Pedagogy of the Oppressed: What is the difference?
Rubi Garza
Texas A&M International University
The importance of using the term “oppressed”, rather than “disfranchised” is based on the knowledge that both words bring to the table. According to Freire’s book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (2002), language can distort reality. The term disfranchised is seen as some sort of deprivation an individual can have from many different things, such as, privileges. On the other hand, the term “oppressed” is seen as harsh treatment or action against an individual, which purposefully weights them down, in order for the individual to not attain what they are striving for. Therefore, using the term “disfranchised” ultimately does not show who is depriving …show more content…
McAfee’s McGraw-Hill article (2015), we see a very similar situation happen with the wording in the textbook. The book calls African American slaves, “workers” and “immigrants”. The problem with this is that when you call a person a worker, there must be some sort of pay involved. When you call someone an immigrant, it means that they have migrated to another place. Nevertheless, knowing the long history of slavery, we know that these words are not accurate at all. They actually change the reality of what happened in the past, and it is seen as white washing this part of history. People do not like to remember slavery, but it is the reality that many oppressed and discriminated people went through. The term “slaves” is the accurate word to use, even if it comes with harsh feelings. This term should not be a shameful word, rather something that we can look back on for guidance of wanting a better tomorrow. The injustice people feel when they see the change in terms that do not show the true reality of this specific history is very logical. The importance of keeping the term “slaves” has so much more significance than the word itself. Within the word there is history that should not be tainted and future generations that should not be blinded by the changes that a keyboard or pen can
Rubi Garza
Texas A&M International University
The importance of using the term “oppressed”, rather than “disfranchised” is based on the knowledge that both words bring to the table. According to Freire’s book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (2002), language can distort reality. The term disfranchised is seen as some sort of deprivation an individual can have from many different things, such as, privileges. On the other hand, the term “oppressed” is seen as harsh treatment or action against an individual, which purposefully weights them down, in order for the individual to not attain what they are striving for. Therefore, using the term “disfranchised” ultimately does not show who is depriving …show more content…
McAfee’s McGraw-Hill article (2015), we see a very similar situation happen with the wording in the textbook. The book calls African American slaves, “workers” and “immigrants”. The problem with this is that when you call a person a worker, there must be some sort of pay involved. When you call someone an immigrant, it means that they have migrated to another place. Nevertheless, knowing the long history of slavery, we know that these words are not accurate at all. They actually change the reality of what happened in the past, and it is seen as white washing this part of history. People do not like to remember slavery, but it is the reality that many oppressed and discriminated people went through. The term “slaves” is the accurate word to use, even if it comes with harsh feelings. This term should not be a shameful word, rather something that we can look back on for guidance of wanting a better tomorrow. The injustice people feel when they see the change in terms that do not show the true reality of this specific history is very logical. The importance of keeping the term “slaves” has so much more significance than the word itself. Within the word there is history that should not be tainted and future generations that should not be blinded by the changes that a keyboard or pen can