Thanksgiving, Genocide, and Perspective

Before I begin my post, I must apologize to my (few?) readers. My long absence from the blogosphere has not been without cause. The past few months have been rather hectic with my student teaching and assistant-play-directing schedule. However, the business has been only part of the problem. The other part stems from a general lack of inspiration to write. I've kept my head down  for the last few months and focused on my busyness while taking the leisure time to unwind. Writing has not been part of that unwinding process until now. The five-day vacation (almost six if you count today's half day) for Thanksgiving has given me cause to pause, regroup, and refocus on several things. Thus I hope this may be the first iteration in a new habit of 
blogging and other writing. Now for the main point of this post.

This post is inspired by a picture that popped up on my Facebook newsfeed (is it even still called that?) today. Here it is:

My initial reaction to this plaque was a dismissive "Just another attempt to counteract Eurocentrism by dragging racism into the discussion." It seems wherever we turn, someone is counteracting the achievements of certain groups of people by blaming inequities on race. Souring the achievements of the Pilgrims by throwing in phrases related to Native Americans such as "genocide" and "relentless assault on their culture" seemed to be yet another example.

However, after some consideration, my attitude changed, in part due to the topic of our current unit in the class I am teaching. We have been studying several African genocides, most notably in Rwanda, Congo, and Sudan, and I have gained a new appreciation/revulsion for the horrors of this terrible crime. Still, is it appropriate to apply the word to the fate of Native Americans? According to the man who coined the word, Raphael Lemkin, genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group." Such acts include "killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." Can such a term be applied to the historical treatment of Native Americans? I do not think it is entirely appropriate, mostly because the treatment was not necessarily "deliberate and systematic destruction," at least not of the ethnic group as a whole. The overall effect of European arrival in America was the destruction of a large portion of the population and a significant blow to the culture of Native Americans, but I do not equate the experience of the Native Americans with genocide.

I feel I am walking a fine line here. On the one extreme, there are those who believe that the blessings of European culture and the advantages that American society has produced has benefited the world immeasurably while conveniently ignoring the harm caused to the original Native Americans and African slaves. On the other extreme, there are those who believe that the arrival of Europeans to America was the worst thing to happen to the continent and furthermore the advances of the Industrial Revolution have done more harm than good. I postulate that the truth lies somewhere in the middle (as it so often does). We can and should celebrate the triumphs of our national history, such as the landing on Plymouth Rock, the achievements of independence and a new Constitution, and the growth of a distinctly American culture. But we must also be aware that there are two sides to every story. Whatever benefits the Europeans brought to the Native Americans (not the least of which was the Gospel), they do not make up for the horrible way Europeans and eventually Americans treated the Native American people and culture. Keeping both perspectives in mind is key to a proper understanding of American history. Indeed, the dual-perspective approach has value in almost every area of life, from business to politics to relationships. Appreciating and building on the good while condemning and rectifying the bad is the key to progress. We would do well to take such a perspective.

The NCAA, Justice, and Overstepping Bounds

Due process is dead in sports. First it was Roger Goodell: Judge, Jury, and Executioner in the NFL; now it is the NCAA and the "Not-Quite-Death-Penalty" for Penn State football. I won't bother to recap the events leading up to today's announcement, because if you haven't heard the words "Penn State," "Jerry Sandusky," "child molestation," and "Joe Paterno" in the last few months, then you probably don't read the newspaper, watch TV, or listen to the radio and wouldn't read this post anyway. Since you are reading this, I will present my observations on today's announcement by National Collegiate Athletics Association President Mark Emmert regarding the sanctions against Penn State.

Before anything else is said, I must assure my readers that I believe Jerry Sandusky is a monster, a sick man who preyed on young boys to gratify his perverted desires, and his conviction in criminal court was justly deserved. Notice I said "criminal court." That is a key point to this whole discussion. Sandusky was convicted while enjoying all the rights the United States grants to accused criminals: due process, habeas corpus, impartial trial by a jury of peers, etc. Despite the conviction, I cannot bring myself to say justice was served. How can there be justice for the victims? They will live with the scars of Sandusky's crimes forever. Retributive justice can only do so much; at the very least prevent such horrors from happening in the future. Restorative justice is extremely difficult to find in such cases. I do not know where to even start on that count.

With that in mind, I turn to the sanctions imposed upon Penn State University for its connection with the Sandusky affair and cover-up. They are as follows: 1) Probation for five years, 2) $60 million fine to be used for child abuse prevention and recovery, 3) four-year postseason ban, 4) loss of 40 scholarships over four years, and 5) vacated wins from 1998-2011. In terms of justice, I think points 1 and 2 are legitimate. There was obviously failed oversight in the Penn State bureaucracy; five years of probation may help to restore some accountability. Monetary penalties equal to one year's revenue from the football team will go towards preventing child abuse from happening and providing aid to victims; such a penalty serves a purpose because it addresses in part the interests of the victims. However, the other three penalties have nothing whatsoever to do with the victims, the perpetrators, or enablers involved in the abuse scandal. Jerry Sandusky was convicted in criminal court and is obviously no longer at Penn State. Joe Paterno, who helped cover up the incidents and indirectly allowed them to continue, is dead. Graham Spanier (former university president), Timothy Curley (former athletic director), and Gary Schultz (former university vice president), who were all involved with the cover-up, are no longer with the university and face indictments in criminal courts.

In short, there are few if any people still at Penn State that were involved with the scandal or cover-up. So why does the NCAA feel the need to impose penalties on the university? This is not the first time the NCAA has punished a university after the perpetrators of the offense in question have already left said university (e.g. Pete Carroll at USC). Perhaps they feel they are sending a statement to other universities about the seriousness of the incidents. Sending a statement is one thing; needlessly harming people who had nothing to do with the situation in ways that do nothing for the victims is another thing entirely. The NCAA made a cursory attempt to alleviate the harm to current Penn State football players by allowing them to transfer with no playing time penalty, but this only helps current athletes who choose not to stay. Due to the postseason and scholarship penalties, the quality of recruiting will be severely reduced, impacting the football program for decades. Besides the football program, the university and surrounding community will be negatively impacted by the reduced quality of football; football is a driving force for many area business in State College. None of those people who will be affected are connected with the scandal. Punishing them is unfair. And vacating the wins is merely a cheap shot at Joe Paterno, beating a dead horse so to speak (pardon the cliche). It serves no purpose other than offending and alienating every player who ever participated in one of those hard-earned wins. The victims are not helped at all, and it does nothing to prevent future offenses.

All these objections are merely superfluous in light of the main issue. That issue is the question of whether the NCAA is overstepping its jurisdiction to impose such penalties in criminal and moral issues rather than academic or athletic ones. Eligibility violations certainly fall under the realm of the NCAA, as do issues of amateurism and academic integrity. There are a variety of football and academic issues that the NCAA has the responsibility to deal with. The only connection this scandal has to any of those issues is that people involved in the football program were involved in the cover-up, people who are no longer with the university. The offenses were criminal in nature, and the last time I checked, the NCAA was not a judicial court. Therefore they have no jurisdiction in criminal proceedings, especially in the absence of convictions of the conspirators (excepting obviously Sandusky). There was no due process, no trial--just a dropping hammer. The NCAA, in its eagerness to dispense so-called justice and preserve whatever integrity it thinks it still has, overstepped its bounds in a knee-jerk response to a tragic situation. I suppose I can understand the sentiment behind the action, and I empathize with it somewhat. That doesn't change the fact that these sanctions do not affect the people involved in the scandal or the victims. In that regard, they are pointless.

There are no winners here. There can never be any winners where child abuse is present. There can only be support and care and judicial retribution. But no one wins. It is a sad world we live in. But there is also hope. There are good and decent people in the world. If one of those good and decent people had dared to get involved long ago, much pain and harm could have been avoided. We would all do well to remember the words of Edmund Burke. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

The Power of Story

Stories have the felicitous capacity of capturing exactly those elements that formal decision methods leave out. Logic tries to generalize, to strip the decision making from the specific context, to remove it from subjective emotions. Stories capture the context, capture the emotions. . . . Stories are important cognitive events, for they encapsulate, into one compact package, information, knowledge, context, and emotion. ~ from Things That Make Us Smart by Don Norman


I am currently reading several books given to me by my cooperating teacher for the coming semester of student teaching. One of the books is A Whole New Mind by Daniel H. Pink, a manifesto on the need for a change in focus from left-brain thinking to right-brain thinking in our changing world. The book is written from the perspective of economics and business, but the applications are much broader. I may perhaps provide a more detailed analysis of the contents of the book in a future post, but for now I wish to develop a thought that occurred to me in the chapter on Story.


Pink's argument regarding the importance of story in the modern Conceptual Age is that information, once the driving force of development, is now widely available and instantly accessible, thus making it less valuable. What is now valuable is "the ability to place these facts in context and to deliver them with emotional impact." This aptitude is known as Story--"context enriched by emotion." Stories lend meaning to information, enriching the lives of the teller and hearer alike. Story is perhaps the one unifying factor of all human societies. Not all societies have written languages, but they all have stories. Not all societies have advanced systems of mathematics, science, and logic, but they all have stories. With this in mind, I present two areas in which we may be more successful if we relied more on Story rather than logic and cold facts. (Not to ignore that logic and cold facts are important and necessary; they work better when combined with emotional relevance.)


The first area is education. There is already somewhat of a movement to emphasize a holistic, right-brain approach to education, but it has not gained widespread traction. The story approach to education is especially applicable to history. What better way to learn from history than by making an emotional connection to the events and people of the past? But it is difficult to make emotional connections with bland pictures in a textbook or dates on a chart. Presenting historical ideologies, events, biographies, and other concepts as an overarching story will provide more opportunity for engagement by the learners. English likewise can benefit from this approach. The rules of grammar can best be grasped by observing them incorporated into a well-crafted story. It is easier to remember stories than grammar rules, to follow models rather than instructions. Science and math may be slightly more difficult to use this approach, but it could still be done.


Another area in which Story is important--the focus of this post for Christians--is evangelism. I have taken classes in apologetics and philosophy, and they have been enormously helpful in solidifying the logical structure of the Christian faith. However, the arguments would most likely do little to persuade someone to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. It is my opinion that apologetics has more benefit in strengthening the faith of believers rather than influencing non-believers to make a faith commitment. The power of the gospel is not in the logic (although it certainly has logic despite what some agnostics may claim) but in the Story, the emotional connection that arises from understanding that the Supreme Creator of the Universe loves humanity--nay, loves me--so much that he humbled himself to become a man, walked a blameless life, suffered a horrific death to take my penalty for sin, rose from the dead, and invites me to be His son forever. That is where the power is, not in the brute force of logic. Evangelizing Christians would do well to remember the power of Story.

Where We're Going and Where We've Been

This blog post grew from an idea presented in my history class at Millersville this semester. The class is on America from 1877-1919, otherwise titled "The New Era." The class charts the developments in that particular time period that transformed America's identity in a single generation. The details are not relevant to this blog post, but the professor constantly emphasizes the "arc of history" and the importance of understanding the connections and ideas that link concrete facts and events. Yesterday in class, he made a reference to the loss of this understanding in the modern generation and its political and social effects. To paraphrase, the statement was something along the lines of "The realization that present problems come out of past developments, that history has usefulness, is vital to making informed decisions, whether political or otherwise."

This thought resonated with me as one of the reason why I want to be a history teacher. History is perhaps the most relevant subject of academia, yet it is often ignored, misinterpreted, or misused. The value of it to politics and government, economics and sociology, and many other realms of life cannot be overemphasized. The problems of today are merely extensions of problems in the past, perhaps different in form but not in substance. America can be viewed as one long debate about the relationship between individual, society, and state and between progress, problems, and government. Recognizing this fact and understanding the former manifestations of the debate is vital to effectively participating in the debate today.

For example, the major issue of the New Era was immigration. A major issue of today's political climate is immigration. Immigration both was driven by and fueled the transformation from rural agrarian individualism to urban industrial community. The problems that arose from such transformations are different than our current problems only in their particularities. Today we face a transformation from an urban industrial insular community to a global information-driven multicultural society. Immigrants and foreign countries both fuel and are driven by this shift. Understanding how America dealt with the shift back then (both successfully and not) can provide insights as to how to deal with our current shift. The problem is politicians specifically and society generally fail to look back to the past. It is hard to tell where we are going if we fail to see where we have been.

It is my sincere hope that somewhere out there are politicians that understand the importance of the historical perspective. I'm sure they are out there, but unfortunately they do not take center stage. Teddy Roosevelt captivated the masses by his appeals to history. What would happen if a modern Presidential candidate or Senator or Congressman would do the same? Perhaps he could correct some misperceptions about where we should be going by demonstrating effectively where we have been. I must confess that I am becoming more and more cynical when it comes to politicians. Therefore I have decided not to wait for one such as I have described to show up. I will take it on myself to shift the perspective of society from the classroom. After all, politicians reflect the character of the people. Thus I shall try to transform the people and hope that the government will follow. Time is short, but I must try. I shall continue chronicling my journey here, and I thank you for reading.

Reforming the Education System

This blog post was inspired by a classroom discussion in my Issues in Secondary Education class today. The question posed by the professor (based on some homework readings) was roughly "What skills are students learning from our grade-and-test-dominated education system?" Answers included, "There is only one right answer," "how to eliminate choices," "individual opinion has less value than regurgitation of inputs," "how to follow directions," and "learning is competitive." The professor commented that as teachers, these answers should give us chills. Most teachers teach because they love the subject matter, love children/teenagers, or ideally both. If the only things children are learning in school is the above skills, then the majority of the motivation for teaching is wasted.

Looking at our society, we can see how this education system is developed and the consequences of it. It is true that competition in the classroom prepares students for competition in the workplace, but should this be the norm? Is "survival of the fittest" really the ideal for an advanced human society? Perhaps a better ideal would be "survival of everyone with the help of the fittest." Encouraging and developing the cream of the crop is important for the advancement of society, but surely it can be done in a way that also fosters the well-being of the lower 85% in schools and workplaces. The main things those 85% learn from our education system are to provide answers that those in positions of influence solicit, to accept dominance by over-achievers, and to become set on "one right answer" instead of developing creative alternative solutions to problems.

Don't get me wrong; I am not promoting a discouragement of the success of the 15%. To the contrary, I want to empower the high-potential students, but the current systems is perhaps not the best way to do so. Focusing on grades and tests limits the creativity that comes from engaging with material for enjoyment's sake rather than memorizing answers for a test. An environment that assesses engagement and actual learning in ways other than traditional tests will naturally be more conducive to learning.

Unfortunately, the changes required to reform the education system to this extent would be enormous. But that does not mean we should not try. Getting students to actively engage in learning is the primary responsibility of a teacher, and in the current school structure, that is increasingly difficult. What specific changes need to take place, I don't know. Perhaps I will have a better idea once I am in the field. But for now, consider that changes should be made. If we work together, perhaps we can implement some before our education system is completely stagnant.

From Student to Professional

A lot of my friends are posting about this being the last first week of school for them and the accompanying nostalgia/relief/excitement/trepidation. While I still have one semester of student teaching following this one, I understand and share their sentiments since this will be last semester of "traditional" classes in undergraduate work. However, only two of my classes actually qualify as "traditional" subject-matter classes. The other three comprise the "professional bloc" courses that are the official teacher-training courses to equip me with the skills to succeed as a teacher. After having spent a class period in two of those three classes, I feel a different level of excitement and awareness, not just quantitatively but qualitatively.

Up until this point, I have considered myself a student, which I was. Each semester I gave some thought to the next semester's classes and so forth, not really giving much thought to life after school. However, with each successive professional bloc class I take, I begin to view myself as a teacher and a professional. Gone will be the laid-back-but-diligent (usually) life of a college student, the "easy life" as one professor called it. In its place will be the life of responsibility, work, preparation, and dedication of an adult, specifically an adult teacher. (Interestingly, I learned today that psychologically I'm still considered an adolescent. Go figure).

This professional life is something I am looking forward to, especially now that I have been thinking about it more often. Many of my future posts will probably be on topics relating to my teacher-training, so stay tuned for insights in that regard. For this particular post, I will leave you with one. In my Social Studies Methods class, my professor made the candid point that the job market is slim for social studies teachers. He said we must stop thinking of ourselves as primarily "social studies teachers." Even "teachers" is not sufficient. Primarily, we are "educators." With that perspective, we open ourselves up to not only more job opportunities but a better understanding of who we are as professionals. I will keep you updated on my efforts to develop that new perspective.

I'm Not Waiting for the Afterlife

Afterlife by Switchfoot

I've tasted fire, I'm ready to come alive/ I can't just shut it up and fake that I'm alright/ I'm ready now, I'm not waiting for the afterlife

I'll let it burn the way the sunlight burns my skin/ The way I feel inside, the way the day begins/ I'm ready now, I'm not waiting for the other side/ I'm ready now, I'm ready now

'Cause everyday the world is made/ A chance to change, but I feel the same/ And I wonder why would I wait till I die to come alive/ I'm ready now, I'm not waiting for the afterlife

I still believe we can live forever/ You and I, we begin forever now, forever now, forever/ I still believe in us together/ You and I, we are here together now/ Forever now, forever now or never now


'Cause everyday the world is made/ A chance to change, but I feel the same/ And I wonder why would I wait till I die to come alive/ I'm ready now, I'm not waiting for the afterlife

Everyday, a choice is made/ Everyday, I choose my fate/ And I wonder why would I wait/ Till I die to come alive, to come alive

Everyday, everyday, everyday, I still feel the same/ And I wonder why would I wait till I die to come alive/ I'm ready now, I'm not waiting for the afterlife/ I'm ready now, I'm ready now, I'm ready now, I'm ready/ I'm ready now, I'm not waiting for the afterlife
*********************************************************************************
This is my new favorite song from my new favorite album (Vice Verses for those who don't know). It got me thinking about the Christian concepts of heaven and salvation and redemption. Many times the emphasis on salvation is to keep someone from going to hell and to guarantee them eternal life in heaven. Those two things are certainly important and were the two main motivating factors for my nine-year-old self to accept Christ. Thinking about your eternal destination is valuable, but perhaps too much emphasis has been placed on the eternal future at the expense of ignoring the value of redemption for the present life on Earth.

Too many Christians just coast along in their lives, content to have the assurance of heaven be the sole benefit of their salvation. They demonstrate little difference in their lives from unbelievers. But a life that has been transformed by Jesus Christ should be transforming the world around it. If you tasted the fire, you should come alive. Everyday is a new gift from God, a chance to change the world around you. "Everyday, a choice is made. Everyday, I choose my fate." Choose to make a difference, to not just sit in the stands and watch. Get out there, make a difference, and come alive; don't wait for the afterlife.