So, we’re currently learning about the Civil Rights movement. Similarly to with our unit on the 1950s, we have a couple of small blog post assignments before we do our main project for the unit. Essentially, we have to connect a modern event to something from the Civil Rights movement.
We’re reading a novel called Dear Martin that discusses some contemporary events and issues related to race, and helped provide some potential connections between modern day America and the Civil Rights movement. I didn’t totally base my connection off the book, but the concept I researched was one that played a role in the plot: racial profiling, and the idea that black men are dangerous.
I went a little more general than I was probably supposed to with what my event connected to– it’s more just black history than specifically the Civil Rights movement –and decided to look into the history of the “scary black man” stereotype, and how it informed the questioning and backlash Terry Crews faced after coming forwards with sexual assault allegations against his former agent.
As you would expect, the stereotype has a racist and disturbing history– it’s rooted in laws from the 17th century that decreed black people face worse punishments for crimes, and essentially be treated as more criminal, than white people who’d done the same crime. Since then, more layers have contributed to building the stereotype, and even today racist media portrayal of black people is continuing to make the problem worse.
I wanted to keep this video a reasonable length and focus more on the history than what’s happening today, but I feel I should mention one key point I didn’t talk about: aside from just being stopped or arrested, unarmed black people (largely men) are often shot by police. This is a huge issue in America today, and plays a big role in Dear Martin. It’s also pretty much a direct result of black men being perceived as more dangerous or more violent than they actually are.
I think this problem is going to continue for the foreseeable future unless some solutions are put in place to stop it– for instance, better sensitivity training for policemen, or better media portrayal of black people and people of colour in general. Even then, it’s an issue so deeply seated in American society that it may take decades or centuries to undo, and might never completely go away.
While this was a very upsetting subject to research, I learned a lot of stuff I didn’t know about the history of this stereotype and racial profiling, and I look forward to doing my next Civil Rights-related blog post.
Now, I feel like both we, as a class, and I, personally, did a good job on the exhibiton. The end result was great, everybody put a lot of work into it, and we weren’t defeated by any mishaps we came across along the way.
However, after writing a blog post about the exhibiton, and then getting and absorbing feedback for said blog post, I came to a realization: I don’t feel like I really learned much, if anything, from that project.
That’s not to say I didn’t learn the subject material. I can tell you more about The Crucible than you will ever need to know, and I can do so using authentic fifties slang to boot. I had no trouble learning the content of the course– but that’s not really the point.
My main job for the exhibition was to be DRI for the script editing. I enjoy writing and editing, and I’m picky enough about grammar to go through and catch all the little mistakes that are characteristic of eighteen people trying to write one cohesive document. On top of this, I usually jump at any chance I get to do a writing based project– we’ve written a smatteringof essays throughout the time I’ve been in PLP, but for a class that’s half-English, there tends to be very few straight-up writing assignments, and when we do get them, they’re usually part of something bigger (as in this case).
Now, I talked a lot about the exhibition in my last post, but I didn’t really discuss the otherthreeposts that I made for this project– one about how good Stranger Things was, one about a drawing I did of a bird, and one that I want to talk a little more about now.
This particular post is one that I enjoyed doing, and which I put a lot of work into– but more importantly, it’s one that I feel I actually did learn something from. It wasn’t a particularly educational assignment; the premise of the post was “how to spot a Canadian”, in which I discussed a set of Canadian stereotypes and whether they had any basis in truth. However, this post also featured a video that I made with the help of some friends.
We did a whole year in PLP that focussedonvideo, so it’s not an unfamiliar medium to me, but it’s also not really my area of expertise. To use a similar example, outside of PLP, I take Film and TV with my friend Parker, for whom videomaking really is an area of expertise. Typically, we both use this class as a chance to utilize our strengths: I write and storyboard, and Parker handles directing and editing. However, this week we created a video that Parker wrote and I edited. Again, I’ve edited videos before– but it still felt like a challenge, much more so than writing, which comes easily to me, ever does. I really had to push myself in order to get results I was satisfied with, and I think this was something that actively helped develop my video-editing skills. Doing the Canadian interview video was similar– it forced me to actually do something that I would normally leave up to people who are better at it.
I think this all reflects two things that I talked about in my PGP. First of all, the ISTE standard I wanted to focus on, for which I said this:
The ISTE Standard I want to focus on for Humanities this year is the “creative communicator” standard. I feel pretty confident with my writing ability, but I want to try and expand my range a bit, and focus on feeling equally confident with different forms of communication, or with thinking outside the box when it comes to approaching projects and assignments. I think this skill will also carry over into my other classes and generally be a benefit to other areas of my life.
Second of all, the habit of mind I wanted to focus on, for which I said this:
The habit of mind I really want to focus on for PGP is remaining open to continuous learning. A lot of the basis of this course– doing self assessments, setting specific goals and making plans to achieve them, etc. –is stuff I don’t enjoy doing, or find frustrating, even though it’s important to know how to do and do well. I want to make sure I keep an open mindset and put my best efforts into doing well in this course, rather than immediately shutting down because I have to do something I’m not good at.
Both of these have the same central point: I want to take more responsibility to see that I’m actually pushing myself to learn and grow, rather than stagnating within my comfort zone. In my MPoL and TPoL last year, I delivered some goals that I think also both relate back to this point: learning to roll with the punches, and further developing my interpersonal skills. I think the fact that I needed to set and work on both of those goals reflects the fact that I don’t always make enough of a conscious effort to push myself.
In PGP this year, we’ve been reading a book that talks about setting and completing goals. Personally, I didn’t enjoy this book. It felt kind of frothy and unsubstantial, and when I went through the goal-setting exercises it contained, they felt equally frothy and unsubstantial.
WHAT I REALLY WANT
Make a “Top Five List” of what you really want—not what others (parents, friends, teachers, the media) seem to want for you. Focus on what’s truly meaningful to you. Write your “Top Fives” into sentences that start with the words “I really want.” Then turn each “want” into a SMART goal.
I really want to do well at school.
Smart goal: I will get no lower than a B in any of my classes this term, and in order to ensure that happens I will do all my homework on time and use time-blocking to set aside time to do homework and study before tests.
I really want to get my full driver’s licence.
Smart goal: I will pass the test to get my N, and later my full licence, and to prepare for that I will attend driving classes, read up on driving laws and good habits, and practice driving with an adult.
I really want to go to business school.
Smart goal: I will get into a business school, and in order to do that I will get good grades in all my classes (see above), research the requirements for different business schools in Canada, and submit applications to schools I’m interested in attending before the application deadline.
I really want to stay fit.
Smart goal: I will attend either boxing or hockey at least three times a week, drink water throughout and just after these activities, and ensure that I am eating healthy foods.
I really want to get better at drawing.
Smart goal: I will practice drawing at least once a day, and use the resources available to me to research how to improve.
MY GOAL LADDER
My goal: Get my N
My deadline: Winter 2019
Goal ladder:
practice drive at least once a week
go to in-classroom driving class
go to in-car driving class
read any available materials to help learn the laws & how to drive
pass the test
MY EXTENSION LADDER
My goal: Go to business school
Deadline: September 2020
decide what schools I want to apply to
research business school requirements and tuition
attend any available presentations/informational meetings at school or in the area
save up money to pay tuition fees
get good grades, especially in subjects that will pertain to the programs I’m applying for (like math)
visit university campuses to find out more about different universities and programs
look into scholarships that might be applicable
apply for scholarships
do written applications for schools I might want to attend
get recommendations
decide what school I want to attend
I’VE EARNED IT
When I get back a good grade on a test or project I will celebrate by watching an episode of my favourite tv show.
When I get my driver’s licence, I will celebrate by going out to dinner.
That being said, I’m going to lay aside my dislike of this book for a moment and go through the forms we were supposed to fill out for the goal I’m currently trying to set. First of all, making it into a smart goal.
Now, I really want to push myself. That’s a big goal. The way I want to break it down for now is with the assignment we’re currently doing for socials, which is another set of blog posts like the ones we did for the Crucible. For my first post, I’m going to make a video– and while there will still be a challenge in that this video is totally different from anything I’ve add recently, it feels like I might be heading down the same path of sticking to one area, just with videos instead of writing.
So– my smart goal is to do each part of this assignment in a different medium that requires me to further develop a skill I would usually not jump to use, and to get out of my comfort zone in order to deliver a product that I am satisfied with, and which I feel taught me something.
Second, a goal ladder for this goal.
– identify some skills/mediums which I want to further develop
– make a plan to incorporate said skills/mediums into this assignment
– use practice or research or ask for help in order to improve at said skills/mediums
– create a final product using said skills/mediums to a degree that I am happy with
Third, rewarding myself. I struggled coming up with rewards or celebrations that seemed appropriate for my other goals, and I find myself in a similar situation with this one– the reward for me, if any, is doing well on my work. However, because I’d like to follow the instructions here as clearly as possible, when have completed this series of assignments, and if I feel that I’m sticking to my goal and have learned something, I will celebrate by making a batch of cookies.
Going forth into the second half of the year, I’m hoping to apply my larger goal in everything I do– hockey, boxing, drawing, driving. I want to come back for my TPoL able to say that I’ve really improved and grown this year, both in this class and in the rest of my life.
So, it’s wintertime again. Christmas and New Year’s have passed, MPOLs are fast approaching, snow is welcome to fall anytime now, and our class has completed yet another Winter Exhibition . This year, our task was significantly different from previous years. First of all, we were working all together as a class in a sort of giant group project. Second, instead of coming up with an idea or solution to a problem and pitching it, we took all our learning from the unit we just did in Humanities and transformed it into an interactive performance piece.
As you might expect, this was quite the mammoth task. The last time we all had to work together as a class devolved into Lord of the Flies-style anarchy, so our general outlook going into this project was perhaps a little bleak. However, this time we were able to overcome our past failures and work together successfully.
We started out by assessing the constraints of the project and the information we had to incorporate. The subject matter we’d been studying had three main layers– the events of the Salem Witch Trials as portrayed in The Crucible; the communist witch hunt that took place in the 1950s (which was our main focus); and how both of the above connect to today. Our job as a class was to create and perform a cohesive story that clearly showed what was going on in the 1950s, while also connecting it back to the 1600s and forward to today. It also needed to have audience interaction throughout every section.
Based on this information, we began to plan out exactly what we were going to do, and divide up responsibilities for carrying out said plan.
We divided up our exhibition plan into seven stations, and related each station back to one or more major themes of our project.
The first station would show a soldier returning from WWII, and outline the benefits of the GI Bill.
The second station would show the soldier now in a tableau of typical suburban life, possibly a family buying a new appliance, to show the conformism and consumerism dominant in 1950s suburbia.
The third station would show the soldier being drafted for the Korean War, torn away from his happy suburban existence and not understanding why he had to fight in this war.
The fourth station would show an anti-communist rally, a sign of the public really starting to be aware of and unhappy about communism in America.
The fifth station would show the effects of the communist witch hunt and blacklist on people working in Hollywood (then Hollywoodland), who were largely targeted as potential communists.
The sixth station would show an alleged communist on trial by Senator Joseph McCarthy, a prominent anti-communist figure at the time, and the Chief Counsel Joseph Welch.
More About Joseph McCarthy
McCarthyism was the practice of accusing or condemning people with insufficient evidence, usually of subversion (although the term is also used more generally). McCarthyism came about as part of the red scare, and essentially consisted of a communist witch hunt, focussed on government officials or public figures like Hollywood stars and directors. The name was derived from that of Joseph McCarthy, a US senator who rose to power in 1950, and started the practice of McCarthyism in an effort to eradicate the communist spies he believed had infiltrated the US government. Prior to, and perhaps contributing to, the rise of McCarthyism, a few communist spies had already been discovered, notably Alger Hiss. The general public was very split on whether or not they supported McCarthy– many believed in his methods, and thought he was doing great things for America, but others found him to be extremist and unfair. Those who disliked McCarthy looked to the then-president, Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, to stop him from accusing or condemning people unfairly or without evidence. However, for the majority of McCarthy’s reign Eisenhower did little to either support or stop him, and was said to outright refuse to engage with or sometimes even mention him. McCarthy’s power began to fall apart in 1954, when he started investigating and accusing people within the US army and administration, and Eisenhower was forced to address McCarthyism and attempt to bring it to an end. The US army worked to discredit Roy Cohn, a lawyer involved in McCarthy’s investigations, and Cohn’s assistant David Schine. McCarthy and Cohn ended up being accused of abuse of power, since they had worked to clear an easy path for Schine to get into the army, and be given special treatment, by use of threats and intimidation. As the final nail in McCarthy’s coffin, Eisenhower sent out a memo to the secretary of defense ordering that no department employees were to testify for McCarthy, regardless of who this would benefit, and that if McCarthy called them to testify they should ignore him. This wrecked the last of McCarthy’s credibility, and his career. He ended up turning to alcoholism, leading to his death in 1957.
The seventh station would feature an address from then-president Dwight Eisenhower, ending with the line “we can make America great” as an allusion to the political scene of today.
A lot of this was later changed or scrapped– the first two stations were melded into one and reset as a suburban family having a dinner party (with lots of jello), the Eisenhower speech was moved to the start, and the anti-communist rally was instead made a pro-communist rally. We also decided to have the Hollywoodland scene be set on a production of The Crucible, in order to allow us to directly include and comment on parts the play.
Because we were working in such a large group, we chose twoDRIs to be in charge of the project and make sure everything ran smoothly. (Both of them did a great job.)
With all our ideas and plans in place, it was time to bring our vision to life. This required two main areas of work: building the sets, and writing the script.
While everyone was involved with both of these things, I spent the majority of my time working on the script. In order to make it as authentic as possible, I researched some 1950s slang and peppered it in. I also did a fair amount of editing, and spent time memorizing my lines– most of which, interestingly enough, were actually just lines from The Crucible, because I was a part of the Hollywoodland scene.
That was also an interesting scene to make props for, because they were actually allowed to look like props. We had a Bob-Ross-esque forest backdrop that we painted ourselves, a Hollywoodland sign made from cardboard letters, and a series of trees– some real (and very heavy) potted ones, and some fake ones that we borrowed from the drama room.
We also had a bit of a stage set up to do the in-story acting on– in one unfortunate moment, part of it unexpectedly collapsed beneath me, breaking one of the fake trees, and causing me to scream a small amount of bloody murder.
This wasn’t the only technical difficulty we faced in trying to set up the exhibition– we also had to improvise a wall last minute when the mechanical walls in the gym didn’t work, leaving us to divide our stations with some choir shells and a massive amount of black curtains. However, things ended up working out okay, since having smaller “wall” pieces actually allowed us a lot more control over how we set things up.
The exhibition itself went really well– we had fourpeopleacting asguides who led the audience through every station and acted as a consistent character called Charlie Powell whose story helped tie everything together.
In the first station, the audience watched President Eisenhower deliver a speech about how America could move on from World War II into a new and better age. The speech introduced and gave an overview of many of the topics important to the later scenes. It also helped engage the audience and give them a window into the world they were about to be immersed in.
The audience then moved on to the next scene, where they, and Charlie, were guests at a house party being thrown by a suburban couple called Patrick and Susan. In this scene, the audience got to hear a little bit about the GI Bill, have a glimpse into the nuclear family, and get a taste of 1950s consumerism, as well as 1950s food. One of the audience members, chosen at random, was also handed a Polaroid picture of Patrick, Susan, and a blender. The pictures were taken on each run-through, and given to the audience immediately afterwards.
From the party, the guide and audience made their way out into the street, where a group of communistprotesters was trying to rally forces to support their cause. The protesters explained the witch hunt that was taking place in America at the time, and made the case for communism. In the end, they gave the guide a pamphlet about communism, which he then quickly handed off to an audience member.
From there, the audience continued making their way through the suburban streets, where they encountered twomilitary officers trying to recruit soldiers to fight in the Korean War. Charlie got into an argument with the military officers, and ended up getting a draft letter, but moved on quickly to the next scene and handed the draft letter off to an audience member rather than reporting for duty. This scene reflected the country’s disinterest in the Korean War, which was a proxy war and thus seen by many as not really directly an American issue.
In the interest of getting away from the military officers, Charlie and the audience quickly hurried onto the set of The Crucible, where an upset cameraman and actor were waiting for Charlie to play Abigail. They talked about how their director, Michael Gordon, can no longer work on the film because he’s been put on the Hollywood blacklist– a list of people banned from working in Hollywood because they were believed to be communists. One of the audience members was given a clapboard and asked to help direct, and another was given free tickets to see the premiere of The Crucible. Charlie and the actor playing John Proctor began to do their scene, but midway through they were interrupted by a cop who accused Charlie of being a communist, and dragged him and the audience members to a senate hearing.
At the hearing, Josephs McCarthy and Welch attempted to provide evidence to support their claim that Charlie was a communist. After mentioning a somewhat communist-related tattoo Charlie bore, they turned to the audience, who were able to use the items from the previous stations as evidence (Anton Chekhov would have been proud). Despite some actual evidence being provided, the guide was dismissed by Joseph Welch, who claimed insufficient evidence, and then asked Joseph McCarthy whether he was completely void of decency. With the hearing done, the audience was able to leave– but not without experiencing one last element of the exhibition: a video compiling every time Trump has used the term witch hunt during his presidency, set to the backtrack of I Put A Spell On You.
All in all, I think this was the best exhibition our class has ever done. We worked together well as a whole group, incorporated multiple very in-depth topics, and did enough script-writing, set-making, and acting for a theatre class. I do wish we had had a little more time to memorize our lines, especially for the guides who had to be in every scene and often had a lot of attention on them, but with some occasional improv I think everyone did a fine job even so.
I really enjoyed learning about the 1950s, especially because we got to learn about people’s everyday lives, and it was easy to draw some clear connections to today (and to the 1600s, apparently). I would happily do a similar style of project for our next exhibition.
