i am a non-confrontational person. i will typically avoid confrontation at all costs. when i get into heated arguments with people i don't know too well my sympathetic nervous system kicks in full gear and i begin shaking and my voice trembles. basically, i look and sound like i'm going to cry, which sucks, because i'm actually pissed and crying is the furthest thing from my mind. i would bet that if i didn't behave this way in confrontational situations i wouldn't be as prone to avoiding them. but alas, i do and i only get into them when they come to me, and the other day, one did.
i won't get into specifics because that would take too long, but while i was doing a job a co-worker should have already had done, said co-worker walked up, got in my face, and told me she needed help with something else, and that i wasn't helping her. now this co-worker is already on the brink of being fired because she struggles to keep up with her work and others have to always come bail her out, and i already had a laundry list of things i wanted to say to her. so, needless to say, the opportunity presented itself and when my fight or flight response kicked in, i fought.
in the end, i think this was good for me. i need more experiences like that. that's not to say i need to start picking fights with random people to improve the way i handle myself in confrontations, but i need to learn to not fear them and to keep my self in control while firmly arguing my side. the rest of our day together went fine, and while we didn't talk about our blowout again, i think she understood that my frustration wasn't towards her personally, but her lack of certain skills.
when confrontation and conflict turn ugly, it often has to do with how the two parties are communicating, as well as, their history. i think that being honest and open with people is important, but it's also about how you're honest and open. i have a diverse group of friends. most of my friends are not friends with each other, and only know one another through me. i get nervous when some of my friends are around each other. during the week of my wedding two of them almost came to blows, and another set of them did. why do i get along with all of them, but some of them cannot get along at all? a lot of it has to do with communication. the way i communicate-- what i say and how i say it-- changes with each friend. most people communicate one way with everyone, and if they clash with some people, they respond with: "oh well, you can't get a long with everyone." and some people are so oblivious, they cannot even grasp basic communication etiquette like: don't talk religion and politics with new people. my dad is a good example of that.
i think my desire to avoid confrontation has a lot to do with why i can communicate and maintain friendships with people who are very different from one another. rather than getting into fights, i adapt to how others communicate. my big challenge on the conflict and confrontation front, like i said, is learning to not look like i'm about to cry. i think a good step towards that is learning to recognize when things are escalating, and then to take it down a notch. it's interesting to me how something that is usually problematic-- avoiding confrontation-- has been somewhat of an asset to me. now i just need to learn to adapt in times when it's unavoidable.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
demythologizing good and evil- some observations
note: i could not, for the life of me, figure out how to create columns on blogger, so this will have to do.
good~evillight~darkness
order~chaoscreation~destruction
function~dysfunction
life~death
righteousness~sin
love~hate
peace~violence
truth~deceit
healing~suffering
healthy~decaying
joy~depression
i think it's fair to say that most people have an incorrect view of good and evil. most people believe in good and evil, but believe the two are in some sort of mythical opposition to one another. this view is, of course, played out in incredibly popular books-turned-movies like the lord of the rings, the chronicles of narnia, harry potter, and the twilight series. i think most people would also say that the bible is a story of the epic struggle of good and evil as well. i would disagree. i would not only disagree that the bible is a story of good versus evil, but i would disagree with the whole notion of the epic struggle of good versus evil. and i would also reject the incredibly mythical way that most people think about good and evil.
people who know me well, actually read this blog, or have a rudimentary knowledge of philosophy know why i would reject these ideas. the notion of good versus evil is dualism. it's really lame, but i first rejected dualism after reading a corny email forward about a bold christian taking on his philospohy professor. while the email was corny and probably not true, the arguments put forth in it completely changed how i view good and evil. and i'm sure they are age old arguments created by someone a long time ago, but up until that point, i had never heard them. the argument is that evil really isn't a thing, but a lack of a thing, namely, good, just as darkness and cold aren't things, but are a lack of things, namely light and heat. interestingly enough, a metaphore for good and evil used throughout the bible is light and darkness.
the above chart i made, i believe, represents several different ways people say "good" or "evil." death, suffering, violence etc. get lumped under the big mythical umbrella of "evil" and love, life, peace etc. get lumped under the mythical umbrella of "good." my first observation echos what i mentioned in the previous paragraph, in that many of the things on the right are nothing more than a lack of the things on the left. note that this observation concerns relationship. the relationship, for instance, between order and chaos isn't that they are opposing forces, but that one is a lack of the other.
my second observation is this: certain items on the two lists have a cause and effect relationship.
take life and death. a while back i was going to post a series called, "is death really a bad thing?" because for there to be life there has got to be death. we eat dead plants and animals. animal waste is used to fertilize soil which creates life. if there were no death there would be over-population which would make life miserable. death is necessary for life.
my next observation is that there cannot be life without order. i am composed of sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, cells, tissues, organs and organ systems. and all of these particles working in an orderly way to allow me to live do so because of orderly physical laws. without order there can be no life, and this truth carries on into the worlds of living organisms-- people create families, which create societies, which create cities, and countries, and governments, and nations etc... in other words, we try to create order, and when we stray from order, we see destruction, lies, hate, violence, disease, suffering, depression, death-- chaos. so it can be said that everything in the good column is just another way of saying "order" and everything in the evil column is another way of saying "chaos."
so how does this square with the bible? as previously stated, the bible uses the metaphor of light and darkness to describe good and evil. i would also point out that there are "order from chaos" themes in scripture. these observations cause me to conclude that sin is any behavior which works against God's order-- which i believe is all "true order." i say "true order" because there can be order used for destructive purposes, but this order ultimately destroys itself. sin is also our straying from our role of being agents of order creating more true order. and sin, of course, leads to suffering, destruction and death.
i am still stuck with the life and death thing. life and death work together; i do sometimes question the evilness of physical death. and suffering, as well, brings similar issues, for suffering can lead to redemption. suffering can purge us of destructive behavior. suffering is often a bridge from the right column to the left. can chaos create order or does an outside agent have to intervene?
my last observation is that i believe order is a tangible way of seeing God. this isn't to say that order is God and God is order, but that if we want to see the living God all we have to do is ponder the fact that without order all would cease to exist. we don't have to search far to see God; we don't have to look for signs or miracles-- existence is a miracle.
success
i found out yesterday that i, for sure, got the internship and was given a name and number of the person i am to be shadowing and reporting to. this was a huge load that has been lifted as i had not heard back from my contact in weeks after she told me she was pretty sure they would have a spot for me. a couple weeks ago i had paged her several times and emailed her never hearing back. so this was huge. i can't wait to go shopping for some professional looking attire, as well as, a sweet moleskine to take notes in.
yet, in the wake of this victory, this morning i began falling into a mire of regret. from time to time, i get caught up thinking about how we should have stayed in our apartment. when we moved into our house we were living dirt cheap in our nice little one bedroom. we were paying off debt like mad. my income paid all the bills so anne's income was just extra. i think about her income now and how much more she makes. i think about what our lives would be like if we had paid off all our debt and she would have gotten the job she has now and if we still lived in our apartment. i think about how we could have a new(er) car, or how cheaper houses are now, or how we could have gone to europe.
in the past, when i thought about this, i always thought about how we never would have bought niles. but seriously, would i trade niles for no debt, a car, a trip to europe, and a nicer house with a smaller mortgage? uh, yeah. i love the little shit almost like a child, but i would rather have stayed in our apartment. so the only think that gets me through this bout of regret is simply the fact that what is is what is, and there is nothing i can do to change the past. all i can do is live in the present. and in the present i am blessed. i have an internship. i have an internship at the biggest hospital in this half of the state, and it's also where i happen to work. all i gotta do is keep getting A's, and i'm set. and i have the day off tomorrow, with no real homework. that helps too.
yet, in the wake of this victory, this morning i began falling into a mire of regret. from time to time, i get caught up thinking about how we should have stayed in our apartment. when we moved into our house we were living dirt cheap in our nice little one bedroom. we were paying off debt like mad. my income paid all the bills so anne's income was just extra. i think about her income now and how much more she makes. i think about what our lives would be like if we had paid off all our debt and she would have gotten the job she has now and if we still lived in our apartment. i think about how we could have a new(er) car, or how cheaper houses are now, or how we could have gone to europe.
in the past, when i thought about this, i always thought about how we never would have bought niles. but seriously, would i trade niles for no debt, a car, a trip to europe, and a nicer house with a smaller mortgage? uh, yeah. i love the little shit almost like a child, but i would rather have stayed in our apartment. so the only think that gets me through this bout of regret is simply the fact that what is is what is, and there is nothing i can do to change the past. all i can do is live in the present. and in the present i am blessed. i have an internship. i have an internship at the biggest hospital in this half of the state, and it's also where i happen to work. all i gotta do is keep getting A's, and i'm set. and i have the day off tomorrow, with no real homework. that helps too.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
on being a skeptical believer: evolution
i've been thinking about evolution in relation to the idea of general revelation. general revelation, as i understand it, is God revealing himself in the created universe. "the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth is handiwork" and the part in acts where paul says that God has revealed himself in nature are two places in scripture that i know of that teach this idea.
creationists and intelligent design theorists point out that the design in creation reveals that the universe is the product of a designer. i've heard creationists talk at length about the eye, or bees, and how they demonstrate the extraordinary design found in creation. but what about evolution? even young earth creationists acknowledge the reality of some evolution, even if they refuse to acknowledge it from species to species. and everyone has to acknowledge evolution in general. everything evolves in some way. take the car for instance. the design of the car has evolved from what it was in the 1930's to what it is today. evolved? yes, evolved. developers and engineers, as time went by, were faced with different challenges and problems which caused them to create new technologies which caused the design of the car to evolve. most recently we've seen the hybrid and the plug in car designed in response to concerns about global warming and foreign oil. this is what evolution is: an organism, thing, design, whatever, is faced with an obstacle and it either dies or changes to continue on in its existence.
so what does this reality tell us about God? if all reality is created by God and said reality reveals who God is, then does the fact that matter tends to change, and when it changes transcends what it was before, tell us something about God? i think it does. this is how order comes from chaos, which is what the genesis creation story describes in its opening verses. or think about the hebrew people. God chose them, set them apart from the chaotic and destructive practices of their neighboring cultures and began forming them into his people. it didn't happen over night; it was a process. he took abram from the primordial, pagan, cultural soup he was in; and told him he would make him into a nation that would bless the nations.
i think the design and laws we see in the world around tell us something about God, but i also think that the way this design and these laws come about-- process and evolution-- also tell us about God. in my struggle with faith and doubt, evolution was something that shook me hard, and continues to shake young christians who grow up believing that evolution equals atheism. i disagree. evolution is everywhere and is something theists and christians should embrace.
creationists and intelligent design theorists point out that the design in creation reveals that the universe is the product of a designer. i've heard creationists talk at length about the eye, or bees, and how they demonstrate the extraordinary design found in creation. but what about evolution? even young earth creationists acknowledge the reality of some evolution, even if they refuse to acknowledge it from species to species. and everyone has to acknowledge evolution in general. everything evolves in some way. take the car for instance. the design of the car has evolved from what it was in the 1930's to what it is today. evolved? yes, evolved. developers and engineers, as time went by, were faced with different challenges and problems which caused them to create new technologies which caused the design of the car to evolve. most recently we've seen the hybrid and the plug in car designed in response to concerns about global warming and foreign oil. this is what evolution is: an organism, thing, design, whatever, is faced with an obstacle and it either dies or changes to continue on in its existence.
so what does this reality tell us about God? if all reality is created by God and said reality reveals who God is, then does the fact that matter tends to change, and when it changes transcends what it was before, tell us something about God? i think it does. this is how order comes from chaos, which is what the genesis creation story describes in its opening verses. or think about the hebrew people. God chose them, set them apart from the chaotic and destructive practices of their neighboring cultures and began forming them into his people. it didn't happen over night; it was a process. he took abram from the primordial, pagan, cultural soup he was in; and told him he would make him into a nation that would bless the nations.
i think the design and laws we see in the world around tell us something about God, but i also think that the way this design and these laws come about-- process and evolution-- also tell us about God. in my struggle with faith and doubt, evolution was something that shook me hard, and continues to shake young christians who grow up believing that evolution equals atheism. i disagree. evolution is everywhere and is something theists and christians should embrace.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
my thoughts and feelings on the bible
today i start my biblical perspectives class. for my first day i have to turn in a paper entitled "my thoughts and feelings on the bible." so here they are:
The Bible is a compilation of stories, histories, poems, letters and songs, inspired by God, creating an authoritative narrative. This narrative is God’s story, and answers the deepest metaphysical questions about God, humanity, creation and the future. It is a plan and a map guiding humans to the true way of being human, and to the place the human story will eventually arrive. Its narrative is God’s tool for empowering and directing his people to achieve his purposes of cosmic redemption. It describes what God has done, is doing and will ultimately do.
The Bible cannot simply be opened and read as if doing so will magically give the reader some sort of wisdom to benefit her life. Verses in the Bible, also, cannot simply be plucked out from their context, and be used to back up an argument. And while the Bible certainly can provide comfort and wisdom, it is not a book to enhance one’s lifestyle. The Bible is not our servant, and does not contain the secrets to health, wealth and success. It offers a glimpse at God’s intentions, but is not a crystal ball for which we can use to predict the future.
Saying that the Bible simply cannot be opened and read implies that the Bible must be interpreted. Many Christians assume that one can just crack open a Bible and extract the “plain meaning.” Those who make this claim fail to realize they are reading a Bible that has already been interpreted when it was translated into an English-language version; and that the “plain meaning” they extract is nothing more than their interpretation. And their interpretation is heavily influenced by their theology, upbringing, culture, and hundreds of years of church history. Furthermore, the fact that people have their own copy of the Bible, in their own language, is an idea unheard of when the Bible was written and for hundreds of years afterwards. Scripture was originally studied in communities, which were lead by trained teachers. This isn’t to say the modern reader is incapable of arriving at an accurate interpretation of scripture. But the reader must first be cognizant that he is making an interpretation, and his interpretation must employ good hermeneutics.
Good hermeneutics not only involves reading a verse in the context of its chapter, book and the rest of scripture itself; but also taking into account the historical and cultural contexts of the verse. A concordance should be used for interpreting difficult words. Understanding the literary genre a book is written in also enhances the interpretation, as apocalyptic or poetic styles of literature cannot be interpreted with rigid literalism. Lastly, it is always important to remain humble when interpreting scripture; biblical scholarship is always advancing and new scholarship can dramatically shed light onto previous interpretations.
The Bible is God’s word, but was recorded by human beings who were living in an ancient culture. These people lived in a real time and place, and had their own understanding of cosmology and the natural world. They also had their own agendas for writing down the words of scripture. The biblical authors did not live in a vacuum. Readers of the Bible, today, live in an era that is post-enlightenment. Many of us take our understanding of the universe, the planet and science for granted. Thus it is imperative for the modern reader to become familiar with the ancient world where the biblical authors lived. I think the importance of finding good pastors and Bible scholars to help one grasp the meaning of scripture is incredibly important. And lastly, while there is nothing wrong with doing personal devotions, it is important to remember that the Bible was originally studied in community, and I believe that setting remains the best environment for biblical study today.
The Bible is a compilation of stories, histories, poems, letters and songs, inspired by God, creating an authoritative narrative. This narrative is God’s story, and answers the deepest metaphysical questions about God, humanity, creation and the future. It is a plan and a map guiding humans to the true way of being human, and to the place the human story will eventually arrive. Its narrative is God’s tool for empowering and directing his people to achieve his purposes of cosmic redemption. It describes what God has done, is doing and will ultimately do.
The Bible cannot simply be opened and read as if doing so will magically give the reader some sort of wisdom to benefit her life. Verses in the Bible, also, cannot simply be plucked out from their context, and be used to back up an argument. And while the Bible certainly can provide comfort and wisdom, it is not a book to enhance one’s lifestyle. The Bible is not our servant, and does not contain the secrets to health, wealth and success. It offers a glimpse at God’s intentions, but is not a crystal ball for which we can use to predict the future.
Saying that the Bible simply cannot be opened and read implies that the Bible must be interpreted. Many Christians assume that one can just crack open a Bible and extract the “plain meaning.” Those who make this claim fail to realize they are reading a Bible that has already been interpreted when it was translated into an English-language version; and that the “plain meaning” they extract is nothing more than their interpretation. And their interpretation is heavily influenced by their theology, upbringing, culture, and hundreds of years of church history. Furthermore, the fact that people have their own copy of the Bible, in their own language, is an idea unheard of when the Bible was written and for hundreds of years afterwards. Scripture was originally studied in communities, which were lead by trained teachers. This isn’t to say the modern reader is incapable of arriving at an accurate interpretation of scripture. But the reader must first be cognizant that he is making an interpretation, and his interpretation must employ good hermeneutics.
Good hermeneutics not only involves reading a verse in the context of its chapter, book and the rest of scripture itself; but also taking into account the historical and cultural contexts of the verse. A concordance should be used for interpreting difficult words. Understanding the literary genre a book is written in also enhances the interpretation, as apocalyptic or poetic styles of literature cannot be interpreted with rigid literalism. Lastly, it is always important to remain humble when interpreting scripture; biblical scholarship is always advancing and new scholarship can dramatically shed light onto previous interpretations.
The Bible is God’s word, but was recorded by human beings who were living in an ancient culture. These people lived in a real time and place, and had their own understanding of cosmology and the natural world. They also had their own agendas for writing down the words of scripture. The biblical authors did not live in a vacuum. Readers of the Bible, today, live in an era that is post-enlightenment. Many of us take our understanding of the universe, the planet and science for granted. Thus it is imperative for the modern reader to become familiar with the ancient world where the biblical authors lived. I think the importance of finding good pastors and Bible scholars to help one grasp the meaning of scripture is incredibly important. And lastly, while there is nothing wrong with doing personal devotions, it is important to remember that the Bible was originally studied in community, and I believe that setting remains the best environment for biblical study today.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
memories of grcc
after i finished my surgical tech degree i couldn't wait to go to school to learn about something i was genuinely interested in. i couldn't wait to take history or sociology or political science. now that i have been at spring arbor for almost a year it seems like forever ago when i first set foot into grand rapids community college and took western civilization and social problems. i really enjoyed my time there and learned so much. i had some great profs who really challenged me and filled my head with all sorts of crazy liberal ideas. recently i went onto ratemyprofessor.com and found some of my grcc profs. i thought all three of these guys were great, but it was interesting to read some of the negative comments from people who were rubbed completely the wrong way. here are some of my favorites.
these quotes are about my western civ prof, roger schlossor. i remember going into grcc's library with these huge reading lists-- thucydides, plutarc, aristotle, plato, herodotdus, tacitus, popes, milton, erasmus-- you name it. the person at the front would just say "you're taking schlossor, huh?" it was hilarious. he was this cranky, foul-mouthed vietnam vet who would go on these long tangential stories, and just when you think he had completely lost his mind, he would come back to his original point and tie the story into his lecture. insane. he took no shit either. if you were talking or had to leave to use the bathroom he would get right in your face and let you know how rude you were. anyways, here's what others thought of him-
"HIS LECTURES ARE VERY LONG. MAKE SURE YOU DRINK ALOT OF COFFEE BEFORE YOU GO B/C HIS LECTURE CAN BE BORING. HE DOES HAVE ALOT OF INTERESTING STORIES. IF YOU DONT LIKE SWEARING THEN DONT TAKE HIS CLASS"
"Hated him, always shoving his beliefs on the class, didn't care if history told another story only told what he wanted you to hear. If you asked a question he always made you look stupid and then the class laughed at you, swears alot"
"Clear, concise, funny, brilliant. He has his own opinions and he's not afraid to share them, but he will present ALL the sides of the issue and let you make up your own mind- someting most GRCC student are incapable of doing."
"Should have dropped when i had the chance. The tests did not correspond to lecture material or readings. Constantly was making negative comments on politics and america. Lots of swearing. To old to care if he is doing a good job. Very hard to get a good grade. 2hrs lecture with no break! Do not take"
"The best teacher I have ever had. No other teacher compares to Roger. He has a reaistic and cynical view of History. Yes, he does lecture for two hours straight, but with no notes. Really knows his stuff, every History Major should take his classes. HS 101, 102 and PS 101. Easy class if dedicated."
these are comments on my race and ethnic relations prof, geoffrey simmons. one of my classmate at spring arbor is actually taking him right now. i learned a ton in his class. he genuinely cares about people on the underside of society, and it was eye-opening to learn american history from the side of the oppressed. i also learned a lot about marxism as a historical lense which i found very helpful.
"changed the way i see the world-great teacher"
"Big time Pinko-Nazi! hes a supporter of marxism, but hes still cool. really interesting if you like to know more about hoe the goverment is screwing us. *MAKE SURE YOU READ THE BOOK TOO*"
"Mr. Simmon is definitely a liberal hippie type, but he's super cool and very smart. His class isn't that hard if you listen in class and read the book. Expect to hear lots of fun stories!!"
and last but not least, mr. clyde poag. it was after mr. poag's class one day where i met the woman who designed ferris state university's BSW program who told me about spring arbor. i remember being pretty intimidated by mr. poag because he was black and i was taking a class on social problems. it was a great experience, however, and i'll never forget when i finished my final presentation for that class when he looked at me and said "i am so proud." his class was the beginning of my social work career, and it's somewhat frustrating for me to read comments like the ones below because his class was such a meaningful experience.
"Absolutely the worst professor ever. He makes you feel like the worst person alive if you are not an African-American. I dreaded going to that class because he is right and you are wrong."
"Not such a bad teacher...if you put in any effort whatsoever you'll get an A...he is very pro african american...seems to talk a lot of trash about white people...he is a good guy though, just do your work on time and you'll be fine"
anyways, i think it'd be fun to go back again someday after i get my masters. although i'm not sure how that works. i don't know if you can just go back to community college and take undergrad classes for fun once you've been to grad school. all these guys are way liberal, to say the least, but i loved that. after having conservative dogma pounded in my head for 25 years of my life, it was refreshing to get the other side of the story from some very seasoned intellectuals. i miss not knowing what's going to come next, as where spring arbor is very familiar to me. but anyways, i still have grad school at grand valley, and who knows what i'll be blogging about then.
these quotes are about my western civ prof, roger schlossor. i remember going into grcc's library with these huge reading lists-- thucydides, plutarc, aristotle, plato, herodotdus, tacitus, popes, milton, erasmus-- you name it. the person at the front would just say "you're taking schlossor, huh?" it was hilarious. he was this cranky, foul-mouthed vietnam vet who would go on these long tangential stories, and just when you think he had completely lost his mind, he would come back to his original point and tie the story into his lecture. insane. he took no shit either. if you were talking or had to leave to use the bathroom he would get right in your face and let you know how rude you were. anyways, here's what others thought of him-
"HIS LECTURES ARE VERY LONG. MAKE SURE YOU DRINK ALOT OF COFFEE BEFORE YOU GO B/C HIS LECTURE CAN BE BORING. HE DOES HAVE ALOT OF INTERESTING STORIES. IF YOU DONT LIKE SWEARING THEN DONT TAKE HIS CLASS"
"Hated him, always shoving his beliefs on the class, didn't care if history told another story only told what he wanted you to hear. If you asked a question he always made you look stupid and then the class laughed at you, swears alot"
"Clear, concise, funny, brilliant. He has his own opinions and he's not afraid to share them, but he will present ALL the sides of the issue and let you make up your own mind- someting most GRCC student are incapable of doing."
"Should have dropped when i had the chance. The tests did not correspond to lecture material or readings. Constantly was making negative comments on politics and america. Lots of swearing. To old to care if he is doing a good job. Very hard to get a good grade. 2hrs lecture with no break! Do not take"
"The best teacher I have ever had. No other teacher compares to Roger. He has a reaistic and cynical view of History. Yes, he does lecture for two hours straight, but with no notes. Really knows his stuff, every History Major should take his classes. HS 101, 102 and PS 101. Easy class if dedicated."
these are comments on my race and ethnic relations prof, geoffrey simmons. one of my classmate at spring arbor is actually taking him right now. i learned a ton in his class. he genuinely cares about people on the underside of society, and it was eye-opening to learn american history from the side of the oppressed. i also learned a lot about marxism as a historical lense which i found very helpful.
"changed the way i see the world-great teacher"
"Big time Pinko-Nazi! hes a supporter of marxism, but hes still cool. really interesting if you like to know more about hoe the goverment is screwing us. *MAKE SURE YOU READ THE BOOK TOO*"
"Mr. Simmon is definitely a liberal hippie type, but he's super cool and very smart. His class isn't that hard if you listen in class and read the book. Expect to hear lots of fun stories!!"
and last but not least, mr. clyde poag. it was after mr. poag's class one day where i met the woman who designed ferris state university's BSW program who told me about spring arbor. i remember being pretty intimidated by mr. poag because he was black and i was taking a class on social problems. it was a great experience, however, and i'll never forget when i finished my final presentation for that class when he looked at me and said "i am so proud." his class was the beginning of my social work career, and it's somewhat frustrating for me to read comments like the ones below because his class was such a meaningful experience.
"Absolutely the worst professor ever. He makes you feel like the worst person alive if you are not an African-American. I dreaded going to that class because he is right and you are wrong."
"Not such a bad teacher...if you put in any effort whatsoever you'll get an A...he is very pro african american...seems to talk a lot of trash about white people...he is a good guy though, just do your work on time and you'll be fine"
anyways, i think it'd be fun to go back again someday after i get my masters. although i'm not sure how that works. i don't know if you can just go back to community college and take undergrad classes for fun once you've been to grad school. all these guys are way liberal, to say the least, but i loved that. after having conservative dogma pounded in my head for 25 years of my life, it was refreshing to get the other side of the story from some very seasoned intellectuals. i miss not knowing what's going to come next, as where spring arbor is very familiar to me. but anyways, i still have grad school at grand valley, and who knows what i'll be blogging about then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
