Lincoln's Fart Joke

It may surprise you to learn that Abraham Lincoln, widely regarded as one of the best, if not the best, Presidents in American History, was a big fan of crude humor. He was also apparently a good storyteller - it was said he "could make a cat laugh." I heard this joke of his re-told today and it brought me to tears. Apparently it's not close to the crudest he told (one contemporary referred to him as "possibly the most obscene individual ever"), but it is, in my estimation, gut-bustingly hilarious:

There was a party once, not far from Springfield, and among the crowd was one of those men who had audacity. Cheeky, quick-witted, never off guard on any occasion. The audacious man, chosen to be the carver of the turkey at the dinner table, whetted his great carving knife and got down to business carving the bird. The man of audacity expended too much force and let a fart, a loud fart, so that all the people heard it distinctly. It shocked all.

A deep silence reigned.

However, the audacious man was entirely self-possessed. He pulled off his coat, rolled up his sleeves, spat on his hands, whetted the carving knife again, never cracking a smile or moving a muscle on his face. It became a wonder in the minds of all the men and women how the fellow was to get out of his dilemma. He squared himself and said loudly and distinctly, “Now, by God, I’ll see if I can’t cut up this turkey without farting!”

If you don't think that's funny I really don't know what to tell you. And if you don't think I'm going to share this joke with every single history class I teach from now on you don't know me very well.

Ethnocentrism is Good

There - did I get you to click on and read through my post? Haha.

I did this post as part of a discussion board assignment for my teaching credential program and figured I’d put it up here as well for your perusal.

Teacher Performance Expectation F: Developing as a Professional Educator - is important. Two of its subpoints are:
12.2 "Candidates are aware of their own personal values and biases and recognize ways in which these values and biases affect the teaching and learning of students.
12.3 "Candidates resist racism and acts of intolerance."
(Taken from http://pact.gse.uci.edu/tpe/)

These are important elements of becoming a great teacher, and they're related to a lot of what is mentioned in Johnson, et. al (2008) on page 96 under the heading "Ethnocentrism."

Johnson condemns ethnocentrism as the belief that your way of life is superior to others (2008, p. 96). He then condemns the beliefs and cultural values of some religious groups before misrepresenting them. Those religious people that believe the homosexual lifestyle is wrong are said to "not tolerate alternate beliefs" and "believe that their cultural values and lifestyle are the only correct ones" (Johnson, 2008, p. 96). Unfortunately for Johnson his declaration that ethnocentrism is wrong and that these religious people are incorrect is itself an ethnocentric notion. In Johnson's world he has no more right to criticize that (misrepresented) religious point of view than he says they have the right to consider the homosexual lifestyle incorrect.

To say they "do not tolerate alternate beliefs" is a misrepresentation, unless he is talking about those groups who perpetrate violence on others. Simply believing someone else is wrong is not an example of intolerance or ethnocentrism - it's an example of disagreement. Using Johnson's own definition of tolerance and ethnocentrism, he is an intolerant ethnocentrist.
I am not saying this because I don't believe ethnocentrism is a problem. I believe it is. Too many people (including teachers) consider their own point of view superior to others, and think any who disagree with them are fools. This point of view is not limited to religious people or Democrats or Republicans or Americans or Europeans; it is part of the human experience. Being aware of our own ethnocentric tendencies and taking care not to unfairly discriminate against or judge others is essential. It's important for a History teacher to be careful how they discuss/teach/treat the groups in their curriculum. It is also important, I think, to teach students that extreme cultural relativism (the point of view Johnson seems to be promoting) and extreme ethnocentrism are both problematic.

 

Teachers must all be aware of the perspectives they have and how it influences them and what they are teaching. I agree with Johnson when he says that all teachers "must confront their own ethnocentrism" (2008, p. 96). We must teach the differences between groups and empower students to make decisions with regard to what they want to accept, condemn, or praise. I don't want to produce students that are so enlightened and forward-thinking that they cannot find fault in anything in any culture.
A culture that thinks it is okay to put people into slavery is worthy of being condemned on that point. A culture that tries to exterminate an ethnic group is, I can confidently say, worthy of criticism and I am fine with referring to others cultures as superior in that regard. A culture that mutilates girls and women is worthy of being considered faulty on that point.

At the same time we must not paint every person in such a culture as an inferior person - they are a person in a culture with some messed up ideas. Why do they believe the way they do? They were likely socialized to believe it? How can we work toward a society where people are not socialized into bigotry or hatred? These questions cannot be asked from a point of view totally free from ethnocentrism. I know the ideas from these cultures are "messed up" from my point of view - but if it makes me ethnocentrist to condemn slavery, genocide, and the mutilation and forced servitude of women - I'm cool with that.

 

It's important for teachers to help students have the ability to make these kind of distinctions. In order for a teacher to do that they must be aware of their own prejudices and ethnocentric tendencies, and be very aware of how they're communicating with their students. And even if a culture is worthy of some kind of criticism - simply criticizing it and leaving it at that is not sufficient. The teacher should engage in the questions I mentioned above and more - help students think for themselves through the issues and reach their own conclusions. I think this is a worthy goal for any teacher.

Read my post on history

I put up a post up at The Noob Teacher about teaching history.  I'd be interested in the perspective some of you have on it.  So hop over, read the post, and leave a comment.  Pretty please?

I don't want to be a paragraph (Part 2)

Yes it's three weeks later.  No I don't care.  This is a continuation of the previous post by the same name, so read that first if you want the full context.  In that post I mentioned the fact that as I study history I realize there are so many people who seemed so significant but at best they end up being a paragraph in a history book that students don't care to read.  So many of us want to be significant and live meaningful lives.  But how do we do that? 

I'm not sure exactly what the secret is but I know what it is not.  The secret is not worrying about what other people think and striving for significance in the eyes of others.  I am a huge sports fan and I love both baseball and football.  I pay attention to the sports more than 95% of the population.  But I'd have a hard time telling you who won the Super Bowl four years ago.  (It was probably the stupid Patriots.)  In the moment those guys winning the Super Bowl was the biggest thing - it was all over the news, they went to Disneyland and on talk shows - and then, nothing.  Nobody cares anymore and a new season begins.  When the king dies and five, ten, twenty years go by he is nothing but a memory.  A hundred years go by and he's a paragraph in a textbook.

I don't want that to happen to me!

Looking death in the face can be a terrifying thing.  I'm on this planet for a short time and then I'm gone.  What will be left of me?  I know this sounds lame, but all that will really be left of me are the memories the people I love and that loved me have.  The only things that will really last forever that I did on this earth will have to do with the people I spent time with and the relationships I developed.  Time I spend pursuing goals outside of people will be essentially wasted time. 

So I don't want to be a paragraph.  I want to be a husband, father, friend, disciple of Jesus, teacher, mentor, coach, etc.  I want to fight against the constant desire to be admired or looked up to or whatever else it is I want by other other.  As long as that is the goal of my life I'm going to be disappointed.  This isn't anything terribly profound but it is something that's hit home to me more lately.  Having a daughter and thinking about her future, thinking about the fact that the day will come when I'm not there, makes me consider how much more precious life is.

As my favorite radio show hosts have said, "you never walk away from a dinner saying to yourself 'man I wish I had some more of that pie!'"  Well I'm fairly confident I will not reach the end of my life saying "I wish I'd had that better gaming rig" or "I wish I'd had that award" or whatever else.  All my regrets are probably going to have something to do with people.  So I'd better do what I can to focus on people and avoid the fate of becoming a paragraph.

You know, this whole two-post thing was a lot more eloquent in my head at 5am when I first came up with it three weeks ago.

I don't want to be a paragraph (Part 1)

This morning I was spending some time studying for the CSET, a big test I'm taking on May 17th.  It's one step along the way towards becoming a teacher.  I have to take this series of three subtests to prove I know my stuff.  The first test is on World History and Geography, the second is U.S. History and Geography, and the third is Economics/Government/California History and Geography.  I'm taking them all May 17th and expect them to be a headache but I also expect to pass them.

Anyway, as I was saying before I so rudely interrupted myself, this morning while studying for the CSET I was once again struck by a thought that has occurred to me a number of times.  As I read through the history of American Imperialism in the late 1800's and early 1900's, the struggle for Mexican independence, Russia's slow climb (descent?) into Bolshevism, China and Japan's eventual acceptance of foreign influence, and so on, I came across lots and lots of names.  Benito Juarez, Santa Anna, Pancho Villa, Porfirio Diaz, Marie Curie, Alexander Graham Bell, Otto von Bismarck, Kaiser Wilhelm, Emperor Mutsuhito, The Dowager Empress Cixi, and so many more.

Each of these people was incredibly important in their time.  Some accomplished much good, others much bad, most a bit of both.  People knew who they were, they had power, they had influence, they had the kinds of things that supposedly make one's life worth living.  I was struck by the finality of the words in this textbook as I read.  These peoples' lives and accomplishments were boiled down into a sentence or two, or if they were particularly important they got a paragraph or a sidebar with a few paragraphs and some bullet points.  They're gone, and I suppose the world is different for their having been here, but to most people they're simply a paragraph on a page.  No matter what you accomplish - whether it's opening your nation to Western influence and beginning the process of modernization (like Emperor Mutsuhito) or being a soldier in a war where millions died over Nationalistic sentiments or being one of the 20 million who succumbed to the Influenza Epidemic in the early 20th century - that's it for your life.  You're done, and at best you're a paragraph in a history book that very few people find interesting and fewer care about.  

I don't usually read posts longer than this if I didn't write them or if they're really interesting, so I'm going to stop here and complete this thought in a separate entry, to be posted soon.

Jesus' Tomb Found: Christianity False!

According to James Cameron (yes, of Terminator fame) the tomb of Jesus has been found. The Discovery Channel will have a special giving us all the info on it. Apparently this tomb in question was discovered around 1980 - and in it there are ossuaries with names like Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. They've also done DNA tests to prove they've actually found the Jesus' remains! (Don't ask how that works.)

Here are a couple things you might want to read on this topic, which I think will get some buzz in the coming months:

The Discovery Channel Site

The Internet Monk's post on this - he keeps updating it and adding resources. Go there.

A Jerusalem Post story with the following quote:

But Bar-Ilan University Prof. Amos Kloner, the Jerusalem District archeologist who officially oversaw the work at the tomb in 1980 and has published detailed findings on its contents, on Saturday night dismissed the claims. “It makes a great story for a TV film,” he told The Jerusalem Post. “But it’s impossible. It’s nonsense.”

Kloner, who said he was interviewed for the new film but has not seen it, said the names found on the ossuaries were common, and the fact that such apparently resonant names had been found together was of no significance. He added that “Jesus son of Joseph” inscriptions had been found on several other ossuaries over the years.

“There is no likelihood that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb,” Kloner said. “They were a Galilee family with no ties in Jerusalem. The Talpiot tomb belonged to a middle-class family from the 1st century CE.”

An NT Wright page on evidence for the resurrection. He doesn't claim it's enough to convince every skeptic that the resurrection must have occurred. But he does make a good, effective, historical case for the essential portions of the resurrection account. Worth looking at.

HT: imonk, BHT