Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.
I know that multiculturalism has many ways that it can be taught. I am familiar
with many of the discussions that have been on the list including the extended
Northwest Coast totem discussion this fall which was, as you describe, quite
enlightening ( I referred to this in my first post).
Much of the writing currently being published about multicultural approaches
involves discussions of "context", "cross-cultural investigations", and "social change."
My interest is simply to find out if people are engaged in any of the above
approaches that the multicultural art literature is actively discussing
and calling "more effective".
I am wondering specifically what kinds of projects/directions teachers are
developing if they choose to teach multiculturalism from the positions listed above.
If teachers choose not to teach this way I am wondering why not?
About your request:
It seems to me that by the way you ask your questions, you have already made a
decision as to what constitutes "multiculturalism.' Apparently, for you, it
involves "engaging in the context,""cross-cultural investigations" and
engaging in "social change."
Now, I personally have no problem with any of these three criteria. But, it
just seems to me that if you are interested in what teachers are doing in the
classroom, perhaps your questions should not preclude the possibility that
teaching multiculturalism in the classroom might also mean something else.
Discussion on this list over the past few years has addressed this issue and
it has been enlightening. There has been a wide range of thought regarding the
conceptualization of multiculturalism, as well as thoughts regarding the
problematic nature of teaching it.