In the Adams text, "The Oak Park Story" was pretty intense. I liked the way that the multiethnic groups joined forces and had each others' backs with the various issues that they dealt with regarding their poor housing conditions. It was good that the organizers of pressing the issues forward (when the landlord/management wouldn't do anything positive) were initially the voice of the residents. Later, they found their own voice, and that was a form of empowerment which was initiated by the fatih-based organization. With some of them moving into one of the housing unit, and experiencing firsthand what the other tenants were experiencing may have made a bigger impact on getting something done about the conditions. I'm wondering how the "permanent" tenants felt about having these outsiders to move into their space. Maybe in the beginning, it was uncomfortable, until they realized that the group was there to make a positive change in the environment. It was really nice how the people joined together as one for classes as well as social gathering, and put their differences aside for the common good.
There was mention of the mold in the apartments, and how that caused (or, attributed to) many asthma cases among the residents. I'd learned about this sort of thing in a sociology class last semester, and it's still quite maddening to me how there can still be so many "slumlords" in the world who at least appear not to be concerned with the health and overall welfare of their tenants. Everyone deserves to live in clean, safe, comfortable environments -- no matter what their SES, ethnicity, religious affiliation, or any of the other labels which are placed on people to deprive some and grant others with what they need to make it in this world.
The reading on the process of dialogues was interesting as well. I would call it "brainstorming" if the purpose is to come up with solutions to the issues faced by the groups who are involved in the dialogue. Some people would just talk to air out their differences, while others would come together to realize how much they are alike than different from another group of people. One of the important things about dialogue is that ". . . all sides must feel empowered by the process." (p.310) I agree with this principle, since the gathering is to make a positive difference for all parties involved; otherwise, it could be considered a waste of everybody's time. Many times, things don't change, and no happy medium is met because the offending party is unaware of the offense. Sometimes, having the dialogue may not cause positive change, but at least it's doing something, and giving the offenders something to think about. Right?
No comments:
Post a Comment