphic artist Ted Rall, at a panel discussion a number of years ago, stated that you know a cartoon is political if you can tell what the cartoonist’s political perspective is, if you can tell which framework for making sense of the world the cartoonist has; if there is no political point, the cartoon is not political. Review the satires you worked on in the previous lesson and discuss what you think is the political perspective of the creator, and how you know. Also, do you agree with Rall? That is, if you can’t tell what the creator’s political perspective is, do you think that means there is no perspective?

1.1.2 Political cartoons

How does the following cartoon illustrate the three political perspectives discussed above? What is the perspective of the cartoonist? Do you think the representation is effective—why or why not? How could you change it to better reflect the different perspectives[endnotes 4]?

Courtesy: Tom Ferguson

What kind of comment is each of these political cartoons making about the different political perspectives? What is the perspective of each cartoonist? Do you think the comments are accurate—why or why not?

Courtesy: Dan Wasserman
Courtesy: Estelle Carol and Bob Simpson


One of Bruce Tinsley’s Mallard Fillmore cartoons presented his perspective of a liberal view of taxes (“Great Moments in Liberal History”)—a group of cave people are having a discussion where one suggests they divide up all the work, and the others refuse, saying we’ll just “tax” you—take some of what you create and give it to us. Grant Goodman and Beth Thoenen, from Belmont, MA wrote a letter to the editor of The Boston Globe (April 10, 2006) where the Mallard Fillmore cartoon appeared suggesting it be accompanied by a “Great Moments in Conservative History” cartoon, to be ‘fair and balanced.’ “In the first strip, we see young, healthy cave people kicking the old and infirm out because they can no longer hunt or gather. Wouldn’t that be hilarious?” What is Tinsley saying about liberalism? What is the political perspective of Tinsley, and why? What are Goodman and Thoenen saying about conservatism? What is their political perspective, and why?

1.1.3 “The Modern Little Red Hen” and “The Fable, Amended”

These two tales are another way of representing the differing economic frameworks for interpreting and connecting events in the world. Have students compare and contrast these stories and discuss which one represents which perspective and why. You could also have them write their own fables illustrating all three perspectives.

The Modern Little Red Hen

Once upon a time, there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered some grains of wheat. She called her neighbors and said, "If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me to plant it?"
"Not I," said the cow.
"Not I," said the duck.
"Not I," said the pig.
"Not I," said the goose.
"Then I will," said the little red hen, and she did. The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain. "Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.
"Not I," said the Duck.
"Out of my classification," said the pig.
"I'd lose my seniority," said the cow.
"I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.
"Then I will," said the little red hen, and she did.
At last it came time to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake the bread?" asked the little red hen.
"That would be overtime for me ," said the cow.
"I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.
"I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig.
"If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.
"Then I will," said the little red hen. She baked five loaves and held them up for her neighbors to see. They all wanted some, in fact demanded a share. But the little red hen said, "No, I can eat the five loaves myself."
"Excess profits!" yelled the cow.
"Capitalist leech!" cried the duck.
"I demand equal rights!" shouted the Goose.
The pig just grunted. Then they hurriedly painted "unfair" picket signs and marched around, shouting obscenities.
Then, the government agent came and said to the little red hen, "You must not be greedy."
"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.
"Exactly," said the agent. "That is the wonderful free-enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But, under government regulations, the productive workers must divide their product with the idle."
And they lived happily ever after. But the little red hen's neighbors wondered why she never again baked any more bread.

William P. Drake
President
Pennwalt Corporation
Presented at the 1975 Annual Meeting
The Fable, Amended
This is what really happened to The Little Red Hen.
Vice President in charge of Corporate Mythology
Pennwalt Corporation
Three Parkway
Philadelphia, PA 19102

Dear Sir (or Madam):

The advertisement entitled “The Modern Little Red hen” was most entertaining, but certain documents that have recently come into my possession suggest certain inaccuracies. Just for the record, here’s what really happened.

Once upon a time there was a little red hen who got a tip from a friendly rat that there was a sizable quantity of wheat in a grain elevator in New Orleans that had been illegally diverted form its rightful owners and thus could be had for a song.

Thanks to a family trust set up by Grandfather roster, which provided the little red hen with bundles of tax-free income, she was able to take such a flyer with ease, and so she did.

“Now that I own all this grain,” she said, “what should I do with it?”
“I happen to know fo a bakery that is having tax problem, “ answered a duck who make a nice living advising the little red hen and other well-to-do animals on such matters. “With a little nudge from my friends in Washington I can see that the IRS put the screws to them and thus softens them up for a deal.”
“Dandy!” cried the little red hen, tossing a half a dozen tons of grain to the duck. And half an hour and three phone calls later, the thing was done.

When the grain had been milled and baked into bread, all the animals crowded around to see what it would taste like. The little red hen took the first bite.
“Goodness,” she coughed, “this is the strangest-tasting bread I ever ate. What could be wrong with it?”
“It’s moldy,” said a mouse, who was an expert in such matters. “You got stuck with a shipload of moldy grain.”
“But what do I do now?” wailed the little red hen.

Once again, it was the duck who had the answer. “Very simple,” he winked, “just dose the next batch with a little diflourinated oxylactidaze. It doesn’t exactly stop the mold, but it does paralyze the taste buds so the customer doesn’t know what he’s eating.”
Now the cow spoke for the first time. “But wasn’t I reading that diflourinated oxylactidaze makes people’s hair fall out?”
“Never mind,” said the duck, “leave everything to me.”

But for good measure, it was decided to mount a million-dollar advertising campaign pointing our that the new bread was not only tasty and nutritious, but was also an effective depilatory. And the sales curves went off the chart.

Now it so happens that about this time the animals were experiencing great financial distress, largely because of the elaborate and costly missile system that had been set up around the barnyard to guard against chicken hawks. A few of the more intelligent animals had argued that since chicken hawks attach only chickens, it was unfair to make the pigs, cows, and horses pay for this system. But the duck had masterminded an expensive but effective campaign to replace the term “chicken hawk” with the term “animal hawk,” a huge and rapacious creature that carried off animals as big as a horse and ate them. This effectively silenced the grumblers, who no longer dared open their mouths for fear of being called anti-animal.

But the money problem still existed, and was in fact made worse because the little red hen, who had insisted upon the missiles in the first place, did not, as was mentioned earlier pay any taxes at all.
“I’m getting awfully hungry, “said the pig. “Remember how you used to creep into my pen to sleep when you got cold?”
“I’m starved,” said the goose. “Remember how I used to sit on your eggs when you went shopping?”
“Me too,” said the horse. “Remember hwo I used to carry you around on my back when you were a little baby chick?”
“Buzz off!” cried the little red hen. “You’re not going to sponge off of me! If you want bread, steal you own grain, grab your own bakery, and bribe your own inspectors. You’re nothing but a bunch of cheats and parasites!”

And so saying, she sat down to count her bags of grain for the hundredth time, breathing thanks that she still lived under a system in which diligence and enterprise are justly rewarded.

Moral: So bemused and bewildered is the public at large by tax-free corporate advertising, public relations experts, lobbyists, and bought politicians that an accurate account of the facts seems bizarre, tendentious, and even subversive.

You have my permission to make use of the fable as amended in anyway you see fit.

Sincerely,
Bruce R. Moody

1.1.4 Tiffany Ad: “Are the Rich a Menace”

In 1977 Tiffany placed the following ad in The New York Times:

Rich a menace 3f.jpg

1.1.5 Students research other examples

Students can find their own materials, from a variety of media and decide which framework underlies the material and why. If they find something that seems a neutral report, you can discuss questions such as what might have been left out of the report (like maps of a community may appear neutral, but they can’t include everything—did they leave in the parks but leave out the toxic waste dumps?). You can also ask about the context of the report—were there other reports that people might have found more useful? Why was this topic chosen?

1.2 Is any curriculum neutral?

This topic probably makes sense to treat in a section about differing frameworks for making sense of the world[endnotes 5].In my writing about teaching adults criticalmathematical[endnotes 6] literacy, I have argued—strongly—that knowledge does not exist apart from how and why it is used, and in whose interest. I’ve quoted Paulo Freire, that even, for example, in the supposedly neutral technical knowledge of how to cultivate potatoes:

…there is something which goes beyond the agricultural aspects of cultivating potatoes.… We have not only…the methods of planting, but also the question which has to do with the role of those who plant potatoes in the process of producing, for what we plant potatoes, in favor of whom. And something more. It is very important for the peasant…to think about the very process of work—what does working mean[11]?

In a school situations, there are plenty of examples from various textbooks that pretend neutrality, but on critical examination show clear bias towards the status quo. When something in a text appears neutral, it is because it echoes all the taken-for-granted assumptions about our society. Even a trivial application, typical in school mathematics textbooks, like totaling a grocery bill carries the non-neutral message that paying for food is natural. But, problems comparing actual grocery bills in poor neighborhoods with those in rich neighborhoods, for example, or problems comparing the costs of the packaging with the costs of the food, for another example, would be considered biased. And, mathematical investigations that could relate to issues of hunger and capitalism where tens of millions of tons of surplus food rot for the profit of a few[12] while approximately 40 million people die from hunger and hunger-related illness every year and “available evidence indicates that up to 20,000,000 citizens [living in the USA] may be hungry at least some period of time each month”[13] would be considered outrageously biased by many school boards[endnotes 7]".

Courtesy: Joel Pett

The National Council on Economic Education (NCEE), a corporate funded group that “spearheaded the development of the only widely recognized national economics curriculum framework,” is a clear example of a conservative free-market perspective masquerading as neutral knowledge[endnotes 8]. Mark Maier and Julie Nelson [14] compare the NCEE Standard #1 with their version, written from a more left perspective. They conclude: “Putting the two versions side-by-side highlights how the most basic-sounding learning standard in fact carries all of the hidden assumptions, omissions, and biases that characterize neo-classical economic theory[15].”

And then there is Stephen Colbert’s satirical riff on “The Neutral Man’s Burden[endnotes 9].”

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Neutral Man's Burden
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical HumorFox News

In addition, educator William Profreidt’s contention is that in most educational settings there exists “...a silly neutralism in which teachers believe they are just presenting facts and avoiding opinions or value statements. They avoid value statements because...they do not believe that such statements are susceptible to rational inquiry and verification. Of course, in practice they are transmitting a set of values, but one which is not identified as such, and hence is not open to critical inquiry[16].”

In teaching the various frameworks, especially if students do not have prior knowledge about them, it makes sense to wait before having students think about which perspective they think makes most sense. Also, I always ask students, after they have seen the packet of materials for my class, and after we have met a few times, and before there has been a chance for them to state their own perspectives, to decide what my perspective is, and discuss how they know. And, this is not a neutral conversation—at the end of it, they know that I have a left perspective. I also think, at some point, it is very important for students to take a stand, to make an intellectual commitment, and hopefully one that involves active participation in our world.

My teaching context is probably very different from yours. I teach adults, and I work in an institution in which students have a little more power than is traditional. Also, before I ask them to reveal their views, they have had a chance to test my reactions to their homework assignments, and we have discussed my views. I argue that this gives students the most power, since, if they disagree, they can decide to say they agree with me, or they can decide to challenge my views. I try to make them comfortable having intellectual arguments with me; but, in the end, the choice is theirs. I have not pretended to be neutral, and gotten them to reveal their views, when knowing mine, they might have made a different choice. Clearly, each of you is in a different context, and that, along with your ideas about the issue of neutrality in education, will affect your choices.

Howard Zinn, in a recent interview[17] gives his ideas about neutrality and social justice education:

Well, the idea of a social justice education is to involve young people in what’s going on in the world. If what’s going on in the world is not good, that is if we are going into war after war; if we are in an economic system that discriminates against the poor and against people of color; if we’re in a system where there are a small number of rich people at the top and a lot of other people are struggling for economic security. In a situation like that, to stay out of the social struggle, to teach young people to take their place in society—to become “successful,” to get jobs and so on, but not to rock the boat, not to protest, not to join social struggle—well that’s surrendering to conditions that are abominable. That’s a surrender to war, it’s a surrender to economic injustice, and a surrender to racial injustice, and gender injustice. It’s doing, of course, what the people who run the society want us to do. To me, teaching social justice is a necessity. It’s a matter of life and death for large numbers of people because large numbers of people are dying in wars or as a result of sickness and disease that could be cured by a small part of the money allocated to wars and military budgets. It’s a question of: do you want education to be subservient to what is going on and accept it? Or do you want education to be dynamic and to lift people up and take them out into the world and to teach students to be engaged with the world in order to bring about a society we can really be proud of[18][endnotes 10]?

1.3 Notes

  1. ↑ The Boston Globe, reporting on this research (April 12, 2009) includes information that another study of watchers of the comedy TV show “All in the Family” found that conservatives did not see Archie Bunker as bigoted, but, rather, sympathized with him.
  2. ↑ This guide gives the broadest sketch of these perspectives—what is labeled "conservative" here is often called " neo-classical” or “neo-liberal;" "liberal" Democrats who favor some government spending and regulation in the U.S. context are often neo-liberals in an international context. In addition, these categories are described in this guide in the U.S. political context—what we call conservatives are usually liberals in Europe and many other counties for example. Also, views that combine liberal and left perspectives are often called “progressive.” The key point for working with the ideas introduced in the film is to focus on the differing views of the “free” market and the expected role of government in each of these views.

    Elizabeth Martinez and Arnoldo Garcia explore the meaning of “neo-liberalism” as an economic philosophy further in What is ‘Neo-Liberalism’? where they contend that its main features are: the rule of the free market; cutting expenditure for social services; deregulation; privatization; and, eliminating the concept of ‘the public good’ or ‘community.’ Or, as the authors quote Subcomandante Marcos at the Zapatista-sponsored Encuentro Intercontinental por la Humanidad y contra el Neo-liberalismo, August 1996 in Chiapas: "what the Right offers is to turn the world into one big mall where they can buy Indians here, women there..." and they suggest he might have added, “children, immigrants, workers or even a whole country like Mexico."

    For a cognitive science view of ideas about these frameworks, see Lakoff (2008) where he develops the argument that in order to communicate across frameworks we need to understand the underlying values that structure the way we think when we try to make sense of the world. The moral value underlying progressive thought is “empathy, together with the responsibility and strength to act on that empathy” (p.47); and conservative thought “begins with the notion that morality is obedience to authority.” (p,.60)
  3. ↑ An excellent resource designed to supplement the standard economics or social studies texts that ignore, or only present the mainstream, more conservative perspectives on issues such as inequality, racism, labor, globalization, and so on, is Introducing Economics: A Critical Guide for Teaching, Mark H. Maier and Julie A. Nelson (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2007).
  4. ↑ For another critique of a general liberal point of view, Katha Pollitt (“Love me, I’m a conservative,” The Nation, April 6, 2009 refers to Robert Frost’s “quip that a liberal is someone so open-minded that he won’t take his own side in an argument.”
  5. ↑ For a detailed theoretical argument, and how it is connected to mathematics education see “Critical Mathematics Education: An Application of Paulo Freire’s Epistemology,” Marilyn Frankenstein, 1983, Journal of Education, Volume 165, Number 4, 315-339.
  6. ↑ When Arthur Powell and John Volmink and I formed the Criticalmathematics Educators Group (CmEG) in 1991, following a conference we organized in October 1990, we decided to use one word to describe critical mathematics because of our hope that one day all mathematics education will be critical. In the future we intend to create a web site for the group, which will include the archive of the five CmEG Newsletters we distributed between 1991 and 1997.
  7. ↑ Many more examples and discussion of this issue connected to mathematics education is in my chapter “Using Real Real-Life Problems in Teaching Criticalmathematical Literacy” for Words and worlds: Modelling verbal descriptions of situations, edited by Lieven Verschaffel, Brian Greer, Wim Van Dooren, and Swapna Mukhopadhyay for Sense Publications (2009).
  8. ↑ If you want to develop this topic with your students, you can find examples from the National Assessment of Educational Progress in the cited article, like “Which has been the most important in reducing poverty over time: (a) Taxes; (b) Economic Growth; (c) International Trade; (d) Government Regulation? Their correct answer is (b), reflecting “a conservative ideology that views taxes and government regulation as inherently opposed to and obstructive of economic growth—and the fair distribution of that growth—rather than as facilitating growth.” (p.26) You can have students analyze the NCEE’s test of economic literacy redoing the questions and/or answers from conservative, liberal, and left perspectives
  9. ↑ There are myriad such examples from any field. Another that can be used very effectively is the contrast between the commonly believed and the actual story of Rosa Parks, and why she refused to give up her seat on the segregated bus, an act that sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Was she just a tired seamstress, or an activist with a plan to fight for justice? Kohl (2005) critiques the “taken-for-granted” story, point by point, using Parks’ and Martin Luther King’s and other activist’s and scholar’s testimonies and research. “When the story of the Montgomery bus boycott is told merely as a tale of a single heroic person, it leaves children hanging or searching for someone to follow, when they should be the actors….the idea that only special people can create change is useful if you want to prevent mass movements and keep change from happening…. As a tale of a social movement and a community effort to overthrow injustice, the [real] Rosa parks story…creates the possibility of every child identifying her- or himself as an activist, as someone who can help make justice happen. (p.57)
  10. ↑ “Howard Zinn: You can’t be neutral on a moving train,” is the title of a documentary film about Zinn’s life that you might want students to watch as they grapple with these issues. (Deb Ellis and Denis Mueller, First Run Features, 2004, 78 minutes).

1.4 References

  1. ↑ Economics: A Tool for Critically Understanding Society, Riddell, et. al., 2008, pp.11-12
  2. ↑ Frank, 2004, p.36
  3. ↑ Riddell, et. al., p.14
  4. ↑ Marcuse, 1964, p.190
  5. ↑ 1987
  6. ↑ pp. 60-1
  7. ↑ Alperovitz and Daly, 2008
  8. ↑ Dahl, 1982, p.184, quoted in Alperovitz, 2008, p.126
  9. ↑ Alperovitz, 2008, p. 4
  10. ↑ Alperovitz, 2008, pp. 4-5
  11. ↑ Brown, 1978, p.63
  12. ↑ Mittal, 2002
  13. ↑ National Council of Churches, 2007
  14. ↑ 2008, pp. 24-28
  15. ↑ p.25
  16. ↑ 1980, p. 477
  17. ↑ Schivone, 200
  18. ↑ p.55
Retrieved from "http://www.theyesmenfixtheworld.com/guide/Differing_Political/Economic_Frameworks_For_Making_Sense_Of_The_World"
Table of Contents

Part One: Learning Activities Before Seeing The Film

Part Two: Learning Activities After Seeing The Film

 
Toolbox