Honest Or Just Plain Rude?

I recently heard someone use this statement in response to someone objecting to something they said: "Well, if you don't like the answer then you shouldn't have asked the question!"

I have heard this statement several times in the past. It usually comes from loud mouths. More often than not, I hear people with little or no tact blurt out statements like this with a lack of concern of what other people think of them or their words.

First of all, if this guy knew what the answer was going to be, I don't think he would have asked it. The reason he asked was because he didn't know what the answer was in the first place. So how could he have stopped himself from asking it if he didn't know it would be something he didn't like?

It is a stupid statement. The lady came off as a rude, obnoxious blowhard in my opinion.

There is more to it than this though. I think the motivation behind statements like these is not always rudeness or disrespect. While I have not used this particular statement, I have used statements like it. I haven't intended on being rude most of the time, usually I have just tried to be frank and honest. So I imagine others who have said brash things like this had similar intentions. But sometimes efforts to be honest go too far.

Plus, I do not know what the whole context of that conversation was when that statement was said. For all I know the lady secretly felt bad that she received a disapproving reaction from the guy and tried to cover it with the shield of that statement. To her, it was his fault to react that way instead of her fault to answer his question that way.

But people like me put too much weight in what others think of us and what we say. Many times this is a bad thing because we lose sight of our needs and we don't protect our boundaries. We sacrifice too much for others when we don't need to.

But on the other side, there are people who have zero tact and lack consideration for others. It seems like more and more people fall in this category as the importance that was once put on manners and politeness is slowly disappearing. People take pride in their brash, no holds barred statements and attitude. It seems to be much more favorable to speak and act like this. But there is legitimate reason to be this way.

On one hand, we all should be polite and considerate towards others. But at the same time, we need to avoid going too far and compromising our own desires or intentions to be nice to someone else.

So where is that line between being honest with other people risking hurt feelings or feelings of disrespect and being rude and obnoxious showing little concern for another person's feelings?

I believe there is a way to assert you own interests and stand by what you want (within reason of course) without sounding rude or obnoxious. In fact there is a word for it. I used it earlier.

It is called tact.

Dictionary.com defines it as: "a keen sense of what is appropriate, tasteful, or aesthetically pleasing; taste; discrimination."

I recommend more people use it. Just because you say things in a particular way, with class, it doesn't mean you are being too nonconfrontational, passive or weak. It means you are standing your ground while showing class.

Healthcare

I have a feeling it was "meant to be" that I write this post. I was thinking the other day about writing something in regards to universal healthcare. Then I read my cousin's note on facebook that ignited a rather heated debate with an extremely conservative, priestly colleague of his. My cousin, sister and I joined in this "conversation" regarding universal healthcare or socialized healthcare as this priest in training put it.

My original intention was to write about my observations and thoughts regarding a student of mine who has been out of school for a bit due to her sibling's recent health issue that is identical to what I have been through with my daughter. While I don't want to get into their private matters in a public post like this, I am certain they don't have the same insurance that I am lucky enough to have. But for the sake of discussion, let us just say that there are families in their position who are not insured because we know there are. So here I go in a stream of consciousness style of writing because I have very little substance to share.

How do families liek the one I spoke of above pay for the care they need? I recall being in that very same position in terms of health and all the emotions and thoughts running through my head WITH insurance. No matter how scared I was, I knew my daughter would receive care and I could afford my portion. Despite that I was stressed out and almost in a panic. This poor family. These poor families that must experience that, or worse, and not know where the money is going to come from.

I am speaking from ignorance, but do they even receive the same service? Do they get shortchanged because the doctors and nurses know they can't pay for it? Is this ethical or common? Is this where medicare or medicaid come in?

I realize this post isn't giving answers or opinions as much as asking questions. This is where I am with this right now. I feel horrible for this family and others families like them. Thinking about this makes me think we need to find some way to create viable healthcare for all. But I have no idea where to begin.

There is still part of me that gets frustrated when my tax money meant to help people like these in situations like these gets abused by these people. Or gets abused by the government in charge of passing it out appropriately. So I don't know exactly where I stand. I get tired of standing behind people in line at the corner grocery store across from my school watching them use food stamps ad then using cash to buy 40 ounce malt liquor and cigarettes. Or the food they buy is doughnuts and chips and other junk food. I am not speaking in stereotypes, this is what I see frequently. Am I wrong to judge like this?

Boy oh boy, just looking back on my experience in the healthcare system makes me count my blessings for how lucky I am.

Thinking About How I Teach Social Studies

I am in the midst of a book titled, "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" by James W. Loewen. It is more of an indictment on the American History textbooks used in high schools around the country than it is the teachers who use them.

As I read through the book and the interesting, little-known-facts he presents that contradict what has become common knowledge of our country's history, I go back and forth between intrigue and pessimism or skeptical thinking. I am not questioning whether his statements are true as he provides evidence for his points, but his opinion. I believe there is some need to write the textbooks the way they have been despite these errors and misconceptions. It depends on the grade level of the reader and their cognitive development at the time they are presented with the information and objective of the lesson or chapter.

All in all though, it is discouraging how inaccurate and incomplete our education of our own history is to the younger generations. What may be scarier is that it has been incomplete and inaccurate for numerous generations already including my own! Therefore, much of what I read is new to me and hence, the intrigue and excitement to read.

This post is not to review the book or even discuss any of the specific historical events presented in the book thus far. Instead, I am choosing to write about how I, a fourth grade teacher to a predominantly minority class, will continue to teach American history (Ohio history to be more specific according to grade level standards set by the state and district in which I teach) after reading this book and gaining the knowledge that what I teach as fact may be only pieces to the whole story at best.

In fourth grade I can initiate good discussion regarding many of our states historical events but there is a ceiling to what they can developmentally grasp. Also, there may be relevant subjects that are just inappropriate for them to discuss. I want to respect their parents decisions to what they expose their ten year old children to even if they walk in the classroom with T-shirts covered in profane, offensive language and watch music videos or wrestling matches that cheapen women and glorify violence. In the end I need to keep my side of the street clean.

But, the main objective I have gained from this book is the general idea that history is not a concrete, stagnant pile of facts, but a fluid, multifaceted flow of events that should always be questioned. No one factor plays a role in the wars, discoveries, laws, decisions and so on that took place. There are many previosu events that effect these other events we learn. Also, many of the events we read about effect what we do today even centuries later.

I think it is THAT idea of cause and effect that needs to be fostered more than the dates, people and events. Memorizing these facts don't lead to the kind of knowledge that can be used in most of the workforce later in life.

In addition to cause and effect, the encouragement to question what they learn and how to go about questioning it needs to be fostered. Fact memorization won't create a love for learning. But discussion and debate just might.

The curriculum I teach already tries to address cause and effect in several ways. There are chapters that discuss this specific skill. What I'd like to do is find a basic, low maintenance way to incorporate these kinds of discussions in every lesson topic.

Really, I just want to instill the overall open mindedness to possible differences than what we read. I'd like my students to realize more evidence can be found. That history is fluid. What we think is true may not be true or may have more to it. Therefore, it is ok to challenge what is considered "factual." Of course, this would need to be tempered appropriately because questioning just for the sake of questioning may just confuse students more than guide them.

I'd like to share several examples from the book. We all know the basic story of Hellen Keller (Chapter One: Handicapped by History)but rarely touch on the majority of her life as a major player in women's suffrage. I was never taught about her political views and the contradictions of these views to the pick yourself up by the bootstraps message her story is used to portray. While we learn from her story as a deaf and blind, wild and out of control child who learned to read and write and educate herself, that you can do anything if you set your mind to it and work hard...just look at Hellen Keller, she didn't feel as though that was possible for many people in our country due to their economic situation. She was born into a wealthy family and believed without the resources her parents were able to obtain for her, she would have never accomplished what she did. This belief led her to an outspoken socialist stance which has been frowned upon and therefore, left out of our lesson regarding her.

We all know the story of Columbus (Chapter 2: 1493)and how many holes have been shot into his glorified mystique, but did we ever learn that there is evidence that other people were exploring the Americas long before him? Do we truly acknowledge the accomplishments of the Natives who were already there in the first place?

Related to the Columbus story which can be a long post in itself, I also thought it is interesting that slavery is usually taught in the context of the African slave trade and its effects on the American Civil War. I don't remember the fact that Columbus was enslaving the American Indians as well. And the American Indians enslaved other American Indians as did Africans of other Africans and obviously the Europeans enslaving Africans. In fact you can find evidence of slavery in various forms today. This is a subject that goes well beyond the Civil War in America.

Finally, that last sentence reminded me of how we generally teach the Civil War as the North being the "good guys" and the Confederacy being the "bad guys." The Civil War had so many different factors playing their part that it is almost a perfect opportunity to show how history can be viewed differently through different colored lenses. And it can be used to demonstrate the way numerous factor play numerous roles in one event. It is not as black and white as, well, black and white people and slavery. The economy, states rights and more also played roles. Many different people had many different points of views and beliefs and motivations.

So, as I proceed through this book and enjoy reading about my country's history and the things I didn't know or didn't think to question when I was learning it, I plan to keep reminding myself to allow my students to question it. To question me. It would be nice if they learned that they could go "look it up" and actually did.

But that's a whole other blog post.....motivating my students, sigh.

Questioning and Fear

While I continue to grieve I find myself asking myself numerous questions. But I also find myself succumbing to a state of paranoia. I wonder if Fear is another stage of grieving or if it is just a natural thing for me personally and this experience is bringing it out.

Obviously, I am questioning the after life and the idea of the soul. These are topics I have been questioning already with an intention to be objective and not swayed by what I want to believe or allowing emotion to fog my thinking. This time I am affected by emotion.

I am also trying to find meaning in this experience. I question whether there really is meaning in things. Do coincidences happen for a reason? Is there a "higher power" dictating things? I still do not think so. I want to believe in a God. I believe there is a force that one can call God that connects us all. But I don't think this force is a puppeteer. I don't think it directly guides us or makes things happen. I think we guide ourselves. I think we determine whether coincidences have meaning or not. I think we determine whether something is a message or not. I think we are all connected in an eternally intricate 3-D maybe 4-D web with all living things. Everything we do affects everything else and ourselves. Everything everyone else does affects us in some way big or small. There is no beginning or end to this massive, complicated web. So naturally, as countless things happen to us all the time and may seem connected to other things, they are since they are part of the same web. We can attribute these things to other things happening or not. We can decide to use these things as "messages" or guides.....or not.

But the Fear. The fear is what scares me. Oh really you say, fear makes you afraid? You are bonafide genius! The irrational fear I am feeling is not right. I already would worry about ridiculous stuff after my daughter's episodes. Now this experience is only reinforcing this behavior or thinking. I question if this is natural or if this is unique. What should I do to ease the fear? How do I address it and move on from it in a healthy manner?

Grieving

I remember learning long ago in my psych 101 courses in college and books I read later that when one encounters a traumatic life event they need to go through a process of 5 steps to properly handle it. These steps begin with Shock/Denial and proceed to Anger, Questioning, Sadness or Depression and finally Acceptance. I also remember Bargaining as a step but the basic premise remains with or without it.

Many people don't allow themselves to process through all the steps or to experience some of them fully. Others may get too caught up in a particular step and become obsessed or fixiated. When this happens the harmful effects can last awhile and intrude other parts and people in their lives.

It is good to experience all of them even anger and sadness. I recall stating this at my grandmother's funeral as I spoke during the ceremony. I said the experience was good. I meant that. I meant that the experience we all were sharing was a good one. We were crying, sharing memories and positive attributes about B and creating an energy together progressing through the 5 steps. I vividly recall the feelings of acceptance I had as we left the next day.

While we generally progress through these steps in order, many times we regress back to a prior step before progressing to the next. Sometimes we may fall back several steps just to skip ahead several and vice versa. I find it comforting that regressing in the steps doesn't necessarily mean you are not working your way through the pain properly. I can easily relate to getting angry over things I thought I was accepting or questioning my way through.

The questioning stage can be a very spiritual period of grief. As you ask yourself "why me?" and "how can God let this happen?" you need to avoid the self blame but you find yourself thinking about the after-life, pain and suffering to a point that hopefully progresses you to a place you are trying to get to or strengthening a place where you already are. But once again, getting fixiated on this step may cause more damage than healing.

To those who read this, try to remember during times of hardship that is it ok to feel these five stages. In fact, it is recommended to "do your time" in each stage to help you heal appropriately. Life goes on and so should you.

Time for me to practice what I preach.......