I taught English for 10 years anyone reading this “article” knows I should not do that today….or any other day for that matter. I could teach pottery or skiing, love both and probably would do better than with English, but they both advance better with a physical experience addition that someone with limited English like myself could never convey without a hammer. What I dream of “Teaching” is “open thinking and open dialog” if there is such a thing. I say if because if there is then I didn’t really need the quotation marks, but they are fun to use , so I do. Just to clarify, for me open thinking does not mean that there is no right or wrong or no authority (external, internal or eternal) (PS: I enjoy parentheses too). To me open thinking is looking at and discussing an idea or event from as many sides as possible. Judgment can not be reserved or denied during the process, but it can be held in tenderly knowing that there maybe considerations not yet addressed. These days extreme polarity seems to be the standard path. Even the “Center” is extreme these days. Take capitalism. Some people think it is the answer to all, others say Socialism. But is there such a thing? Is one better than the other. Some would say Capitalism made America the richest and greatest country in history. Others might say that it was due to virtually unlimited free natural resources land. Others might question the idea of free and say American Capitalists killed the owners and stole the land just like all the other emperors. The Indians,if I am allowed to use that term had a pretty good life going, they didn’t have fences or attorneys backed by guys with guns. But they didn’t upset the natural balance of things. Kind of cool to be able to just hike around and drink water out of the streams and pick berries and mushrooms.
OK so that was bad and we gave them casinos before everyone else, so that’s behind us, you say.
Fair enough, but what about the slaves? What about the all the countries that gave up all their natural resources to American corporations without really keeping any for their citizens? (to be fair it wasn’t just American corporations)
“Well those countries were paid for what was taken, its not our fault if their leaders wasted our payment. And they didn’t have the ability to use what we took anyways” you say.
But how did those “Leaders” get into power? And is helping an old lady across the road and letting her fall down the hill really a good deed? More importantly would Capitalism have been had such huge success if people without power had been able to negotiate with the same respect as capitalists. Why can one person refuse to work or rent their land for less than $10,000.00 a day, but another person can not even refuse to work or rent their land when offered $10.00 a day? The Indians (that word again) or Africans, or Asian, didn’t have money enough, or guns enough, or attorneys enough or education enough. So I guess we could just call them poor.
“So giving them free money, guns, attorneys and education is the cure.?” you say
Well that is probably not a good idea and I understand your fear, or concern if you prefer, but fear is probably a fair response. My point was and is not to place blame on one or the other. To me “Open thinking” is being able to look at more than one side, however comfortable to gain better insight. The monetary success of capitalism my not be due solely to its ability to motivate people to work harder and be innovative. It may have seen huge increases in wealth accumulation not solely from greater production. Clearly there are many more ways to look at “our” history, the idea is to look at them together or individually with goal of improving our understanding. Then using that to fit our morals and values with hopefully are good