This past weekend is memorable! Some high school teachers and schools are
doing a great job at teaching civics. At
least, given the numbers of demonstrators who took the time and expense to
“march for our lives,” the message, that democracy is about getting involved,
has hit its mark.
Now one does not need to agree with
their gun control position to find this level of participation gratifying. It is surely a sign that democratic values are
strong among the youth of the nation – at least among these young people. They are engaged, and for those who are so
engaged, because they experienced the shooting at the Parkland high school, one
can readily understand why.
Of course, one
needs to be careful. Nationally, most of
the young people did not participate or perhaps care about the protest. But those who did – and most of the tens of
thousands who were out there – did not have that personal experience that the
Florida kids had – readily went out and expressed their opinions.
This weekend has conjured up, for
this writer, some thoughts about why this past weekend happened and why it seems
to have been effective. And, in this
vein, what such events seem to highlight for civics teachers.
The first
thought was on the role of technology.
One of the speakers in Washington pointed out that with a smart phone, everyone
has, at their fingertips, an easily accessible library of information. This adds the potential for knowledgeable –
well-informed – activism.
Civics instruction at school should dedicate
time to evaluating internet sites. Yes,
there is a lot of “fake” information – much of it intentionally put there for
political purposes, but there is a lot that is legitimate. Civics teachers should, first, become
informed as to how to evaluate sites, and, two, instruct students to detect such
sources. They can also have appropriate
assignments in which students are called upon to use those phones to garner
reliable information and inquire into critical, civic issues.
But there is
another function that smart phone can serve.
This very weekend, MSNBC broadcasted an interesting documentary that, in
part, was critical of how mainstream media covered the civil rights
demonstrations of the 1950s and 60s. Hope and Fury[1] looks at
the role the media played in covering and interpreting the work of Martin
Luther King and other civil rights leaders (e.g., Stockley Carmichael). The main point was that the media bolstered the
potential of violence to draw higher viewership.
In one segment,
the point was made that in more recent coverage of “Black Lives Matter”
demonstrations, protesting recent police shootings of blacks, smart phone videos
illustrated the mostly peaceful actions of the demonstrators. Citing a specific example, a conservative
network made claims of how demonstrators were just wanting to loot and showed
chemicals the demonstrators were allegedly using for incendiary devises. The smart phone videos showed something else,
that the protesters predominantly used legal tactics – marching and shouting
their demands.
And the smart
phone is but one technological advancement – there’s social media, advancements
in manufacturing, transportation, etc. – that promise to affect not just
protesting, but all sorts of social engagements. One writer who is reporting on these
developments and their effects on the lives of regular citizens is John
Hawthorne.[2] Again, civic teachers should be knowledgeable
and willing to share with their students these developments.
The last
thoughts about this weekend has to do with motivation. This writer could not help but be reminded of
his younger days and the Vietnam protests.
It occurs to him that there is an overlap. In both cases, the fact that either the
shootings at school sites or the possibility of getting shot in Vietnam seems
to motivate citizens who are threatened in this manner to pound the pavement
and express their concern. Does this current
version have a lasting effect?
Time will
tell, but many of those cohorts of prior days have led lives that has been
affected by those earlier experiences.
Their demonstrations surely had an effect on American policy. One, the disruptions led to the end of the
draft; two, they helped eighteen-year-olds to get the vote; and, three, they,
as a model, helped encourage military families to band together to fight for
their mutual interests.[3]
Whether the weekend proves to be
effective or not, it did demonstrate that Americans can still have a political
discussion. It will be interesting to
see if the “pro-Second Amendment”[4]
proponents will try something similar or revert to more standard forms of
politicking. To further frame this
issue: while there is about one gun or
firearm for each American out there, only thirty to forty percent own one.[5] Let the discussion continue. Again, this is a treasure trove for civics
teachers. Unfortunately, it is one that
has come about at such a high cost.
[1] Aired on MSNBC, March 25, 2018.
[2] See John
Hawthorne, “Manufacturing Technology Trends That Will Change Your Life,”
February 5, 2018, accessed March 26, 2018, http://www.iqsdirectory.com/blog/manufacturing-technology-trends-that-will-change-your-life/.
[3] Rudy de Leon, “5 Ways Vietnam War Changed America.”
CNN, June 25, 2015, accessed March 26, 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/24/opinions/deleon-vietnam-war-effects/index.html.
[4] In full disclosure, this writer does not believe the
Second Amendment gives every individual the right to “bear” arms. That amendment was meant to secure the right
of states to maintain armed militias independent of the central government.
[5] Harry Enten, “There Is a Gun for Every American. But Less Than a Third Owns One.” CNN, February 18, 2018, accessed March 26,
2018, https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/guns-dont-know-how-many-america/index.html.
No comments:
Post a Comment