The Glorious Capitalist Education System - Are you a slave y

[Pete]

Walking home from school this morning I realized some thing that I have know for a long time. In Ontario atleast the only purpose of principals and vice principals is to make sure all the good little children show up to class on time and don't skip any classes. They don't give to shits whether or not you are passing or failing. Whether your mark in the class you missed is 95 or 23. We are being forced into an Industrial Age system which is very obsolete. All they care about is attendance. The conformers are being turned into good little shift workers who need not be smart just on time doing thier meaningless jobs. My school is also one of the growing number of institutions that ban hats (because they lead to gangs) and backbacks (because it takes up less space if every one is a metre wider with all the books they carry). Most people follow the rules. I don't. I actually was written up by the Librarian for having a backpack and a coat in his library. All this came to me after I signed in to second period because I woke up thinking I had class. Now why am I not warned about these things so I can turn off my alarm (the beauty of first period spare).

So my question is, are you a slave yet?

[BOZG]

Schools = Production line of a new generation of slaves (workers)

I'd like to think I'm not a slave as I've argued enough times about what schools really are and whether we get and education from them or not (We don't). But how do you know whether you're a slave or not.

[BOZG]

Edit: Double post

(Edited by BornOfZapatasGuns at 5:28 pm on Dec. 17, 2002)

[canikickit]

Drop out now! I don't think schools are as bad in Ireland, probably because of the rose tinted glasses I wear.

Everything on the planet is bullshit, you have to overcome the crap. I wouldn't be the fine upstanding, culchie bastard I am today, if it wasn't for school.

[Pete]

But how do you know whether you're a slave or not.

Do you find your self automatically writing what the teacher wants in your assignments? Are you upset if you are late or if you skip a class? Do you care what your teacher thinks of you so you edit your opinions?
I believe those are they kind of questions we must ask ourselves. I answered 'yes' to the first one, and my school makes a big fucking deal of me being late.


Everything on the planet is bullshit, you have to overcome the crap. I wouldn't be the fine upstanding, culchie bastard I am today, if it wasn't for school.
I agree that school makes us who we are. Like I wouldn't know most of the stuff I do if I did not go to high school. But I think this Industrial Age system is obselte.

[redstar2000]

"How do you know if you are a slave or not?"

When you start to FEEL like one!

It's not so much the bullshit courses...though they are certainly bad enough. But the pissant rules: to teach you to GET USED to obeying stupid, pointless regulations that serve NO purpose but to enhance the prestige of the rule-makers.

Wearing a hat? Using a backpack? Why not a morning check behind your ears to make sure you've properly washed yourself? Why not a daily urine test to see if you've been smoking weed? Why not a rectal probe to see if you have communist propaganda hidden up your ass?

I shouldn't joke about things like that; some of them may already be in the planning stages.

A while back, there was a thread on socialist education that would be relevant here. The point I made--extremist that I am--is that education after the revolution will be completely voluntary and mostly self-directed. The "school" as it now exists will pass into history as just another institution whose time has gone.

A good library is worth more than all the schools that ever existed put together...and, of course, a quiet place to read.

:cool:

[canikickit]

after the revolution will be completely voluntary and mostly self-directed

Do you think 6/7/8 year old children should decide for themselves whether or not to go to school?


Do you find your self automatically writing what the teacher wants in your assignments? Do you care what your teacher thinks of you so you edit your opinions?

I never did any of that. No way. I don't think you are a slave if you worry about being late or missing a class, i think that is sensible (at least the way schools are today, I'm not saying that's the way it has to be).

[Pete]

(at least the way schools are today, I'm not saying that's the way it has to be).

That is the problem. The way schools are today are making us into slaves.


Do you think 6/7/8 year old children should decide for themselves whether or not to go to school?

Have you seen big daddy? Let the kid do what it wants and if it wants to learn then let it.


A good library is worth more than all the schools that ever existed put together...and, of course, a quiet place to read.

The other day me and my friend had a talk about education after the revolution (although he doesn't think it will happen) and we came up with what you had PLUS a nice friendly guy like Socrates or someone who knows alot and would want to share it. Almost as a form of Honour, in that if youshare knowledge you gain respect.

(Edited by CrazyPete at 6:02 pm on Dec. 17, 2002)

[canikickit]

Have you seen big daddy? Let the kid do what it wants and if it wants to learn then let it.

Of course, I've been so blind! Have you seen Happy Gilmore?

I think it's just ridiculous, I don't know any kid who would voluntarily go to school, I'm sure there are some, but I don't think I would've at that age. I think it is an insane thought.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I'm labeleing this thread as a meaningless complaint by an angry teenager. The job of the administration is to creat an effective learning enviroment for learning, wheather schooling is a part of the brainwashing and production line of little cappie workers, I think we all know the answer to that.

[Blackberry]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 8:12 pm on Dec. 17, 2002


Do you find your self automatically writing what the teacher wants in your assignments?

Yes. I have found that if my opinions are too 'radical', then my marks will drop. I have to stick to the same, boring plan and opinions to get a good mark.

[BOZG]

But surely when you realise you're a slave you would rebel? It's a case of the slave who doesn't want his freedom deserves double slavery.

No I don't mind being late or missing class. It's great. No I don't care what my teacher thinks. We only get assignments in History and Maths. In maths you really can only be right or wrong and I enjoy history so I write how I look at the situation.

[Pete]

My Canadian History teacher, he claims to be almost NAZI, and everytime I make a point (like yesterday saying that if we support the US's suing of Cuba we support the bombing of the Al Shifa Plant) he tells the class my info is not reliable and moves on to text book shit. He told me it is his goal to piss me off.

So I rebel. I also try to help people notice they are slaves (although they are ignornat and ignore it). I hate math so I have 2 english 2 history politics and geography this year:D

[redstar2000]

"Do you think 6/7/8 year old children should decide for themselves whether or not to go to school?"

Funny, this was almost EXACTLY the same way the question was phrased in the socialist education thread. Not to mention the "Marx and the Family" thread where the decision-making powers of children of that age are under severe attack from Lardlad95 and truthaddict11.

So, to work. What does a kid actually NEED to know? In our world, s/he NEEDS to know how to read, how to print legibly, how to use a computer keyboard. Anything else?

Thus, every 6 or 7 or 8 or OLDER kid who CAN'T do those things NEEDS to go to school until they show they CAN do those things.

And then what? And then what they learn is up to them. Once you're equipped with the "tools" of learning, what you actually learn is up to you.

If you want to learn something and you can find someone who's willing to teach you, great. If you want to learn something and can't find someone to teach you, then you go on line or to the library and teach yourself. And the things you are uninterested in, you ignore.

"School" would end up being a not very sophisticated computer program like "majordomo"--existing for the sole purpose of matching students and teachers. If you think you've mastered a subject, then you go and take a very long and complicated exam on the subject...if the "central educational computer" says you passed, then you have your "credential" for that subject.

Once you have the tools of learning in your grasp, how much time, if any at all, you spend in a building called a "school" is strictly up to you. You may, if you wish, do your learning ANYWHERE that you and others who share your interests choose to meet. Or, if you want, you can do it all from home, on line.

For SOME reason, this fairly straight-forward proposal has met with considerable...well, hostility. It's almost like some folks are saying "I had to eat shit for X number of years...so you have to eat shit too."

Under my proposal, it's true, that some unknown number of kids might fuck off until they're 16 or even older. That's ok, because it's ONLY when you really WANT to learn stuff that the process works. Most of the crap that kids are taught now is IMMEDIATELY forgotten when the last test is passed; the kids were never interested to begin with and the human brain has its own, very effective "delete key".

When "the working class emancipates itself," the kids get to be free, too. However much that might stick in some folks' throats, it is and must be true. Freedom is not divisible...either we ALL are free or it's just another lie. :cool:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Who is going to live with the child, Redstar? The parents? Okay, then, logically, the parents will inforce the rules of the house onto the children to promote safety, health, nourishment, and a healthy lifestyle. Would the parents simply stand aside while children choose to sit and watch TV all day because according to Redstar, they can't learn until they want to learn. "Okay children, whenever your ready, you can learn something, until then you can be a slob and wait." Would a good mother ever say this? If she did, would the child ever be ready to learn? No. Children need to experience a productive childhood, face authority other than their own parents, (i.e.:a teacher) and yes, I remeber many things that I was taught at an early age, if I did not know these things I would not be sufficiently knowlegeble to learn the things that I study today at school. If I do not study the things that I study today, I would not be, say, wise neough to choose the right endeavor for myself (i.e.:a career).
Your idea implies that children should only study for what they plan to do in the future, instead of teaching them a wide spectrum of information and alowing them to make wiser choices. Thus, creating generation, upon generation of children ignorant of everything other than their particular occupation and the knowlege involved in it.

[Pete]

Put the children into a 'community' where everyone raises them. Like what the Spartans did without the harsh discipline. Teach them to respect people based on what they know and what they can do not because they are their parents or some other fixed authority figure. Also, if you read the "Homecoming" series by Orson Scott Card. The way that the 'tribe' lived on the little island waiting to find the space ships is the way children should be raised. Show them writing reading and computer skills. Let them ask questions, and then instead of answering them show them how to find the asnwers. That way you will be knowledgable in a wide range of subjects (becuase you rarely find exactly what you are looking for) and capable of independant thought.

[canikickit]

'Once you're equipped with the "tools" of learning'


That's ok, because it's ONLY when you really WANT to learn stuff that the process works.

Bullshit, man. I used to sit down the back of French class, not listening to (or understanding) a word my French teacher was saying, I didn't want to know. Then a couple of months later, I found myself in France knee deep in conversation with an attractive bar maid (in French, obviously). Believe me, at that moment I wished I had a little more French, but the bit I had came from somewhere, and I'm pretty sure it seeped through my skull at some stage during my tenure at school. I'm happy as hell that I had (pretty much) no other option than to sit there. Speaking two languages is great.
Now, I (being the intelligent person I am) did learn French while voluntarily at school, but I had to do a foreign language, and I'm not sure if I would have choosen to do so, given the choice, at the time.

This was when I was 16/17/18, for someone ten years younger, to learn addition and reading; it's not an attractive proposition compared to eating sweets and watching cartoons, and playing football.

I absolutely agree that in a new world, there would have to be a fundamental change to the schooling system, but making the whole thing voluntary is preposterous.

Let's not forget that scientific bullshit has proved children are more open to learning.

I know you're getting a bit over the hill at this stage Comrade, but don't you remember what it was like to be a kid? :wink:

[redstar2000]

That's a penalty flag, canikickit. The "rules" are: I don't criticize anyone's arguments because they are younger than me; nobody gets to criticize my arguments because I'm older than them. Arguments stand or fall on their merits...not on the age of the arguer.

There is an obvious contradiction in your argument: First you say that kids would rather eat sweets, watch cartoons and play football than learn. Then, a few sentences later, you admit that science has shown that young children are "open to learning".

Obviously, I think the second point is MUCH truer than the first (though even those three diversions you cited involve learning...just of a different kind). But even if you knew nothing about the science of it at all, simple exposure to a young child would tip you off: they'll burn your ears out with WHY? WHY? WHY? if you let them...and I'll admit I've done so. I can indeed remember my childhood, not the details so much, but the absolute imperative NECESSITY of finding out as MUCH about the world as I could. I had my first library card before my 7th birthday and I USED it...even though I had to constantly argue with the librarian over the "unsuitable" books I wanted to check out.

And of course, I congratulate you on your good fortune with the young French woman; what fragmentary knowledge of Spanish I have came from a similar encounter in Havana. Some incentives, I will admit, ARE stronger than others.

Victorcommie, you have raised several disparate points that, in my view, don't seem to "fit" together very well. So my response is apt to similarly disjointed.

Your first section covering "the rules of the house" really belongs in the "Marx and the Family" thread to which I've already referred. Certainly any decent adult would ENCOURAGE a child to learn as much as possible, about as many different kinds of things as possible. But encouragement is one thing, of course, and POWER (the use or the threatened use of violence) is QUITE ANOTHER.

Prior to the 20th century, it was sincerely believed by nearly all educators and nearly all parents that the only way kids learned anything was if you BEAT it into them...literally. As late as the 1950's, that was STILL the practice in Catholic schools in the United States--or so I was told by other kids in my neighborhood.

What kids really learn from such a regime is OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY; regardless of their intellectual achievements, they internalize the habit of "carrying out their orders".

Now, Victorcommie, is THAT what we want communist society to be like?

As to the limits of one's knowledge when you choose for yourself what to study...yes, that will almost certainly happen. It happens today even without freedom to choose one's own direction.

The "problem" is that it's been at least FIVE CENTURIES since one well-educated person could literally "know it all." Since the European renaissance, knowledge has EXPLODED and there is NO chance that any single human being could "know" more than a tiny fragment of the sum of human learning. The mythology of "a liberal education" or a knowledge of "the great books of the western world" is just that...mythology. No amount of transient exposure to this or that designed course of studies is going to make anybody a "well-rounded person"--like it or not, we are ALL now SPECIALISTS. The difference today between more intelligent and less intelligent people is that the more intelligent people have one or two additional specialties.

Perhaps a life-span of several thousand years might be sufficient to develop at least a nodding acquaintence with most areas of human knowledge...12 to 20 years of "schooling" is simply pathetically inadequate.

Therefore, I think kids who educated themselves probably would "specialize" somewhat earlier...but that doesn't bother me. Knowing how to learn, their curiousity preserved, they will, in time, expand their areas of interest at their own chosen pace.

What they will NOT be is mindlessly OBEDIENT TO AUTHORITY.

If we cannot teach people how to be FREE, then everything else we lefties yap about is just glorified social work...and we ought to just go out and get a regular job. :cool:

[Anonymous]

nowdays education is pure BS, they do not teach you, they fill your head with capitalist propagnda, they make you fear exams and tests, they make you work hard to go to college, and then go to work, therefore they dont teach you, they give you capitalist information you can use to work, therefore it is not education..

Is marxism teached at schools nowdays? yet it is the most complete not to mention necessary theory you need to live, it saves you from fear, either religious, political or social, it frees you, yet this is a far too dangerous knowledge, so they dont teach you that, only some times in college, after a entire life of anti-communist, patriotitc education, wich is mere BS...

[Pete]

When my Canadian History teacher started to tell us about Marxism he started by saying "This is all one man's theory do not go to it unwillingly, I do not agree with it at all" and then every time I bring up a point to go against Capitalism or America (I am in Canada) he says "Pete's information may or may not be true" but when he talked about Capitalism he did nothing of the sort, or when a neo-conservative (which there are many in my class) he backs them up all the way. Marxism IS taught, but we are taught to dismiss it as nonsense. Yahoo for the Ontario 'nonbiased' Education system.

[canikickit]

Redstar, I hope you didn't take my comments about your age to heart. :biggrin:


First you say that kids would rather eat sweets, watch cartoons and play football than learn. Then, a few sentences later, you admit that science has shown that young children are "open to learning".

I don't think this is contradictory. Well everythings a contradiction, in the long run, but I don't want to get bogged down in that. I think both statements are true, and just because children are more likely to learn before their views have been corrupted with biases and prejudices, doesn't mean they will want to go to classes and learn.

I feel as if, I'm representing myself as some sort of hard-line, no-ground given, idiot. I agree that a change would be extremely benificial to the education of youth, I just find it highly unlikely that the majority of kids would go to learn voluntarily (and it must be a majority).


ugh, I can't write at the moment. Redstar, what's your solution? :biggrin:

[redstar2000]

Certainly a great many kids would not go to what we call a "school" now...a highly structured, not to say bureaucratic, heirarchy in a physically uncomfortable and occasionally dangerous environment.

As I noted above, what kids NEED to know is HOW to LEARN; how to read, how to print legibly, how to use a computer...in a way, how to ask MEANINGFUL questions that have REAL answers.

There's no getting around this: they MUST go to school UNTIL they can show that they have these tools in their grasp.

On the other hand, there should be no "time pressure" to acquire these tools; if it takes one year, fine; if it takes five years, also fine; if it takes 10 years, that's ok too. Learning is not a competitive sport ("after this week's test, redstar2000 can clinch a spot in the playoffs with an "A" next week").

Once a kid knows how to learn...what more COULD we do except possibly get in the way with matters that are of no interest? Instead, we should rely on their instinctive curiousity to guide their own learning (of course, we've been indoctrinating them through those first few years with the idea that IF they want to know something, THEN they must actively pursue it).

What schools are becoming under late capitalism are puffed-up games of trivial pursuit; a collection of bits and pieces totally unrelated to each other or to ANYTHING that is relevant to a kid's life or to an adult's life. That is a CRIMINAL waste of human potential.

If I can, I'll try to recreate something I said in the earlier thread on socialist education: Learning should take place everywhere in general and nowhere in particular. Anyplace that there are kids who want to learn and adults who are willing to teach is a "school". Among my personal favorite scenarios is the old lefty in the back of the bar with a couple of teenagers (no drinking laws under communism); he's "teaching" them what it was actually like in the last years before the revolution...because they are really interested in that (much to his surprise).

Oh, and about those cartoons on television: you and I both know they will be VERY DIFFERENT from the ones they make now. :cool:

PS: the best time to start learning a foreign language is at the age of 4...after that, it just gets harder and harder. I'd like to think of a way to make this possible, but I haven't come up with anything so far.

[canikickit]

Well, I must admit, my vision was blurred slightly by [i]today's[i] (i.e. capitalism's) standards in the education system. The idea of it being completely voluntary is stilll quite ridiculous, I believe there should be active encouragement, to the point of coercion. At least until the tools are in their grasp. I guess the ideal is to instill the thirst for knowledge, which isn't particularily present at present (thank you very much TV).


PS: the best time to start learning a foreign language is at the age of 4...after that, it just gets harder and harder. I'd like to think of a way to make this possible, but I haven't come up with anything so far.

Yeah, it's a pretty big ask. Of course, in the Netherlands and a few other countries, they show English language programmes with subtitles. I think that's the best idea possible. (I am aware just criticised TV above, but hey).

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Redstar: Weather children are taught with physical abuse or not, (not that I support spanking a foolish child) one can't simply toss a child into the world at the age of 8/9/10 and ask, "So what are you going to be when you grow up? Your decission today will be the final determination of what your carreer is going to consist of." I'm not implying that we should attempt to teach a child everything know to man, simply the basics of each subject and philosophies and theories and sciences and such. Not that I support the current, rather traditional method of education found in the US today, absolutely not. More modern, productive, contemporary methods of teaching would be better suited for a Communist society.

Surely you don't intend on taking a child from its parents before the age of, say, 6. Earlier than that is harmful to the psycological development of a child. Yes, education away from one's parents is healthy, but my point was, wherever the child lives, rules are going to be imposed, and thus, the one who imposes the rules will be responsible and caring for the child and will not simply allow the child to wait untill it's is ready to learn. That would be outrageous!

[redstar2000]

Canikickit, you may be on to something...multi-lingual cartoons for kids might work very well indeed. Two characters on each side of a table; one says something in language A, his/her partner translates it into language B--then the two characters on the other side of the table respond. Action sequences would be commented on in language A or B alternatively. Although it wouldn't teach more than a little vocabulary and sentence structure of the alternative language, it might well spark an interest in that other language that could be pursued more seriously in later years. Best idea I've heard so far for the kids not lucky enough to already find themselves in multi-lingual households.

Victorcommie, I have to make something CLEAR up front. I AM NOT in favor of TAKING kids away from their parents on an arbitrary basis, be it age or any other criterion. In the "Marx and the Family" thread, I have argued that by the age of 7 to 10, a kid KNOWS whether s/he is happy in his/her living arrangements...and that kids should have the OPTION of moving into a collective that has been set up specifically for the purpose of providing a safe and nurturing environment for kids who don't want to live with their parents or other relatives. I have to EMPHASIZE this because there are those who think I want to have the police kick down the doors of parents and snatch their kids.(!)

I'm not, of course, advocating that kids be "thrown out into the world". Presumably every kid will have one or several adults (or even older kids) around to offer advice and encouragement...to suggest possible paths that might be worth following. (There are even some computer programs that can do that in a crude way: if you enjoyed reading The Life of Napoleon, you might also enjoy reading The Life of Bismarck, etc.)

Perhaps one step in the right direction would be to ABOLISH the question "what are you going to be when you grow up?". It is, when you stop and think about it, a remarkably foolish and ultimately unanswerable question...one that kids should NOT be burdened with.

But "the basics of each subject" would take 100 normal human lifetimes to learn. What happens when people TRY to teach "the basics of each subject" is...trivial pursuit--a pile of fragments that have no relationship to each other.

Just as an example of how "bad" it is (and how much "worse" it's going to become) consider medicine. In medical schools, they STILL TRY to teach "everything you need to know about the basics of medicine"...but the "basics" of medicine have expanded to such an extent that a doctor outside his specialty is hardly any improvement on a layman; s/he may remember a few scraps from medical school or his/her internship...and may remember them incorrectly.

The human species has "outsmarted" itself...and until we can install 100gigabyte hard drives inside our skulls, we are stuck with knowing a lot about a very few things or trying to know a little about a great many things. I think the former is preferable; but some people do prefer the latter approach and I don't condemn that. I just say let each kid decide what works BEST for him/her.

I note that thus far I've managed to collect one "ridiculous" and one "outrageous"...a little under the norm. Perhaps I'm getting too conservative...

:cheesy:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Redstar, I agree with you that the question, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" should indeed be abolished. Children should not be plagued with these questions. They should also not be expected to or asked to choose the direction of their future at such an early age. You cannot ask a child weather or not he wants to live with his parents or not. You cannot ask child weather he wants to know a lot about a very few things or if he wants to know a little about a great many things. You cannot ask a child what he wants to study for.

Children have to be taught a little about the very very basics, such as, Reading, Writting, Arithmetic, the basics of phisical and biological sciences, and the basics of human history over the past 8000 years, and the world's geography. You can learn that in 13 years. Then the person will be equipped with the basic knowlege of some subjects, some dicipline, and more wisdom that a 10 year-old.

When I say dicipline, I don't mean that children should be violently taught to blindly follow authority. I simply meam that they should be subject to some authority, since in their future occupations will be led by a figure of authority. Weather you want it or not, people will always a heve bosses, if not why would one work?

Maybe I'm being way too conservative and getting off subject.

[redstar2000]

Well, Victorcommie, you ARE getting off thread...but doesn't everyone?

On the matter of kids deciding who they will live with, see the "Marx and the Family" thread starting around page 6 (I think).

That was a neat verbal extension of my point about "what are you going to be when you grow up", but I don't think the matters are really linked except verbally. If you ask a kid what s/he would like to learn about RIGHT NOW, s/he could probably give a pretty cohenent and reasonable answer...especially if s/he has just spent a couple of years learning how to read, how to print legibly, and how to use a computer to find things out. And even more especially if s/he has been told over and over again in those two years that learning about things is an ACTIVE process; to find out anything for yourself, you must ACTIVELY search for it.

I'm guessing that most kids would probably follow the "learn a little about a lot of things" strategy during the time when they were 7 to 10 years old...but whenever a kid finds something that FIRES his/her interest, then they should be free to GO WITH IT as far as it takes them. If that means they can't find Washington, D.C. on a map, or that they never even hear the name of Shakespeare, or that they need a calculator to add 2 and 2...so be it. Should there come a time in their later lives when they feel the NEED to know one or more of those things, they WILL learn them.

Your assertion that 13 years is enough time to "learn the basics" is belied by the facts; almost every week there is an article or op-ed piece about the hopeless ignorance of schoolkids...that they CAN'T find Washington, D.C. on a map or some other piece of "vital" trivia that the writer is appalled to find lacking. And it MUST always be true...there is FAR too much trivia for ANYONE to ever master a statistically significant portion.

And this is not to mention the "trivia wars"--the English teachers want more time for THEIR trivia, the science teachers want more time for THEIR trivia, the math teachers want more time for THEIR trivia, etc., etc., etc. If they were ALL to get their way, kids would be at their desks 24/7/365...and STILL not get anything out of it but a huge pile of trivia. What a pointless exercise in futility! What a waste!

And what horrifying damage it does to that inborn sense of curiousity that we hairless primates have inherited from our ancient ancestors. How MANY kids grow up to view the sight of a book as you or I would view the sight of a poisonous snake? What "education" consists of now is on the same ethical level as teaching a cat to be afraid of mice...it is an ABOMINATION!

"...people will always have bosses, if not why would one work?" Yes, Victorcommie, that is a DEEPLY conservative viewpoint. I recommend the sticky thread at the beginning of this forum--"Common Sense Reasons for Workers' Self-Management." :cool:





(Edited by redstar2000 at 6:55 pm on Dec. 20, 2002)

[Blackberry]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 3:18 am on Dec. 20, 2002

Victorcommie, I have to make something CLEAR up front. I AM NOT in favor of TAKING kids away from their parents on an arbitrary basis, be it age or any other criterion. In the "Marx and the Family" thread, I have argued that by the age of 7 to 10, a kid KNOWS whether s/he is happy in his/her living arrangements...and that kids should have the OPTION of moving into a collective that has been set up specifically for the purpose of providing a safe and nurturing environment for kids who don't want to live with their parents or other relatives. I have to EMPHASIZE this because there are those who think I want to have the police kick down the doors of parents and snatch their kids.(!)


I would have to agree with you, redstar. When I was 7 (and even younger), I always wanted the opprtunity to move out and live with someone else. And the same can be said now. I can't wait to move out in a year's time, and live with my grandmother.

It is shameful to underestimate a child's intelligence. Remember, you were once a child of this age, so you should remember that you were not the 'stupid kid who cannot make a decision' that some of you are trying to make people believe.

Yes, don't force a small child to be taken away from their parents, but LET THEM CHOOSE.

(Edited by Neutral Nation at 1:37 am on Dec. 21, 2002)

[Umoja]

Education, since it teaches others thoughts, is automatically propaganda, but regardless we start to form our own viewpoints. Were all of us taught that Socialism/Communism was good?

Something people didn't touch on was the leveling systems that exist in high school. I was listening to a fellow student speak about my current high school and he mentioned how leveling is a form of segregation. Now, my high school is about 60% Black 40% White (even though the town is 50/50) and everyone has about the same economic status but in my Advanced Placement US history course out of the 24 students, I am one of three blacks in it. History is a subjects most African-Americans love, but for some reason only three of us are in the highest level class. That's a problem with modern public education, not that I endorse private education.

[redstar2000]

Umoja, funny you should mention the "tracking" or "placement" practice in U.S. high schools.

When I was IN high school. I wasn't really "aware" that it existed...even with the evidence right in front of my nose. There were only two other working class kids besides me in the "college track" even though there were 400 kids at my grade level (SOME of them MUST have been working class). And in a school with, say, 10 to 20 per cent black students, NONE were in the "college track".

This WAS a long time ago, of course, and things are probably a little better now...but, evidently NOT MUCH. On paper, we in the U.S. have an "egalitarian" school system; in practice, it is clearly CLASS and RACE determinate.

Another reason to get rid of the damned thing!

:cool:

[Pete]

That is insane! Shit sisters home...will post later;