Monthly Archive for May, 2004

Bilingual Education Now!

A contemporary educational issue is addressing bilingual education. I think that schools have to embrace diversity and stay away from English-only initiatives. The fact is that the U.S. is a land of diversity. According to Ryan the United States was founded not with an official language because the founding fathers realized that the populace spoke other languages besides English (not everyone came from England) but rather with various languages such as Native American dialects, Spanish and French. Being the land of immigrants we must accommodate our educational system to addressing the needs of students that lack the skills in English. Research has shown that preparing these students in their native language first will better prepare them to be successful in grasping the English language. I think that the current issues that we have with bilingual education has to do more with the xenophobic tendencies of some. Perhaps the perceived lower-class standing of new immigrants has something do with it also. This is in contrast to Cuban families that sought refuge from the Cuban revolution, which were predominately from an upper class standing, and were accommodated by the local Florida school districts, and were rather successful according to Ryan. Another positive aspect of the Cuban refugee program was that students who only spoke English were also given classes in Spanish and consequently students became fluent in two languages from a young age. It is unfortunate that to this day many of the exclusionist policies that have marked society continue to make its presence known in education and unfortunately the fact is that to this day minorities still get the short end of the stick.

Bilingual Education Continued
An interesting experiment is taking place at the Lindsay Unified School District, where I substitute. At this school parents are given the choice of allowing their children to participate in a dual-language curriculum. It is amazing when you see children in second grade speaking English and Spanish perfectly. Many of the parents don’t know a word of Spanish but their second grader is basically fluent in the language. The students are enrolled in the program are taught every day in English and Spanish, so both languages are strong. I think that schools need to start moving in this direction; multilingualism.

Detroit Tigers lose 16-15

Detroit Tigers lose 16-15 to Texas Rangers!
Please Mike Ilitch, please Mr. Ilitch provide the Tigers with a few pitchers that dont suck ass for the bullpen. I am not asking for much. Go and scout some players in the Mexican League. There is plenty of talent in Mexico. Do something dammit! How in the hell did the Tigers blow a 10 run lead? HOW!!!???? It is outageous that the club is hitting the shit out of the ball but the pitching staff can’t protect a 10 run lead!!! AHHHHHHHH!!! The madness. The date 8 May 2004 will be a date of shock for me.

AND WHAT A DEMOCRACY!

Rousseau thought that representative government was an absolute farce. He says the moment you vote and give up your power to some other people, they begin to represent themselves or other interests, not the interests of the people. (laughter)
— C.L.R. James, *Modern Politics*
(Detroit:bewick/ed, 1973).

What do we mean when we use the term, ‘democracy?’

What does it really mean in this world at the dawn of the 21st century, when America is the sole superpower, and the United Nations is little more than her noisy instrument?
Every day, the Bush Regime promises it will “bring democracy” to Iraq, and one can almost hear the swell of the band, the flags rustling in the breeze.
But, what does it really mean?
We are told that democracy means ‘the rule of the people.’But, is that really the case, not merely in Iraq, but in the United States itself? We live in a nation where the ruling regime had the least
votes in the national election, an election, it should be said, where a minority of eligible voters participated.

How is this even remotely ‘the rule of the people?’

Nor can we just make this claim about the fitful Americans, for the same can be said about elections in Europe, in Latin America, and beyond. Voters are unreceptive to democratic elections, and a look at them around the world shows people deeply dissatisfied with the ‘democracies’ that claim to represent them.

The reason is simple: they don’t.

Canadian journalist, Richard Swift, in *The No-Nonsense Guide to Democracy* (New Internationalist, 2002), explains why:

Our current system of democracy - highly centralized
governments in which we are ‘represented’ by a class
of professional politicians - seem to have betrayed the
promise of self-rule. And the lack of real choice in
competitive candidates and ideas amongst these
professional politicians is a part of the malaise, it is
hardly the whole picture. The system of centralized
state power seems increasingly remote from most
people’s lives and it becomes difficult to believe that
politicians (no matter what their views) concerned
with the micro-management of society and economy
have any real interest in what is important to us.
[pp. 24-5]

That feeling, of political alienation, is reinforced by something which happens after every election: the
politicians say one thing, yet no sooner is he or she in power, when they do something else. It literally happens every time.

Swift explains:

A consequence of this is an extraordinary popular hostility
to not only the political class but government per se and
all its works. Conservative politicians have proved the
most adept at harnessing this hostility (often glorifying
the ‘honest’ market at the expense of the ‘corrupt’ state)
and using anti-government rhetoric to achieve,
paradoxically, the very positions of power they are
attacking. They are even prone to attack ‘big government’
at the same time they are cynically using the powers of
government to reward their friends and vanquish their
enemies. [p. 25]

American policy-makers no more want ‘democracy’ in Iraq, than they do in America. They want people in positions of illusions of power, who answer to American business leaders, not the Iraqi people. They want *market rule*, not popular rule.
Marx called the modern state’s executive nothing but “a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie” [Marx & Engels, *The Communist Manifesto* (Kerr, 1998) p. 14].

We talk about, and claim our fealty to, democracy, but in this country, as in much of the West, what determines who runs, who wins, and who benefits, all comes down to wealth. Who but the very wealthy (or those they support) can dare to afford to run for elective office? The US Senate is little more than a millionaire’s club. The two-party-endorsed men running for president are millionaires, who went to schools
for the rich, and come from well-to-do families.
When is the last time you heard a major politician even mention ‘the working class?’ If they cannot even mention them, how do you think they will even begin to represent them? They don’t. They can’t.
To talk about democracy, is not enough. It must be practiced. Its best practice is protest and dissent.

Mumia Abu-Jamal
4/11/04

[Read Mr. Jamal's latest work, *WE WANT FREEDOM: A Life in the Black Panther Party*, from South End Press (www.southendpress.org).]

Tabloid Mass Consumption

I think that tabloids are offering people something that they are readily willing to consume. The tabloids are following capitalist economic theory: make a profit by selling what people are willing to buy. If people are generally appalled at what some of these shady newspapers are offering then ultimately they will stop purchasing that item. This is comparable to the music industry. There are certain interest groups that are “disgusted” with some of the music put out by certain artists, and are ultimately unsuccessful at censoring this music, because the reality is that this music sells. I think that answer lies within the consumer. The consumer must decide whether a product is worth purchasing. If they really want this type of journalism to cease then they must stop feeding the monster. Indirectly I also believe that we all add to the problem in our own way. We are all interested in what the celebrity eats, how they diet, what they wear, or who they date. This is a problem with society. The average person doesn’t matter in comparison to the celebrity. When a celebrity dies, people mourn them as though they were acquaintances. When the average person dies a paragraph in the newspaper will suffice. An example that comes to mind is that of the athlete turned soldier Pat Tillman, who left a lucrative NFL career to join the military. Pat was killed in combat and now his face is all over the television, in the newspapers and on the magazines. Pat isn’t the first soldier to die in the war and not the last (unfortunately) but why is he more important than other soldiers that have also died in this current conflict. Is Mr. Tillman’s life more important because he is a celebrity? (Note: Pat Tillman himself would have detested the excessive coverage he is getting) The majority of the population might condemn tabloid journalism, but the truth is that we all contribute to it because we demand to know all things of people that are actors, musicians, athletes, political figures, and others that are in the media spotlight. I guess the media is assuming what “the people” want to see and read. I personally detest all these programs on TV such as Access Hollywood, or MTV Cribs or newspapers and magazines that dedicate themselves solely to talking about the ‘haves,’ and rarely mention anything of the ‘have nots.’ These shows dedicate themselves to talking about the wealthy actors/actresses, athletes, politicos, etc., and their lifestyles. If the media really wanted to portray themselves as representing “the people” they would look to present articles or have specials on the lives of individuals that personify humanity and promote change for the better in the world, not just show wealthy people and their houses, cars, and their overall conspicuous consumption.