The classroom discussion about hats is a lasagna discussion; it has layers.
When Kan gets upset at Akk for not supporting Wat, Wat argues that both Akk and Ayan were trying to help Wat, but both boys took different approaches. Akk never makes this argument for himself even though he is standing right there and actually looks as if he truly wasnāt trying to help, butā¦*put a pin in this*
Teacher Wareeās lesson focuses on Field Marshall P. aka Phibun who was Thailandās Prime Minster for a little over 15 years after he studied in France and came back to lead a revolution in the 30s. His reign saw the biggest cultural shift in Thailand and had the greatest lasting effects: Thailand officially changing its name from Siam to Thai, the dissolution of the monarchy (one family ruling over the country) into a constitutional monarchy (where the family works with a government and within a constitution), the westernization of the country through cultural mandates such as outlawing native dress and languages, and nationalism (everyone was Thai. Period). He died in Japan as a Buddhist monk.
The argument:Ā āHats Lead the Nationā (mala nam thai)
- Wat argues that one of the cultural mandates (wearing specific clothing items such as hats) was to promote equality.
- Teacher Wareeās says that clothing canāt make everyone equal and actually demonstrates inequality since the hats of different social classes were made with different materials. She argues this was simply an act to align Phibun and Thailand with western society since it outlawed native clothing.
- Ayan argues that uniforms directly stem from Phibunās policies, so if Teacher Waree believes that Phibun was a dictator and Phibunās clothing mandate was merely a ruse to follow western ideals rather than promote equality yet believes that the students should wear uniforms to promote orderliness while claiming the school is within its rights to mandate such a rule, she is being a hypocrite.
- Akk simply states that he agrees with Teacher Waree about the hats being symbolic of western thinking rather than about equality.
This holds weight. Colonialism brought with it many harmful beliefs that the western world imposed on the countries and people it colonialized who never had such beliefs prior to their encounter with colonialism. For example, anti-sodomy laws and structural gender roles directly stem from the western world, and it would punish those who did not conform. Now, in the 21st century, the same countries who imposed those beliefs on these people are changing course and openly embracing concepts they once punished (marriage equality, gender-neutral policies, etc.) while punishing countries that donāt convert to this new understanding, which means all the countries they conquered are struggling to switch their thinking now that they were punished for years for thinking those ideas in the first place. Very gaslight-y. Very European (Britain, Iām looking at you!). Note that Phibun received support from the USA during his second reign even though Thailand sided with Japan during WWII because if anything, the USA must stay in other countries' business and impose its ideals on others.
*back to the regularly scheduled post*
Textbooks are written by people; therefore, textbooks can have biases. Most American textbooks did not mention slavery until the 1980s, and even now, some refer to enslaved people as immigrants, which implies they voluntarily came to the States rather than being forced through human trafficking. American textbooks also referred to and still refer to the genocide of indigenous peoples as merely an expansion of European populations into āundiscoveredā or āhostileā territory.
- Teacher Waree argues that the textbook clearly declares that Phibun was a dictator, and students need to abide by what the textbook states.
- Ayan argues textbooks are not law, so there needs to be an open dialogue about events and people rather than a one-sided perspective because the textbook overlooks the overall contributions of the Peopleās Party, which was led by Phibun, such as the dissolution of the monarchy.
Real-life connectionĀ ā Monuments dedicated to the Peopleās Party and Phibunās ruling era have slowly and anonymously disappeared throughout Thailand over the past three decades as a form of historical cleansing has taken shape. Textbooks also do not mention the cultural revolution that the Peopleās Party created, simply painting them as an overzealous and failed governing body.
Teacher Waree states that this isnāt a conversation about whom is wrong or right because life isnāt black and white.
Yet she refuses to back down from her point. Wat states that she, like most people in power, ādoesnāt want to lose faceā or admit that other possibilities exist other than theirs.
Uniforms do promote equality in theory, but they also rip people of individuality and only allow for conformity.
Textbooks and education as a whole should encourage free thinking rather than indoctrination of long-standing traditions and beliefs.
The dichotomy between Kan and Akk is clearly displayed.Ā Ā
*take out that pin from earlier*Ā Kan is upset that Akk didnāt side with Wat and chastises Akk for being a teacherās pet. Kan tried to ease the tension Watās response elicited from Teacher Waree by making a joke, but Akk openly agrees with Teacher Waree. Both boys were trying to ease the tension, but while Kan deflects (one of his defense mechanisms), Akk blindly accepts Teacher Wareeās truth. This is reflective of their identities as well. Kan knows he is gay but deflects while Akk is unaware of what falsehoods he has accepted as truths about him and the world. Then, there is Ayan who is very aware and open about his resistance to labels and frames.
Much like the overall arguments that many perspectives exist, and we canāt judge who is right or wrong, we canāt judge how the boys respond because none are right nor wrong regarding the truth of their queerness: Kan deflects. Akk denies. Ayan defends.
And that's how we make lasagna!
discoholicmusic
romaincrisis
dailybridgerton
2087
