Re: DSM: teenagedom (was: greetings)

From: André Sanchez (andrergs@ig.com.br)
Date: Sun Jan 20 2002 - 13:43:13 EST


    Hello Travis,

    My name is André Sanchez, I live in Brazil and am, like you, 16 years
old. Maybe I lost the e-mails that made you send this, but I can't find any
reason for your "theory". I think you misunderstood the e-mail that spoke
about the "misplaced anger". If I am not mistaken, it was talking about
students giving the finger to school buses, and not you expressing your
opinions on liberal education. But this isn't the only reason I am sending
this e-mail. I wanted to reply to your second ( or third, I am not sure )
e-mail, but I ended up not sending the reply. Now I have more time to write
something, so here it is.
    You say that the educators and administrators of the public school
system are not your enemies, but, in your own words, "our contemporaries who
we respectfully disagree with, though we feel that their style of operation
is wrong". And then, in the same e-mail, you say that "Those liberal
educators, truly, are the "enemies."". I respectfully disagree with you, I
think you are being too diplomatic. In my opinion, the tradicional/public
educators and administrators are the "enemy". Do you want to know why? For
the simple fact that the public officers force us to accept their opinions,
their "solutions". They sometimes try to stop democratic/free schools from
operating, or homeschooling from being done ( in Brazil, homeschooling is
not legal ). And if that wasn't enough, schools are.... well, you know how
they are. When I think about schools, specially public schools, I always
remember Nietzsche's words, " ... the place where universal slow suicide is
called, living.". If that is not being an enemy, then what is? As long as
they believe they can decide how I am educated ( or not ), they are my
enemies.

André Sanchez
-----Mensagem original-----
De: BBWIA13@aol.com <BBWIA13@aol.com>
Para: discuss-sudbury-model@sudval.org <discuss-sudbury-model@sudval.org>
Data: Domingo, 20 de Janeiro de 2002 14:30
Assunto: Re: DSM: teenagedom (was: greetings)

>Robert & Allen,
>
> Thank you for your reply. Reading your e-mail, I realized that this is
a
>very special situation. I will explain.
> Both of you seem like intelligent, open, and most importantly, honest
>people. I have learned over the years that there are situations that can
only
>be worsened by actions of blind rebuttal, something I was once very
>susceptible to (some would say I still am!). Hence, judging that this is
one
>of those situations, I will address it in as much of a calm and respectful
>manner as I can.
> Here is how it will go (forgive the style of writing; I am honest when
I
>say it is neither condescending nor patronizing)! Before I can respond to
>your e-mail, I must hypothesize. The reason for this is that I want to be
>sure what it is exactly that you implied by writing it. As I mentioned, you
>both strike me as very honest people, but as of now I will refer to your
>views as one, since they were. Continuing, when I, as I am about to,
propose
>that you hypothetically meant "X" when you wrote that e-mail, and give you
a
>hypothetical response to it, I wish you to (regardless of the content of my
>response!) tell me if that is or is not what you actually meant. I will
>accept this response. I might give an obviously disagreeable and perhaps
>antagonistic response, but, and this is of supreme importance, you must
>remain entirely honest anyway. Do not shy away from the true meaning of
your
>e-mail when you respond, even if my response is in the correct context,
>corresponding to your implication exactly, and even if it is antagonistic
as
>a result.
>
> It seems obvious to me (though, again, you may confirm or disprove this
>theory!) that what you were implying in your e-mail (this is "X") was the
>following: some amount of the motivation behind my writings, on the subject
>of education in general, were fueled by misplaced anger. I will address
your
>hypothetical meaning.
> This observation does not please me, gentlemen, to put it kindly. There
>are so many factors, the first of which essentially nullifies the rest,
which
>undermine the validity of your hypothesis. And the first one is: you do not
>even know me! Indeed, misplaced anger is one of the most complex concepts
in
>psychoanalysis today, stretching far back into quadrants unbeknownst to
even
>the closest friends of the person in question. I know therapists and people
>trained in psychology and psychoanalysis who would confirm this concept.
>Hence, to make an accusation such as yours, based on a few writings by
>someone you haven't even met, let alone heard any reliable descriptions of,
>is to make a grave mistake.
> The other important issue is the fact that, humorous and paradoxical in
>essence, your response was so alike the traditional methods of alternative
>educators! Indeed, the situation is fascinating. "What is the situation,"
one
>might ask. Well, here goes: there is a boy (me), and, though you may
disagree
>with him, he makes fairly respectable arguments against some of the
>foundations on which alternative education operates. All well and good. And
>yet, do you respectfully disagree with this boy, as others might, and of
>which action he has no problem (nor should he)?!
> No! You patronize him and ultimately treat him as a lesser human being!
A
>hypothetical response might be: "No! You were not treated as someone lesser
>to adults! Not in the least!" But to return to my previous comparisons with
>alternative education, it simply becomes more subtle. Indeed, if students
in
>alternative education were given free rain to write papers about how
>inherently fraudulent the whole system was, the system would implode, the
>liberal educators not being able to handle the uncomfortable, and at the
same
>time liberating, freedom and ultimately blinding truth!
> Indeed, I would place money on the fact that if my comments on the
>subject came from any staff members at Sudbury Valley, you would not even
>think of justifying their feelings be citing "misplaced anger." And so,
what
>justification do you have in doing that to me, sir? Am I not like the rest,
>to be agreed or disagreed with, however vehemently, but someone who's
>opinions should at least be treated with respect and acceptance? Just like
>every other member of this list? I think that those comments showed a total
>lack of respect, implying that I am not seen as equal. Really, though, I am
>glad in a way that your response was sent. I hope it shoes everyone on the
>list the absolutely supreme powers of subtlety that are exorcised when
acting
>as a proponent for liberal education, or, if not that, at least a proponent
>of students rights and freedoms up to a certain point. Then things get
messy,
>when they actually step out of bounds, and there are problems. Bounds
which,
>because they are messy as well, are never actually mentioned or spoken of,
>but whose implications the proponents deem obvious. This separates the pure
>proponents of Sudbury Valley and all its inherent philosophies from the
>fraudulent infiltrators.
> If you want to propose that anything I said is not strait from my
heart,
>have the guts to come out and say it! My theory for this restraint is that
>for people to see that someone, let alone a student, would actually be able
>to disagree with liberal education and all the issues pertaining to it
strait
>from his heart, unaffected by special interests, is unbelievable and
>unacceptable to most people, because it shakes and otherwise comfortable
>foundation.
> As hard as it may be, and I know this sounds ridiculous, we return to
the
>beginning of my e-mail. If my interpretation is not what you meant, I would
>kindly request that you not respond to any of my accusations. I am not
>telling you what to do, but rather, trying to make sure this situation does
>not degenerate further. Because (and this is from my heart)! My9
accusations
>are nullified in my mind 100%, and I think of you both EXACTLY as I did
>before, if what I cited is not what you implied in your e-mail. My entire
>response was conducted in a purely hypothetical bases, because I think both
>of you are good people and I do not wish to antagonize with blind anger.
> Please be honest and tell me of the true meaning, one which I have
strong
>theories of, but one who's total implosion I would not fight if it is for
the
>cause of untarnished truth.
>
>-Travis Wiener
>
>===========
>
>If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please send an email TO
>majordomo@sudval.org (do NOT reply to the mailing list) with the following
>phrase in the BODY (not the subject) of the message, replacing
>"email@host.dom" with the email address that you subscribed under:
>
>unsubscribe discuss-sudbury-model email@host.dom
>
>If you are interested in the subject, but the volume of mail sent is too
much,
>you may wish to consider unsubscribing from this list and subscribing to
>"dsm-digest"
>
>This mailing list is archived at http://www.sudval.org/~sdg/archives

===========

If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please send an email TO
majordomo@sudval.org (do NOT reply to the mailing list) with the following
phrase in the BODY (not the subject) of the message, replacing
"email@host.dom" with the email address that you subscribed under:

unsubscribe discuss-sudbury-model email@host.dom

If you are interested in the subject, but the volume of mail sent is too much,
you may wish to consider unsubscribing from this list and subscribing to
"dsm-digest"

This mailing list is archived at http://www.sudval.org/~sdg/archives



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Mar 27 2002 - 19:39:48 EST