It’s been so good to be back in the classroom with curious and bright minds.  Over the last two weeks, there have been a gaggle of moments when I’ve been impressed and startled by my students’ insights.  Yesterday in European History, the tenth-graders and I were wrapping up a unit on European imperialism in Africa and Asia during the 1800s when two students’ comments really blew me away.

As we were discussing the “value” of Britain’s decision to ban in India the practice of sati–in which a widow would burn herself following her husband’s death–one student questioned whether Britain had the right to tell native Indians what to do.  What ensued was a wonderful debate/conversation about whether and when one culture can eradicate another culture’s practices.

In another section of European History, we were discussing the series of “reforms” that comprised the 1889 Japanese constitution.  I attempted to argue that Western thought permeated the constitution, which included “rights” for Japanese subjects.

However, a perceptive student noted that the rights were different than those granted by the US constitution or the British constitution (which exists as a body of laws), both of which view rights as “natural” and inalienable.  This student suggested that the Japanese constitution was different because it was the emperor who had granted the rights and, thus, those rights could be modified or revoked in late-nineteenth-century Japan.  In other words, while the Japanese constitution might have been inspired in part by Western ideas, the framers had created a document that was firmly embedded within the Meiji political culture of the late 1800s.

This particular conclusion was so brilliant, and one that I had not previously considered, that I had to share it with the next class.