Heroes and Martyrs
Executive Summary:
1. The problem:
Part 1 – Answer the question, “Is Ned Kelly a hero?”
Part 2 – “Using the same techniques as ‘Ned Kelly,’ please discuss and answer the following question: Were the Chicago Seven martyrs?”
2. Discussion of relevance/meaning:
Is Ned Kelly a hero?
This learning adventure has been unique from the others as it focuses less on me creating something and understanding/observing my learning process and more on how I interpret historical events based on numerous factors. These factors include my own life experience, the opinions of my Cadre 11 colleagues, and the opinions and facts housed in the wealth of online resources that has been uncovered in only a short time with this question. I find myself less interested in formulating an ‘answer’ to this question as I am to observing the learning process of myself and others that has been prompted by the question.
After reading all of the current posts on the topic in the forum it is clear that there are strong opinions related to this question. This raises my curiosity to understand more of the background to these opinions, not what references were used in researching the question, but what are the life experiences that have shaped the answers? Certainly there are driving factors that lead us to call one persons actions just and heroic in a given circumstance, and similar actions as villainous and in another. This reminded me of a passage from Surpassing Ourselves, “Probably all individual knowledge has feelings connected with it. There are pleasant facts and unpleasant facts, appealing ideas and offensive ideas. Studies using rating scales have shown that, presented with virtually anything – material or immaterial – people will register impressions of it as good or bad, strong or weak, active or inactive. (13 – Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum 1957) (Bereiter and Scardamalia 54)
What feelings do we bring to a learning experience that shapes and colors our understanding? What about our learners? How do we take this into consideration? As pointed out in Surpassing Ourselves, “Typically, however, feelings associated with knowledge operate in the background.” (Bereiter and Scardamalia 54) How is this implicit knowledge the all learners have made just explicit enough that we can assist them in their learning. What is behind a learners fear or dislike of a particular subject?
Back to the question at hand. I myself am having a hard time answering the question for one key reason – it is very out of context for me in my life and experience. For me much of it has to do with perspective and context, of which I can only attempt to understand from the artifacts presented in the online media. This much I can say, Ned Kelly was a hero when he “…was able to rescue the seven year old Richard Shelton from drowning when he fell in the creek opposite the Kelly home.” and when he quit school to take care of his family and still managed to become quite the self-educated man from all accounts.
I, as others on this forum, do not agree with killing under anything but the most incredibly ‘necessary’ of situations (the definition of ‘necessary’ being unique for us all). I do however see heroic moments in Ned Kelly’s life and can sense the inspiration that he brought to a group of weary, somewhat powerless members of society in his time.
Were the Chicago Seven martyrs?
As I have researched this new question and began to learn more about the background and history related to the “Chicago Seven” I found myself returning to the post that I made related to Part One of this adventure. As with the Ned Kelly question I am again in a position of this being somewhat out of context to my direct experience. But, unlike a question of social injustice from Australia of the 1870s, this question does literally hit closer to home and I do have some feelings tied to it that definitely influence my learning – as so many of the cadre have noted in their posts as well.
Reflecting on the process of learning, I am noting how my context and understanding are also being influenced by the postings of my fellow cadre members and find myself developing more of an opinion through this interaction than from the online artifacts alone. From this ‘situated position’ within the cadre I find myself leaning away from using a term as strong as ‘martyr’ for the Chicago Seven.
I see them as passionate individuals who were willing to push the establishment in support of their beliefs. They certainly underwent hardships associated from this experience but in the end did not make the ‘ultimate sacrifice’ for their beliefs that I feel characterizes a true martyr. Whether I agree with their positions or not I feel that my answer to the question stands based more on pure definition than any first hand knowledge of the situation. While not martyrs, they were certainly held up as examples by those in the ‘establishment’. This attempt at making them an example ultimately may have backfired, as is often the case with these types of situations – an attempt to silence a movement often holds it up to a bullhorn and takes it further than it could have gone on its own.
Tom Hayden and Jerry Rubin acknowledged this truth themselves during their sentencing by Judge Hoffman on February 20, 1970:
“Tom Hayden offered the opinion that ‘we would hardly have been notorious characters if they left us alone on the streets of Chicago,’ but instead ‘we became the architects, the masterminds, and the geniuses of a conspiracy to overthrow the government– we were invented.'”
And,
“Jerry Rubin offered the judge a copy of his new book Do It! with an inscription inside: ‘Julius, you radicalized more young people than we ever could. You’re the country’s top Yippie.'” (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Chicago7/Account.html)
As with my thoughts on Ned, I don’t agree with all of the means and methods employed by the Chicago Seven to further their beliefs, nor do I agree with the brutality applied by the police in this situation. In the end I don’t believe that the Chicago Seven were martyrs in the strict sense, but to those that desired a change in that tumultuous time of the late 1960s and early 1970s they did represent a rallying point to this social movement.
In closing my reflection on this question I would like to re-post a portion of my commentary on the first question ‘Was Ned Kelly a hero?’ including this quote from Surpassing Ourselves, “Probably all individual knowledge has feelings connected with it. There are pleasant facts and unpleasant facts, appealing ideas and offensive ideas. Studies using rating scales have shown that, presented with virtually anything – material or immaterial – people will register impressions of it as good or bad, strong or weak, active or inactive.” (13 – Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum 1957) (Bereiter and Scardamalia 54)
As I reflected in that posting:
“What feelings do we bring to a learning experience that shapes and colors our understanding? What about our learners? How do we take this into consideration? As pointed out in Surpassing Ourselves, “Typically, however, feelings associated with knowledge operate in the background.” (Bereiter and Scardamalia 54) How is this implicit knowledge the all learners have made just explicit enough that we can assist them in their learning? What is behind a learner’s fear or dislike of a particular subject?”
I’m curious to get the thoughts and opinions of the cadre on how we consider the social, cultural, economic, political, personal life experience, and more, in the way that we engage and support those whom we teach? What might be going on beneath the surface that is reflected in the classroom?
3. Possible conclusions/solution:
How do the two questions differ as experiences? Why?
I echo the reflections of many of my fellow cadre members in that the two questions differ based on the relative ‘closeness’ to our own personal experiences and to what degree our personal feelings influenced our choices.
With Ned Kelly being from a completely different place and time I found myself trying to put myself into that place and time as much as possible through reading the history and background. I felt this type of understanding was critical to my opinion of whether or not he was a hero.
For the Chicago Seven, while I still did not have direct personal knowledge of the situation, I have had discussions with my parents about that era in US history, took a history course related to that time period during my undergrad work, and ‘felt’ the emotions of fellow cadre members through their sharing about the event. I found it much easier to attach emotions to this situation and that I had to work harder to ‘look beyond’ those initial feelings and consider the question from as objective a place as possible.
What are the implications of this learning adventure given the continuous concern over using the Web as a credible source of information?
The Web, like any source, needs to be verified and cross-referenced with as much due diligence as is reasonably possible to ensure that accurate information is acquired. As is always the case, primary sources should be sought over secondary accounts and derivative works. The Web has the potential to be as credible (or not) as any other source – we have heard the accounts of newspapers, prestigious journals, national televised news, and even official documents that have served false information either willfully or by being duped in some manner. Check the source, check the facts, if it sounds unlikely, then check them again.
Did any “less official” sites offer better information than more “official sites?”
As many others have commented, there was often more ‘color’ and back story on the ‘less official’ sites than the “official ones”. I’m not sure I would call the information better, just of a different kind that was also valuable to the process of learning about these two historical events and gathering background for answering the questions.
Why do you think I presented the two questions in the order I chose?
The order allowed for a clearer view of how our personal experiences are intertwined in our learning – guiding and shaping our impressions and understanding of any given event. By starting with the question about Ned Kelly, an issue that we were highly unlikely to have any clear personal impressions of, I found that I had to learn more about the background and history of that time and place to then move on to understanding Ned’s plight. For the Chicago Seven I did not feel that I needed to do as much digging into the history of the time and could focus on the specific details of the events in forming my opinion.
The order in this case allowed me to personally see how experience and impressions are key pieces of our learning that can both assist and also create challenges. These challenges can be good if they cause us to dig deeper into an issue for greater understanding. The challenges can also be represented by unwillingness to change our opinions even when new evidence is presented. It depends on how closely we hold feelings tied to an issue and how much trust we place in the source of those feelings. Our experiences and feelings about particular subjects or issues have a large impact on how we engage in learning something new.
4. Supporting evidence – may include links, graphics, references, supportive arguments:
Ned Kelly links – thanks to fellow Cadre 11 members for locating and sharing many of these links:
http://www.ironoutlaw.com/html/history_01.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Kelly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cdCKu7NaAI
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/30/1051381992052.html
http://forum.education.tas.gov.au/webforum/education/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000083
http://www.kellygang.asn.au/people/peC/curnowThomasT.html
http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/nedkelly/
Discussions held on: http://groups.google.com/group/ed664—fall-2008—discussion-forum/browse_frm/thread/ef53d34978ccc8a0?hl=en
Chicago Seven links – again, Cadre 11 colleagues shared many of these in the discussions:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Chicago7/chicago7.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Seven
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Chicago7/Sentencing.html
http://www.petelit.com/2007/09/courtroom-sketc.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc
Discussions held on: http://groups.google.com/group/ed664—fall-2008—discussion-forum/browse_frm/thread/600c3de67e764915?hl=en
and: http://groups.google.com/group/ed664—fall-2008—discussion-forum/browse_frm/thread/4fc55bc57d9a7367?hl=en
Reflection on the Process:
In reflecting on this learning process I am realizing how much I am influenced by my own past experiences that color what I learn, as well as how I enjoy social interaction in the learning process. For each of the questions presented in this adventure I found myself enthralled by the responses of fellow cadre members – both in support of my feelings, and particularly when they were in argument against my opinions. Much of my learning about these subjects came from the commentary and reflections of the cadre and I found myself going back and forth between online resources and the reflections of my colleagues as I worked to develop and refine my own understanding of the background of each of the events.
In retrospect – a week later as I write this reflection and review my original sources and commentary – I am learning that I would like to spend more time with primary sources when researching issues like this in the future. I feel that I let my preconceptions, combined with some initial knowledge of each situation and the influence of my colleagues, shape my arguments. I wouldn’t change my responses, but I would provide more context and reasoning behind them.
This adventure was a great opportunity for me to stop and think about researching and the Internet and what that means to me as I move through my Action Research Project and on throughout my career.