Prep Sheet #9

Valdes "Raising Children" pp 195-209
Darder "Twin Issues in the Struggle for Cultural and Linguistic Democracy" pp210-214

Significance of This Reading:

Valdes:  This seemed like a nice, small scale ethnographic study of how Mexican origin families raise their children.  I enjoyed reading it, and I thought it was a very nice addition for this textbook.

Like a lot of ethnographies, it was written on a very small, personal scale, so it is a little hard to draw broad conclusions from it.  I would love to see some research that extended a little further:

1. I would like to see more contrastive analysis.  On one or two occasions the author tries to contrast Mexican families with non-Latino caucasion families, but the comparisons don't go into much detail.  Of course, making a comparison in this area would raise a lot of questions about what should be compared.  For instance, what would be the proper definition of a "non-Latino caucasion" family?  I suspect without further narrowing that we are talking about an awfully diverse group.  Also, would it be appropriate to extend the comparison to other immigrant family types (Chinese, Indian, etc.)?  It's a big, difficult to answer question, but it seems so important that it would be worth the effort.
2. It's a little hard as an educator to extract ideas from this article for changing my teaching style to better suit students from this culture.  It would be nice to see an author takes the next step and come up with some educational ideas specific to this group.  Or is it really pretty much a moot point and the same teaching techniques work equally well for all ESL kids?
   
3. This article fails to link the cultural parenting styles to the academic performance of Mexican immigrants versus other immigrant groups.  Is there a link?  If so, what would it be?

I can't help think that a lot of the behavior observed in these families has more to do with a recent family history of near subsistence rural living rather than a particular cultural heritage.  If you asked my parents or grandparents how they were raised back during the depression, I think you would find that they were raised a lot like the families described in this article.  Rural living demands a different kind of parenting style than the more affluent urban / suburban conditions that most of us were raised in.

Darder:  Wow, what a huge, steaming pile of unsupported, highly one sided, and inflammatory assertions!  About the only thing I can take away from this reading is that the author thinks that biculturalism is good, and that the powers that be (that are trying with all their might to suppress everyone else) are evil and bad.  Seriously, what am I supposed to take away from something like this?  Am I supposed to feel bad for being part of the structure of "rampant capitalism, an obsession with an ever-changing modernity, and a doctrine of rugged individualism?"

Arrggh!

Why is it okay to hold all cultures as sacred and valuable, but describe so negatively one particular culture (the one that happens to be dominant)?  Take this sentence, for instance: "the English-speaking mainstream shares a history of ... the 5 faces of oppression: marginalization, exploitation, cultural invasion, powerlessness, and violence."  Please show me the culture that doesn't have some of those elements in it.  Am I supposed to feel super bad because white Americans are (gasp) - human!

I think this is how liberal academia is getting such a bad name.  It isn't that the facts are against them, it's the judgmental nature of the arguments that they make (and the judgments all seem to be "white people are the super baddest people on the planet.")  Can't we just report the facts please?

Other Reflections/Insights: