Dr. Samantha Cutrara: Edmund, thank you so much for agreeing to speak with me for this series. Umm, you are the first person that I am speaking to from Australia so I am very excited to have a perspective from a totally different part of the world. Do you want to introduce yourself before we get started?

Edmund Sosu: Yeah. You just mentioned my name. I am a high school teacher and I am also into Pedagogian curriculum and currently a PhD student at the University of Newcastle looking into the systemic and ideological issues that are shaping history gibralters in this current world. So my focus has always been what is the purpose that drives teachers’ classroom and the very context where they find themselves and how they are able to maneuver themselves faced with those complexities and challenges and what best they do in those circumstances and what informed those decisions they are doing in the classroom.

SC:        Yeah that’s such important research. I did a couple of videos on people’s purposes but I think what you are saying about like what informs the decisions especially when they get to moments—teachers get to moments where they are…you know, that it feels a little uncomfortable to them, so and hopefully we can pick up some of that research in our questions today. Let’s just start with our first question, have you thought of—like when this happened–when COVID happened, it made me think about history differently. How we think about it? What we define is history? Has this changed for you at all? Have thought of history any different because of this moment? And it’s–okay if you haven’t, some people were like “I am too busy.”  [laughs 00:02:04] to think of that but have you thought of history any different because of this moment?

ES:        Uhh, one of the things that I’ve—that’s so fascinating is the issue is, ‘is this real at all? Is this really happening or what kind of thing is happening because things have always been in a smooth way?’ Any human problem that has put a major hurt on the economy. For instance we could talk about, what was the name? The…the Wall street bombing and that was way back 200, is a time 9/11 issues…is a time of 9/11 issue and you find yourself in 2020 looking at what is happening you ask yourself, “Is this really happening?” And especially when by you are like, you hear different narratives, a whole lot of conspiracy happening and you ask yourself am I part of history? Am I part of what is going to happen and what kind of narrative am I going to project to come to the next generation of my children, come to my grandchildren especially when the whole lot of conspiracy theory is going on the co-concept of blame theory, who are we blaming for this COVID?

And countries are coming out saying that you don’t have to attach my name—the whole concept of—Excuse me if I could mention a country here like Trump coming in here and saying that ‘the Chinese virus’ and [laughs 00:03:41]. The Chinese are also saying that you don’t have to attach Chinese to the virus. So you’ve heard that [inaudible 00:03:48] are people one way or the other are very careful in terms of pointing hands to the origin of the virus because they know the consequence and how long it could go in terms of its impact and its transmitting to a whole new generation who have a different perspective about the whole origin of this virus and in my case, I’m kind of wondering what kind of story am I going to talk? Am I going to be objective or am I going to say it’s from my perspective in terms of my children, my grandchildren because we least expect some of these things to come in [inaudible 00:04:26].

The baseline is am I going to be objective? Am I going to point hands at China? Or am I going to point hands saying that the origin of the virus just came from Wuhan but the Chinese have nothing to do with it or am I going to point it from the conspiracy [inaudible 00:04:46] I find myself in. In terms of history, how to pass on this information as it lingers in my memory and people are also having different thought about it. So that’s the fascinating aspect of it.

SC:        Do you think though that…um, that we can never be objective? Do you think we should be objective?

ES:        To an extent we have to be objective about—objectivity we can never have an absolute 100% objectivity but there is a bit of subjectivity in what we do and one or the other, bringing my own interpretation and this interpretation may be informed by my own experiences, and experiences differ and we see things in the world from a personal perspective or personal framework and so in as much that we want to achieve these objectivity, or in as much as we want to bring in our subjective experience, we just have to make sure that there is a level of objectivity in the kind of narratives we put out there because currently the internet is another means whereby fire or—it’s another means whereby information is spread like fire and it can archive for a very long time and a whole new generation can chance upon it and those are the libraries, historians or public records so on and so forth. We use this information in terms of reconstructing the past. So the likes of me the individual in this time that a—whatever thing that I’m doing although my experiences, my subjective experiences will shape what are you trying to do? I should try as much as possible to be a bit of objective in what kind of narrative and everything that I do should be proven by fact.

But the problem here is any comment everybody is trying to put up as is based on a particular documentary. They use a particular evidence to support their conspiracy theory and so are—it leaves the individual better than going forward if you want to make any claim or you want to make any argument, you should be so much objective proven by facts but as what is fact is also a different thing altogether because people can put bits and pieces together and it makes a whole lot of false narratives and especially in an era whereby we have picture—audio of our pictures whereby the narrator or the person making the documentary can tune in the documentary to a particular way based on a particular question and the background audio he/she is worth putting up to explain a particular incident going on. So it’s a challenge but we’ll try our best to mitigate it.

SC:        Yeah, it’s an interesting perspective because I don’t think that we are ever going to be objective or should strive for objectivity but what I’m hearing from you is like where am—like I am connecting a couple different things and I am thinking that, what you are really saying is like we really need to recognize our politics and the certain things that we are doing because we can say “Oh the virus came from China,” in a way that is just a fact and we can say in a way that’s like loaded with politics and judgment. And I think it’s kind of interesting to think about the ways that we need to be aware of like the politics and what we are thinking about.

SC:        Yeah. So this leads me to my second question about, do you think the ways that we are going to teach history will shift and change after this moment?

ES:        Obviously, it is going to shift. And some teachers are shifting the way they look at things. You know the whole idea about teaching the whole historical thinking concepts has been lingering on for a couple of years now and this much more going beyond that in terms of looking up dedication of the soul, mind and heart and kind of teaching to transform the individual, transform the child and looking at what is happening in our society, teachers will want to use a classroom as—let me use it as a transforming and whereby they feel like you want to mould up this child, you want to mould up this student to become more robust citizens come tomorrow.

So you realize that going forward–but we won’t be thinking about thinking questions but we realize that beyond  thinking questions we can’t afford any education of morality, education of social change, a whole lot of stuff fitting the child into the society will mean a good citizen or being a good member of economy and working towards this and so, it’s a whole responsibility and teachers–and that’s when you realize that teachers end up to become – you see a whole lot of criticism in teaching in terms of using the past and what is happening to try to advice students. Teachers will end up being like more of evangelists, more of preachers, advisers, counselors to students because they fell like a greater majority of the child upbringing lies with them especially when by the child spent about 8 hours in the school and spent few hours home and they feel as sort of they dare not they were the power parents to a child so they want to advise these students to become good models.

So we will go back a bit towards what has been the traditional way in terms of—although we are going more first time more of constructive way, by right at now we still have to do more before any transforming a child and sometimes that’s when you have to do the direct detail advisors to continue first time in some sort of morale consciousness in them because things are worst today because of–if I am to go by a whole lot of conspiracy theory, we assume that was somebody one way or the other have planted these same things assuming that we had a moral society that things are about each other and more conscious of whatever they do then that sort of community of belonging, a community of looking out for each other start from the classroom and teachers have a role to play in seeing to that this works.

SC:        Yeah, I love that. I think that’s so interesting because I have been called the harshest critic of historical thinking in Canada. [laughs 00:11:58], which is a badge I will wear with honor because I do think the history, education should give out transformation and I really love that you are saying that you think that this might be the moment that helps teachers think more about the transformative possibilities for history education because I think it is so important that we are thinking of the stories we are telling and we are thinking of the ways that we want to make change in the world and we aren’t just like looking through evidence in a very procedural way for example and that’s really kind of exciting that, that is–from your perspective that’s kind of what you are—what you think or predict might happen after this moment.

ES:        Yeah, obviously. This is how things are—because you realize that anytime a major incident happen in a country, a particular incident happened in a country one way or the other that informs especially when it becomes a major problem that affected a whole society. We can’t do away with such a discussion, you can’t—teachers live in a society, they’re living in a context and context one way or the other, had a greater impact on whatever thing that they are doing in classroom. Nobody can be neglected, the war of such a great atrocity, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of people who have died out of this virus and we can’t act as if that we are being blind of the whole sort of conspiracy theory going on even if this negligence even if it’s a plot towards an aim to eradicate part of the human race, there are a whole lot of things that are informing our understanding about life.

Look at life from a different perspective altogether that the challenges is so much, especially when by people are living with a fleet of property so a fleet of cars have been asked to stay at home and you can’t have no access to enjoy your whole luxury that you used to enjoy that at all you have to reconsider life from  a different perspective rather, there is a greater part of life that we can’t control but the little we could do is how best we can use our classrooms as a point whereby we can teach these students to be more of look out for each other and think more about their decisions because they are the next generation of leaders and we have to transform them to think about each other. You’ve been hearing about this whole concept about atomic bombs, and you’ve been hearing about after—this whole concept of atomic weapons that they assumed that was if it is being launched it may have an impact on human race and in turn, eradicate the entire [inaudible 00:15:05] and people are looking at different.

Could it be a different world altogether or a different testing of atomic bomb or biological weapon whereby the human race would want to be wiped out and teachers, anybody who is more moral conscious or society conscious and thinks more about the needs of the society would want to avoid such a thing so we end up using our classroom, try to advise our students to be more of like evangelists, preachers of practice, preachers of good using history and we’re aware that history poses a lot of past issues that we can track on and use to advice our classroom. So no matter what you want to do in terms of teaching to be more—teaching students to be more of applying thinking schools and interpretive schools using evidence so on and so forth. The other aspect of dedication will be dedication of changing, dedication of the heart whereby we want student towards an [inaudible 00:16:09] transform life and by being responsible citizen you know. This comes by—what was the name, the teacher acting as a said on stage trying towards the name advising the student what is best and teachers cannot be independent, they cannot be excluded from bringing their own experiences in their classroom. That is inevitable, it can never happen.

SC:        Yeah, I think that’s so interesting but we really need to reconsider what and who we are after this and we can use history for that. This really makes me thinking of the last question which is, do you think that we are going to be able to imagine a new we after this? So a lot of my work is about this transformative version of history and that we need to imagine greater spaces of inclusion for the people in our rooms so that they can recreate and create places that include them. Do you think that we will able to imagine a new we after this moment and what do you think that might look like?

ES:        It’s when the processes of imaging a new we because this event has really had an impact on how we look at things. How we commit to ourselves, how we take decisions in what we want to do in a classroom and the transformative aspect of it is we cannot really consider what is worthwhile in terms of education and all this the most important thing. And I saw a post recently that tried to see that technology has taken place, technology has taken families on each other. Everybody seems busy, everybody seems to be occupied by their work, everybody wakes up and goes to work. Now with a lockdown, everybody is making time for each other.

Families they then pass issues whereby prior to the invention of technology families used to have time for each other, commune at the dining dining table, it’s been really installed and so we cannot look at what is worthwhile in this moment whereby we are considering this major hit on the world, would you want to go back? Do we still want to make time for each other? Do we want to look at things from a transformative end, making time for each other and we are looking times from a transformative end by fostering more of social values, things that are worthwhile being–things that are worthwhile will drive. I think looking at the future, things that are worthwhile and going back to the basis, how things used to be in the good way prior to the invention of technology and how best we could include that in our families. Now child—children have the maximum time from their parents and fathers are staying home, some fathers are staying home and technology—the rules are being old and made less easy. Nature is reinventing itself. Nature is really procreating itself again and that is how we are going to see things looking at things what is worthwhile going back to the basis and in the future what is worth to be included so that we can become very good citizens and people who are informed by things that are happening.

SC:        You know, one of the things that makes me think about like what we make time for during this time like what are we considering when we’re reconsidering, is I live in a very expansive ravine system and this time—this COVID time, I have seen the most people out in those spaces and using them. And I think that for a lot of people it’s not just getting out of the house but it’s actually reconnecting with nature and it’s staying away from digital technologies and um, whenever I am there and I am doing hiking, I am thinking ‘Is this going to translate to more climate change activism? Is this going to translate for people to be greater stewards because they are connecting in these phases and I think that’s—those are really interesting questions and I am really glad that you brought them up. This has been a really great little talk, thank you so much Edmund.

ES:        Okay, you are welcome.

SC:        Yeah, this has been really great, and I am—it’s really interesting from a place across the world, Australia, how there are such similarities in how we are thinking through these ideas. So, yeah it was really great to connect. Thank you so much.

ES:        The good news is people are making documentaries showing how things used to be when humans were occupying those natural environments and now that humans are no longer in, using their activities, the less fumes in the skies just kind of take our nature as people great to nature and bring them back if so if things are looking in very good shape. And like you said, this whole sort of climate change activist could also had a voice in new year and kind of look at things from a different perspective. Another issue is the politics of control, the politics of memory you put out here is what we just have to guard. So that at all, we’re just being objective at least. We are bringing our objective to subjective excludes to.

SC:        Yeah, that’s a lot of food for thought. Thank you so much and lets stay connected.

ES:        Okay you are welcome.

SC:        Okay, thank you so much.

ES:        Okay, you are welcome.

SC:        Bye.

ES:        Bye…bye.