Assignment 1 Personal Reflection Paper Oppression in Nepal I was first introduced to the concept of oppression during my undergrad.

. While taking an education class, I was asked to summarize the first two chapters of Paulo Freires Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Freire (1970) defines oppression as a sort of dehumanization, with the oppressors being those who have stolen the humanity of the oppressed (p. 44). I had never really thought about oppression or who the oppressors and the oppressed were in society until reading Freires book. These concepts were brought to my attention again in chapter 5 of Is Everyone Really Equal? Sensoy and DiAngelo (2012) state that to oppress is to hold down to press and deny a social group full access and potential in a given society, the authors explain that the function of oppression is to systematically exploit one social group to the benefit of another social group (p. 39). Bohmer and Briggs (1991) explain that it is meaningless to speak of an oppressed or exploited group unless we can also identify an oppressor and that the concept of oppression implies a relationship of unequal power between at least two groups (p. 155). I spent three months in Nepal last spring and I was shocked to see the obviousness of oppression manifest through the social caste system. Classism, according to Sensoy and DiAngelo (2012), is the systematic oppression of poor and working people by those who control resources. Classism is held in place by a system of beliefs that rank people according to economic status, breeding, institutional power, occupation, and level of education (p. 183). I am a white middle-class girl from Canada and I was never told that I could not do something or that something I wanted was out of my reach. However, the children that I had the opportunity to work with in Nepal are not as fortunate, they are orphans who belong to some of the lowest castes in their country.

Sensoy and DiAngelo (2012) state that there are four key elements to oppression. The first is that oppression is historical: where the rules, processes and practices are created by the dominant group and would take generations of effort to change (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2012). The next element is that oppression is ideological: where ideology, as the dominant ideas of a society, plays a powerful role in the perpetuation of oppression. Ideology is disseminated throughout all the institutions of society and rationalizes social inequality (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2012, p.45). The third element is that oppression is institutional: where all institutions are interconnected and function together to uphold the dominant group across society as a whole (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2012). The last element is that oppression is cultural: where oppression is embedded in all dimensions of culture with unspoken and unconscious rules that manifest in government processes and practices (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2012, p. 46). While Freire (1970) explains that dehumanization is not a given destiny but the result of an unjust order that engenders violence in the oppressors, which in turn dehumanizes the oppressed (p. 44), I argue that for the children I volunteered with in Nepal their oppression was their given destiny, determined by their birth, and that it is nearly impossible for them to overcome their oppressors. I only had a limited understanding of what I would encounter when I left Canada and began my three month stay in Nepal working with the Umbrella Foundation. I had recently finished reading a book by Connor Grennan called Little Princes that recounted his time in the country and his attempts at helping the orphans he met there. I learned that it was a country where a civil war had just ended, that a lot of children were trafficked, and most children were not fortunate enough to end up in homes like the ones provided by Umbrella. While I was in Nepal the children underwent drastic changes to their lifestyle. The most significant was that they were taken out of private school and placed in the public system. I learn the reason for this change was that the other

students at the private schools were from wealthy families and had ambitions of becoming doctors, lawyers or politicians. These dreams were also shared by the children at Umbrella; however, due to their place in society they could never attain these goals. As such, the Umbrella coordinators thought that it would be more beneficial for the children if they went to school with others who had more realistic dreams for their futures. When I first learned that this was one of the main reasons for moving the children from private to public schools I thought it was a bit harsh. However, I also learned that due to the caste system, even with scholarships (Umbrella cannot afford to send every child to university) and the schooling to become a professional the children at Umbrella would never be hired. In Nepal your place is society is embedded into your identity. For example, most of the children in Umbrella had the last name Tamang; this name explained the language that you spoke, the region you were from, and placed you within a specific rank in society. Sensoy and DiAngelo (2012) define the concept of ones place in society as social stratification where social groups are relationally positioned in a hierarchy of unequal value (p. 188). Even if one of the children could afford to go to school to become a doctor their last name would prohibit them from ever getting a job. The fact that they were trafficked or orphaned children makes matters more unjust as their rank in society was further lowered. While fundraising one night I met a British teacher who worked at one of the more affluent schools in Kathmandu. He suggested that Umbrella and his school partner up (the students at his school were mainly the children of ex-patriots who were currently working in Nepal or children of wealthy Nepalese families) so that the children from Umbrella could benefit from some of the advantages his school had to offer. This partnership would give the students an opportunity to meet other Nepalese children from different castes. Unfortunately, I never got to see if this partnership was actualized because my three months were coming to an end. What I found interesting was that

we both got to see very different sides of Nepal. The children that the British teacher taught were privileged and had many opportunities available to them compared with the children at Umbrella who had very little choice in their futures. Sensoy and DiAngelo (2012) explain how privilege is socially constructed and define it as a term describing how society works, [referring] to the rights, advantages, and protections enjoyed by some at the expense of and beyond the rights, advantages, and protection available to others (p. 58). The children were not happy to change from private to public schools. One of the major differences is that the majority of subjects are now taught in Nepalese instead of English and that the children left behind close friends and teachers. After the change I learned from the children that the students at the public schools were not very nice and that the Umbrella children were being bullied because they were orphans. I thought this was particularly interesting because the children never complained about bullying or being teased when they were in the private schools. It seemed that their position in society wasnt an issue or at least it did not prevent friendship from being formed. However, once they were in public school the children were more aware that they were not living with their families and they found it much harder to make friends. As a result of the bullying they felt a more pronounced difference in caste even though the students were closer to them on the hierarchical scale. Sensoy and DiAngelo (2012) stated that classism can be separated into three categories: economic, political and cultural. Economic class refers to ones income and amount of accumulated wealth; political class is the power one has to influence the workplace and political process; cultural class refers to dimensions such as education, taste, communication style, and lifestyle (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2012, p. 183). I believe that the children at their new school were facing cultural classism, where their language (example: Tamang) and their lifestyle (being a part of Umbrella) were the reasons that they were targeted by the other children.

In conclusion, I found the caste system in Nepal to be eye opening and while the children at Umbrella were aware of their particular situation on some level, it rarely affected their daily life. For the most part I found that while the children were born into a certain hierarchical position in society the younger ones were not conscious of it or of its limitations on their future, while the older children were becoming more aware of it. The children were not told that the reason that they were moving from private school to public school was because their ambitions for their futures were unrealistic. While I found Nepal to be classist and the oppression obvious, Nepalese people believe this to be a part of everyday life; oppression is a multidimensional imbalance of social, political, and institutional power that builds over time and then becomes normal and acceptable to most people in the society (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2012, p. 44). I believe that this shows the power that the dominant group holds over the oppressed groups. I agree with Sensoy and DiAngelo (2012) when they explain that prejudice and discrimination + power = oppression and thus the prejudice and discrimination is built into the society as a whole and becomes normalized and taken for granted (p. 39).

References: Bohmer, S., & Briggs, J. L. (1991). Teaching Privileged Students about Gender, Race, and Class Oppression. Teaching Sociology, 19(2), 154-163. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc. Sensoy, O. & DiAngelo, R. (2012). Is Everyone Really Equal? An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.