I know I'm sounding more and more like I don't like my family, but eventually I'll get to its good qualities too, because there are some good qualities too.
I want to talk about gender in my family, the gendered roles and attitudes. To start with I will say that I think of myself as somewhat of a feminist, but I don't think there's anything wrong with traditional gender roles if the people involved feel comfortable with that. But what I do object to is expecting that everyone is going to be willing to likewise adopt traditional views and roles in this regard.
Now to insinuate that there is any sexism in my family will most certainly raise all kinds of protests. But, to be fair, our family constitution lends itself to internal sexism, even if the individuals involved don't otherwise consider themselves thus.
I could go into some history on this subject, but I'm going to, instead, just deal with the present (and near past). Probably a big impetus in this regard actually comes from mom. What I mean is that she is helpless in many ways, such as anything technical and finances.
But there has also been a history (I guess I have to go back a bit on this one) of sort of a familial version of the "good old boys' club". Dad did special things with my brothers that developed a kind of relationship that I am not privy to. Some of these things include river rafting down the Colorado River (in the Grand Canyon) and biking 400 miles from Seattle to the town in British Columbia where mom is from.
On the other hand, I think the relationship between my mom and I has been more adversarial, so that in recent years I've begun to think she has thought of me in a more competitive way. I'm not positive, but I don't think this has been so present in the male relationships in the family.
But in the several years before dad died, when I called (long-distance from the US Midwest or East Coast) more often than not if dad answered the phone he'd only talk briefly with me and say that when I called mom always perked up, so he'd hand the phone to mom. Maybe I don't fit the typical female stereotype, such as having to take female friends with me when I go to the bathroom. Why would I perk mom up any more than my brothers? I know they both did a lot along these lines, especially the brother in Seattle, but dad's repeated assertions made me think that mom wanted a unique female bonding with me. Since mom is so frail and there has turned out to be virtually nothing else I can do to help her that my brothers aren't already doing, this is the only think I can help with. But there still remains this sense that this bonding somehow includes a female competition element, which I don't really like.
So, in my family, relationships are pretty well defined along gendered roles and there appears to be little to nothing I can do about it, but I don't really like it, especially with the other distasteful (to me) elements. Again, it appears that over and above anything else you can say about me, I am a woman and that defines who I am, what I can and should do, etc. Hopefully you expect me to say that I'm not at all comfortable with this state of affairs.
So what are my options vis a vis all these things I don't like about the family? The options are precious few, but include 1) accepting the rules of play and joining in, 2) minimize my contact with the family so as to try to avoid as much of the yuck as I can, or 3) abandon the family altogether. I can't think of any other options, but I'm open to suggestions on that one. The positive qualities of the family, as a unit, will need to be seen against the backdrop I've presented in these past few posts and evaluated accordingly.
***
We're still in the chapter section "A MODEL OF THE NEWCOMER EXPERIENCE," but now we're in a new sub-section - "Sense Making" - and a new sub-sub-section - "The role of conscious thought in coping."
"[Langer (1978: 58)] proposed that conscious thinking is necessary when the outcomes of our acts are inconsistent with anticipated outcomes or when scripted behavior is effortful or interrupted." (p. 240)
This does make a certain amount of sense... to an extent, but I don't think it's entirely true either. That is the aspects of a situation that strike you as unusual could well lead to your being conscious about them and thus result in your consciously trying to make sense of them, whether by trial and error or asking other members of the organization.
But I think that there could be things that are sort of under the radar, where you may feel some discomfort or uncertainty, but you don't quite understand it. In these situations, I think there would be a lot that you're not conscious about. Also, you could just be oblivious to signals from the organization or to potential cause-effect relationships between your actions (or words) and those of the organization (or individuals within it).
Since I have some language learning/teaching background (English as a second/foreign language), I'm going to turn to that background now, without looking up references and the like, however. In language learning - whether first language or second (or third or...) language - generally young children pick up this skill more or less unconsciously. But they don't particularly know the rules of the language, hence grammar instruction in school. As you get older, though, you tend to rely more on conscious rule making and trial and error, or listening to others for examples of how to speak.
In language teaching, some methodologies (for teaching older youth and adults) have tried to replicate the early childhood experience of language learning, but there are limitations with these approaches, although they do have some benefits too, such as the risk of errors becoming fossilized if not corrected, which (the act of correcting) would most likely mean reverting to conscious language learning. That being said, however, relying completely on conscious language learning could lead to halting communication as the learner attempts to think through each grammatical issue while in the act of communicating.
I don't think this comparison is completely unwarranted, for at least a couple reasons. Language is a special skill that is fundamental for how we think and practically everything else in life depends on language. Also, language involves special psychological and physiological factors that generally aren't nearly so relevant for other areas of learning. Likewise, understanding one's socio-cultural milieu involves (I think - I'm not so sure of my theoretical underpinnings here) aspects that we just take for granted and never really thought about. For example, even people who generally are aware of the issue of body language might not know that personal space is an issue in body language and so would not pick up on any disparities in new situations (unless, perhaps, someone pointed it out to them). As an adult you might have the socio-cultural equivalent of a reasonably good grammatical knowledge, but there would be gaps in your basic knowledge that would make learning a new socio-cultural context could be a hindrance, although, again, children could pick this up unconsciously more easily than adults. Part of the reason for this, I expect, is the hard-wiring of our brains and the signal pathways in it (one thing teaching tries to do is strengthen desirable pathways or mental connections) is more well-set and we're more blinded by our native (first language/first culture) way of sense-making. Young children might not be so hindered.
Still, as I already said, it seems there would be a certain amount of truth to the statement here, as long as you keep in mind the limitations I've just discussed. In this light, I expect that things that are glaringly different (black and white, not light gray and white) and things that touch on areas you otherwise recognized as being cultural you would be more likely to be conscious of. However, in cases where there is a broad swath variance from what you are familiar with and/or in situations that involve more subtle differences or cues a child, adapting unconsciously to the situation might have advantage of the adult, much as in language learning. Working with Soviet emigrants I witnessed enough cases where the children served as interpreters for their elders, and anyone familiar with the world of immigrants can vouch for this phenomena. I think it's also true for culture, not just language, but the child might not be as helpful to their elders in this sphere.
Returning to the Vienna context, however, I think that the mission had developed a fine-tuned ability to reveal or hide organizational truths, at least in part, but intentionally making cultural cues confusing. In such a situation it would be nigh impossible to make sense of things, no matter how conscious you were of cultural differences. I think you'd have to have some understanding of other fields of study to make sense of the "whys" and "what fors" of apparently conscious activities that went beyond just routine cultural norms. In other words, a course in cross-cultural communication or language studies, for example, wouldn't cut it. In my case, my understanding of how the Soviet Union treated believers was my reference point as did my understand of how cults operated, which were specific cultural reference points that guided me in my sense making of the mission's organizational culture. Unfortunately, the usefulness of these reference points remained throughout my tenure with the mission. And with these reference points I was made conscious of things I witnessed or experienced in the Vienna mission that seemed relevant, in one way or another, to standards in my mind. But the veritable plethora of signals at times and the frequent changes made it difficult and confusing, although I could compare even this to my theoretical guideposts (USSR, cults).
I think probably once you entered the belly of the beast - became an insider in the mission - you would be guided into a certain logic that would translate the things I, as a veritable outsider or quasi-insider, that would reframe the meaning of how the mission operated so that it would be not just more comprehensible, but also more somehow more palatable to Christian and theological sensibilities.
***
"[W]hen scripts fail, the individual must develop explanations for why the actual outcomes occurred and why the predicted outcomes did not." (p. 240)
Very conveniently for the mission, new missionaries would be adapting to both mission life and life in a foreign country, so the mission could defer causation of any difficulties in making the transition as being due to life in the Austrian context, thus alleviating any possible repercussions the mission might face due to there being any possible problems inherent in the mission itself and how it treated its newcomers.
The mission would say (using the text's terms) that the scripts only failed vis a vis the Austrian context, not the mission context. After all, the mission was just an extension of Evangelical life and culture back home, right? (If so, that's pretty scary; it gives a whole new perspective on Evangelical life and culture back home. Unfortunately, I think there is some truth to this concern, however, inasmuch as what I witnessed in Vienna is an outgrowth of church life back home.)
***
"In attribution research, individuals have been viewed as naive scientists, who make sense of events on the basis of available information..." (p. 240)
This paragraph goes on to address areas along this line that have or have not been adequately researched. I won't comment on this now, because I already said enough in my comments above regarding language and cultural learning. It's been years since I've read these texts and I'm not reading ahead, for the most part, as I go. If I did that I'd really never get done with this project. Eventually, though, I'll have to go back and try to tie everything together, streamline it, etc.
***
I'm going to stop here, but we should finish with this article with my next post.
Showing posts with label ESL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ESL. Show all posts
Friday, March 11, 2011
Friday, August 13, 2010
54. 1983, 2nd Half of the Year
Once again I'm going to quote from the human rights report I wrote about 15 years ago. However, I'm not to provide some details (e.g., some people's names, many of whom are consequential anyway as far as the gist of my story goes). Some of this text
***
After a week of orientation at the [mission] headquarters... we left for Europe in the beginning of June. There were about 20 of us. We flew to Luxembourg and drove from there to [Vienna] which would be our base for the summer.
I was on one of the two refugee camp teams working in [name of town], Austria. The two teams alternated weeks there. Other than that I worked one week at an evangelical summer camp in Poland... I also traveled in Czechoslovakia setting up meetings... Finally, I made 1 trip to Budapest bringing in Christian literature.
We stuck to ourselves, per instructions by our leaders and didn't mix with the Austrians or other Americans. We even had our own church service[s], as, we were told, everyone would know what we were there for.
It was that summer I also had my first contact with [the mission I worked 2 years with in Vienna]. I was sent to their office in one of the missionary vans to pick up a "light table" (for drafting). I didn't really remember anything of that trip - the people or what we discussed - but I later realized that they sent me there on purpose as they wanted me to work there. When I returned to the States one of [the mission's] workers made a point of showing me [the Vienna mission's] brochures and describing their work to me.
Then from there I went to Hamburg, Germany, where I spent a week with a dear elderly couple working with [a different mission to Eastern Europe]... George [the husband] was a Russian Baptist pastor and [his wife], of Czech descent, was the sister of a lady in my church [where I went to Bible school]... They worked among emigrants from various countries and shippers and truckers from E. Eur. and the Soviet Union. They also travelled into the Soviet Union, although less and less as they got older.
I would say that this trip to Europe was a trial for me - I was trying to find out how I could best fit into E. Eur. ministry, what the needs were, what my spiritual gifts and interests were. But my German studies were also a training time - acquiring another useful skill.
I decided to study German because it seemed that few worked solely in the Soviet Union - access was too difficult - and people in the satellite countries didn't like to use Russian. I wanted to study in E. Germany to experience what it's like living in a Communist country so that I could relate to the people I was working with more. But I was still pretty much a beginner, having only studied the language half a year, and to study German in E. Germany you had to be at the graduate level. So I settled for West Berlin with trips to E. Germany.
I studied at the Goethe Institut in Berlin from the beginning of Sept. to the end of Oct. We had classes every morning for four hours. I also attended the Evangelische Freikirche Gemeinde Schoneberg district. I enjoyed this church and met once with Pastor Brandt. I also volunteered three afternoons a week at the Diakonewerke Bethel, an evangelical residence for the mentally handicapped. I cleaned and set up for dinner in the dining room for the workers, for their evening meal.
I had come to Berlin knowing that there was a seminary in E. Berlin, which I soon found at Georgenkirchestrasse, 70. I visited there often and several of us became friends. Once I visited a Baptist retreat in E. Berlin... Later, when I was living in Vienna, I was prohibited from the mission from going to visit Sabine and Thomas Guenzel, friends from the seminary...
From Berlin I went to England. I lived with the Research Director's family actually on the grounds of the [research center], who provided me with room and board, for which I paid a weekly fee. My work at the college was [as a] volunteer. I monitored Soviet newspapers for articles related to religion in the country. Then I updated (re-wrote) the second half of [a report on religion in the Soviet Union using their files]. My last assignment was to translate some letters from believers in the Soviet Union into English[, one of which was later published in a mission's newsletter].
I [volunteered there] thinking that I might be interested in that kind of work. But I saw that [they] were really an ecumenical organization, and not at all what I would call evangelical, and I wanted to be involved more in evangelical mission work... I also was continuing my search for how I could best be involved in E. Eur. missions. When I had time I read through [their] collection of newsletters from missions and myself collected quite a list of missions which I was to use later in my continued search [for how to be involved in E. Eur. missions].
I returned to [where I did my Bible school studies] in the beginning of December, making my stay in Europe 6 months. Then I left for Seattle to spend Christmas with my family. I was there for about a month.
***
End of citation.
I'd like to end this quote with a discussion of some of the details in it.
1. At this point it seems (from this vantage point) that qualms were on my end rather then on than from a mission. I was still coming at this, decisions about the specifics of my career, pretty straight on. I don't mean that I was transparent regarding my questions, but that I was just approaching this from trying to find a good fit between my values and what I thought were my strengths and trying to find a mission and specific ministry to link up with.
In turn, however, I also think that problems I saw with the missions were things that were inherent in themselves and as such had nothing to do with how they treated me specifically, because I was being treated pretty well personally. So you can't say, at least up to this point in the game, that I was just lashing out as a disgruntled worker, because I had no reason to be disgruntled and did not think of myself as being mistreated either. Rather, my complaints were about the mission(s) apart from how they treated me, but how they operated in general. And I stand by those same complaints to this day. In some ways I haven't change in all these years, be that fortunate or unfortunate.
2) Also, I'm not sure at this point why I once and for all decided not to go with SGA after these 6 months. If I find something in my notes and documentation about that, I'll let you know. It can't have been how I personally was treated though, so it must have been something else; maybe it's just that my earlier qualms weren't assuaged and that was enough in and of itself.
3) I did enjoy the work in London, doing the kinds of things I was doing there. Some of the work they did was a support for evangelical missions, but their work involved all kinds of religions, so in the end I didn't feel like it was evangelical enough for me.
4) As an aside, later as and English as a Second Language instructor, although I could relate to students coming from abroad to America based on my experience, especially in Berlin, I couldn't always related. The Goethe Institut (German spelling), as is common with language schools pretty much globally, offered social opportunities and excursions. But I only remember going on one of their excursions, and my life otherwise was very full during those 2 months with non school-related activities, although I did a bit of socializing with at least 3 of the other students that I can remember. So based on my experience I wasn't too sympathetic of students I taught who, outside of formal opportunities the school offered, had virtually no other exposure to Americans. It was hard for me to imagine being so afraid to step out of their comfort zone, since I was all over the place (literally and figuratively) outside of my comfort zone. How on earth did they even have the guts to come study in America anyway if all they were going to do was stay in the confines of the school and its official activities the whole time? And how much added benefit was there for their language learning, compared to, say, learning English in Japan or Bogota? It was sort of incomprehensible to me. And it wasn't like I was fluent in German when I was in Berlin. I remember having some difficulty understanding the instructions for what I was supposed to do in my volunteer work, for example. They were very patient with me, I guess.
That's sort of on another subject though... and doesn't really have anything to do with anything important as far as my autobiography goes...
***
I've got to run as I have some things I need to try to do before 3:00.
~ Meg
***
After a week of orientation at the [mission] headquarters... we left for Europe in the beginning of June. There were about 20 of us. We flew to Luxembourg and drove from there to [Vienna] which would be our base for the summer.
I was on one of the two refugee camp teams working in [name of town], Austria. The two teams alternated weeks there. Other than that I worked one week at an evangelical summer camp in Poland... I also traveled in Czechoslovakia setting up meetings... Finally, I made 1 trip to Budapest bringing in Christian literature.
We stuck to ourselves, per instructions by our leaders and didn't mix with the Austrians or other Americans. We even had our own church service[s], as, we were told, everyone would know what we were there for.
It was that summer I also had my first contact with [the mission I worked 2 years with in Vienna]. I was sent to their office in one of the missionary vans to pick up a "light table" (for drafting). I didn't really remember anything of that trip - the people or what we discussed - but I later realized that they sent me there on purpose as they wanted me to work there. When I returned to the States one of [the mission's] workers made a point of showing me [the Vienna mission's] brochures and describing their work to me.
Then from there I went to Hamburg, Germany, where I spent a week with a dear elderly couple working with [a different mission to Eastern Europe]... George [the husband] was a Russian Baptist pastor and [his wife], of Czech descent, was the sister of a lady in my church [where I went to Bible school]... They worked among emigrants from various countries and shippers and truckers from E. Eur. and the Soviet Union. They also travelled into the Soviet Union, although less and less as they got older.
I would say that this trip to Europe was a trial for me - I was trying to find out how I could best fit into E. Eur. ministry, what the needs were, what my spiritual gifts and interests were. But my German studies were also a training time - acquiring another useful skill.
I decided to study German because it seemed that few worked solely in the Soviet Union - access was too difficult - and people in the satellite countries didn't like to use Russian. I wanted to study in E. Germany to experience what it's like living in a Communist country so that I could relate to the people I was working with more. But I was still pretty much a beginner, having only studied the language half a year, and to study German in E. Germany you had to be at the graduate level. So I settled for West Berlin with trips to E. Germany.
I studied at the Goethe Institut in Berlin from the beginning of Sept. to the end of Oct. We had classes every morning for four hours. I also attended the Evangelische Freikirche Gemeinde Schoneberg district. I enjoyed this church and met once with Pastor Brandt. I also volunteered three afternoons a week at the Diakonewerke Bethel, an evangelical residence for the mentally handicapped. I cleaned and set up for dinner in the dining room for the workers, for their evening meal.
I had come to Berlin knowing that there was a seminary in E. Berlin, which I soon found at Georgenkirchestrasse, 70. I visited there often and several of us became friends. Once I visited a Baptist retreat in E. Berlin... Later, when I was living in Vienna, I was prohibited from the mission from going to visit Sabine and Thomas Guenzel, friends from the seminary...
From Berlin I went to England. I lived with the Research Director's family actually on the grounds of the [research center], who provided me with room and board, for which I paid a weekly fee. My work at the college was [as a] volunteer. I monitored Soviet newspapers for articles related to religion in the country. Then I updated (re-wrote) the second half of [a report on religion in the Soviet Union using their files]. My last assignment was to translate some letters from believers in the Soviet Union into English[, one of which was later published in a mission's newsletter].
I [volunteered there] thinking that I might be interested in that kind of work. But I saw that [they] were really an ecumenical organization, and not at all what I would call evangelical, and I wanted to be involved more in evangelical mission work... I also was continuing my search for how I could best be involved in E. Eur. missions. When I had time I read through [their] collection of newsletters from missions and myself collected quite a list of missions which I was to use later in my continued search [for how to be involved in E. Eur. missions].
I returned to [where I did my Bible school studies] in the beginning of December, making my stay in Europe 6 months. Then I left for Seattle to spend Christmas with my family. I was there for about a month.
***
End of citation.
I'd like to end this quote with a discussion of some of the details in it.
1. At this point it seems (from this vantage point) that qualms were on my end rather then on than from a mission. I was still coming at this, decisions about the specifics of my career, pretty straight on. I don't mean that I was transparent regarding my questions, but that I was just approaching this from trying to find a good fit between my values and what I thought were my strengths and trying to find a mission and specific ministry to link up with.
In turn, however, I also think that problems I saw with the missions were things that were inherent in themselves and as such had nothing to do with how they treated me specifically, because I was being treated pretty well personally. So you can't say, at least up to this point in the game, that I was just lashing out as a disgruntled worker, because I had no reason to be disgruntled and did not think of myself as being mistreated either. Rather, my complaints were about the mission(s) apart from how they treated me, but how they operated in general. And I stand by those same complaints to this day. In some ways I haven't change in all these years, be that fortunate or unfortunate.
2) Also, I'm not sure at this point why I once and for all decided not to go with SGA after these 6 months. If I find something in my notes and documentation about that, I'll let you know. It can't have been how I personally was treated though, so it must have been something else; maybe it's just that my earlier qualms weren't assuaged and that was enough in and of itself.
3) I did enjoy the work in London, doing the kinds of things I was doing there. Some of the work they did was a support for evangelical missions, but their work involved all kinds of religions, so in the end I didn't feel like it was evangelical enough for me.
4) As an aside, later as and English as a Second Language instructor, although I could relate to students coming from abroad to America based on my experience, especially in Berlin, I couldn't always related. The Goethe Institut (German spelling), as is common with language schools pretty much globally, offered social opportunities and excursions. But I only remember going on one of their excursions, and my life otherwise was very full during those 2 months with non school-related activities, although I did a bit of socializing with at least 3 of the other students that I can remember. So based on my experience I wasn't too sympathetic of students I taught who, outside of formal opportunities the school offered, had virtually no other exposure to Americans. It was hard for me to imagine being so afraid to step out of their comfort zone, since I was all over the place (literally and figuratively) outside of my comfort zone. How on earth did they even have the guts to come study in America anyway if all they were going to do was stay in the confines of the school and its official activities the whole time? And how much added benefit was there for their language learning, compared to, say, learning English in Japan or Bogota? It was sort of incomprehensible to me. And it wasn't like I was fluent in German when I was in Berlin. I remember having some difficulty understanding the instructions for what I was supposed to do in my volunteer work, for example. They were very patient with me, I guess.
That's sort of on another subject though... and doesn't really have anything to do with anything important as far as my autobiography goes...
***
I've got to run as I have some things I need to try to do before 3:00.
~ Meg
Friday, July 23, 2010
5. Mt. St. Helens' Eruption
I haven't lived where I am long and some things are still in boxes, so I've been trying to find some things I want to use here. One of the things is my post card collection, which I found yesterday. This post card gives me the chance to bring in several things about me and my family.
I can't assume that everyone necessarily knows about / remembers the eruption of Mt. St. Helens (in southwestern Washington State, USA), but I hope you can read the print on this post card. Maybe your browser will let you either zoom in on it or click on it to get a larger image. At least that's what I'm hoping...
When Mt. St. Helens erupted Seattle got very little of the ash, despite our relative proximity to the mountain, because the winds were going easterly. But my youngest brother was on a trip with the school band in eastern Washington and they ended out being stranded there because the ash got into engines making driving virtually impossible. So I mainly remember that a school put them up in the school gym. So as far as excitement (if that's what you want to call it) goes, he was the main one in the family to be affected by the eruption.
One thing that the eruption did, though, was put Washington state on the map. This was before Starbucks and Microsoft, you understand, so a lot of people didn't know much about the state or about Seattle. So a couple weeks after the eruption when I went on a summer mission trip (this was after my sophomore year in college) back east to work with Russian emigrants, they knew something about Seattle, and wanted to know about the eruption from the standpoint of someone closer to it. So that's mainly how it affected me.
This post card is one that was actually sent to me, not one that I bought specifically for my collection. On the back mom writes to me in Russia suggesting that I could maybe use it (the post card) in my teaching. She knew that I sometimes used my post cards as "realia", real life teaching objects, in my English as a Foreign Language teaching. One thing I sometimes did was give students a few (2 to 4) cards and then ask them to write a short story based on something they imagine in the post cards. Or, for more beginning students, I might give each of them a card and have each one write a sentence about their new post card, then pass the card on to the next person so they each wrote something about each post card. Other times I might use them to teach vocabulary, such as building types, professions, animals, etc. I'm not sure whether I ever used this particular post card or not, but it was nice that mom thought of that.
Another thing, though, that I remember that is sort of distantly related to the eruption is that in 1981 I selected a glass ornament with Mt. St. Helens ash as one of the hostess gifts for the family that I stayed with during my trip to Nantes, France as a member of the inaugural Seattle-Nantes Sister City Association citizen exchange. I'm getting ahead of myself here though.
I guess that's enough for today, and you're gradually learning a little about who I am, and hopefully you might be learning some other interesting tidbits as well.
Mt. St. Helens didn't affect Seattle too much, and Tropical Storm Bonnie seems pretty tame from where I am today too. I hope things are okay where you are, as a bad storm or volcano eruption aren't things you even wish on your worst enemies.
~ Meg
I can't assume that everyone necessarily knows about / remembers the eruption of Mt. St. Helens (in southwestern Washington State, USA), but I hope you can read the print on this post card. Maybe your browser will let you either zoom in on it or click on it to get a larger image. At least that's what I'm hoping...
When Mt. St. Helens erupted Seattle got very little of the ash, despite our relative proximity to the mountain, because the winds were going easterly. But my youngest brother was on a trip with the school band in eastern Washington and they ended out being stranded there because the ash got into engines making driving virtually impossible. So I mainly remember that a school put them up in the school gym. So as far as excitement (if that's what you want to call it) goes, he was the main one in the family to be affected by the eruption.
One thing that the eruption did, though, was put Washington state on the map. This was before Starbucks and Microsoft, you understand, so a lot of people didn't know much about the state or about Seattle. So a couple weeks after the eruption when I went on a summer mission trip (this was after my sophomore year in college) back east to work with Russian emigrants, they knew something about Seattle, and wanted to know about the eruption from the standpoint of someone closer to it. So that's mainly how it affected me.
This post card is one that was actually sent to me, not one that I bought specifically for my collection. On the back mom writes to me in Russia suggesting that I could maybe use it (the post card) in my teaching. She knew that I sometimes used my post cards as "realia", real life teaching objects, in my English as a Foreign Language teaching. One thing I sometimes did was give students a few (2 to 4) cards and then ask them to write a short story based on something they imagine in the post cards. Or, for more beginning students, I might give each of them a card and have each one write a sentence about their new post card, then pass the card on to the next person so they each wrote something about each post card. Other times I might use them to teach vocabulary, such as building types, professions, animals, etc. I'm not sure whether I ever used this particular post card or not, but it was nice that mom thought of that.
Another thing, though, that I remember that is sort of distantly related to the eruption is that in 1981 I selected a glass ornament with Mt. St. Helens ash as one of the hostess gifts for the family that I stayed with during my trip to Nantes, France as a member of the inaugural Seattle-Nantes Sister City Association citizen exchange. I'm getting ahead of myself here though.
I guess that's enough for today, and you're gradually learning a little about who I am, and hopefully you might be learning some other interesting tidbits as well.
Mt. St. Helens didn't affect Seattle too much, and Tropical Storm Bonnie seems pretty tame from where I am today too. I hope things are okay where you are, as a bad storm or volcano eruption aren't things you even wish on your worst enemies.
~ Meg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)