|
| Thread: Americans and ignorance... |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
posted July 26, 2004 12:56 PM |
|
|
I read page 1.. and skimmed page 5.
A lot of people can vouch I dont hold my tounge. Especialy in cases of SS's type of toss. Although this wasnt a "humorous" thread.
Sorry for missing whatever important parts of the threadI may have.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Draco
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2004 04:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'll have to know very good: literature(absolutely no connection with computers), geography(same thing), english, mathematics and I have to choose also between: Physics, Biology, Chemistry and Programming(computers). I've just listed what my final exam will include.
thats not any different then here.
1 credit = 1 hour per day for 1 semester
my final exams consisted of, French (1cr), English-Literature(1cr), Physics(1cr), Pre-Calculis(sp?)(1cr) Applied Math(1cr), Chemistry(1cr), Biology(1cr) and 2 option classes (i took a 4 credit program in computer repair, and i took buisness administration(4cr))
I dont know the lenths of your classes or the strenth of them, but I spent just as much time as you in school most likely. as will most North Americans. Were all pretty much even in this world, most peoples potential is pretty similar.
http://www.coolcanuckaward.ca/joe_canadian.htm (sorry a little unrelated to my speech but some of you may not of heard this)
some will claim its arrogant, others will say patriotic, its all a matter of oppinion.
which side of the coin do you fall into?
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted July 26, 2004 08:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Anyone who thinks differently about someone because of regional location is biased, but not everyone of them point offensive fingers at a person cuz of race or origion.
This is the one thing that I was catious about coming across. I want to point out that in spite of my general experience/impression about Americans being ignorant, I do not judge them, nor do I have any preconcieved ideas about their intelligence or educational level before I get to know them. Unfortunately, that impression gets confirmed too often.
Patriotism vs. arrogance. No, I wouldnt put it that way. There's a clear distinction between them. One can be patriotic without thinking they are the greatest country in the world, the beacon of democracy and freedom. I would say that ignorance causes arrogance. Success and knowledge have nothing to do with it, as many Americans think. They have the attitude: "Yes, we have the right to be arrogant, cos we are the best, so snow off." Need I comment?
I love open-minded people and the point that PH made. If only we can relate to each other on different points, not nationalistic.
There are ignorant people everywhere. You have no idea how many ignorant people there are where I am from. The only thing that has no limits is human stupidity.
So, great respect and admiration for those Americans who are not like them, both here and there. But there's absolutely no offense meant when I was writing any of that stuff about Americans. My intent was to show certain perspective of view, may it be valid or not, see it yourself.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
posted July 28, 2004 07:06 AM |
bonus applied. |
|
The Seeds Of American Ignorance and Arrogance
If you will allow me the opportunity to explain my theory of why Americans are so ignorant (and subsequently so arrogant as well), then perhaps I may be able to shed some light on why we Americans act and think the way that we do.
Americans, as well as Eastern and Western Europeans (let’s just include the rest of the world for that matter), have become experts at finger-pointing when it comes to taking responsibility for their respective problems. Much like the rest of the world, I too will have to engage in this epidemic of shifting the blame to others in order to explain my theory, which in turn, will make me no better than those who excel at avoiding responsibility for their own shortcomings. Besides, I never claimed to be better than anyone else, just better looking.  . With that being said, I must target American parents and the modern American family’s way of life as the culprits for why Americans are so ignorant, and along with that, so arrogant in others’ eyes.
The snowball began to form back in 1964 with the passing of Title VII of The Civil Rights Act, which banned discrimination in employment on the basis of race and sex. It also established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to investigate complaints and impose penalties on the violators of the above legislature. The driving force or momentum behind this snowball came with the formation of the National Organization of Women (NOW) back in 1966, courtesy of Betty Friedman and her group of fellow Feminists. NOW has blossomed to become the largest women's rights group in the United States. It seeks to end sexual discrimination, especially in the workplace, by means of legislative lobbying, litigation, and public demonstrations. IMHO, NOW has done wonderful things in order to bring fairness and equality to all women, not only in the workplace, but in all aspects of society as well, and I applaud their efforts. However, as with any type of progress or change, there is always a price to be paid. The price that we as Americans paid (and are still paying) is the lack of focus, effort, and importance of raising our children and teaching them the importance of values, education, and social responsibility.
In addition to advancing the economic and social status of women, what NOW and the Women’s Movement also did was draw women out of the homes and into the workplace, while devaluing the status and social acceptance of women who chose to stay home and raise their children. Nowadays, if an American woman describes herself as a ‘homemaker’ or ‘housewife’, she is more-often-than-not frowned upon, if not ridiculed, by her fellow female, especially those who have chosen to forego parenthood to pursue their own careers. Believe me when I say that I am all for gender equality in society, especially in the workplace; however, I also have a tremendous amount of admiration and new-found respect for those women who chose to stay at home with their children rather than enter the workplace. I am currently a stay-at-home dad, and let me tell you, raising two children in a respectable manner is a very difficult task. Ask any parent…well, let me rephrase that…ask any parent who actually raises their own children and is willing to put the time and effort it takes to do it to the best of their ability. I think that they will agree with me. In America, as a stay-at-home dad, I am definitely a minority, but I believe that sacrificing a dual income is unquestionably worth it in order to be there with my children as they are in the most important stages of their lives, which is something most Americans would probably dismiss as uneconomical or perhaps even ridiculous. In their minds, they think the best thing to do is go out and earn that second salary while paying someone else minimum wage to raise their children, which usually involves sitting their kids in front of the television and watching entertaining videos with little or no educational value. This American way of life and child-rearing is what is contributing to the ignorance of the American people, as I shall explain below.
Americans, especially American parents, may despise me for what I have to say on this particular issue, nonetheless there is much truth to my words and they cannot dismiss what I am about to share with you as fiction or fantasy. Americans have devalued the worth of what it means to raise children, plain and simple. American parents would rather have that dual-income in order to support their high standards of living than to have one parent stay home to raise their own children. They would rather pawn off their responsibilities of caring for their own children to daycare, babysitters, or relatives rather than sacrifice the additional income they can make having both parents working full-time. Now, since I don’t reside in fantasyland, I understand that in order for some families just to survive, both parents must work. I am a realist and I know that the food, clothing, and shelter must come from some source of income. The question that I present is this, “At what point does that designer clothing, fancy car, or luxury home outweigh the value and importance of raising your own child?” When a parent chooses to leave their children in the care of another, they detach themselves from becoming involved in influencing their children’s behavior and education. I would gander to say that the majority of parents nowadays were not there to see their child utter their first words or take their first steps, but rather these events were witnessed by the day care providers instead. Children begin to develop their senses of right and wrong, along with building the groundwork for their education, at a very early age. American parents these days entrust day care, babysitters, and television to teach their children these things, since they are too busy themselves to be occupied with this task during their busy workdays and hectic lifestyles.
Now, let me also add that even some of those American families who choose to have one parent stay home to raise their children are contributing to American ignorance as well. “How can this be?” you say. Why, I am so glad that you asked. Even parents have turned to television and other media (commercial) methods of raising their children. I have seen it with my own two eyes more often than not. Parents are satisfied to plop their kids in front of the television, VCR, or DVD to relieve them of their parenting responsibilities. I know parents who let their kids sit in front of some form of media all day long, breaking only for meals and the occasional change of diapers or clothing. Is this the right way to raise our children? IMHO, it is “not.” I do not claim to be the world’s best parent, and as a matter of fact, I am far from it. However, I take pride in the fact that I put a tremendous amount of effort into educating my children in their earliest stages, rather than let Barney or Walt Disney ‘educate’ them. For example, my two-year-old son (2 years, 3 months) already knows his ABCs, his colors, his shapes, and can count to 30. Is it because he is unusually intelligent or good genetics? Looking at myself and my bloodline, I would guess “no.” Rather, it is my belief that this is because “Daddy” spends the necessary time and takes a purposeful interest in the development of his “son.” Call me crazy, but I think it is a safe bet that I am doing a better job raising my children than “Suzy” at Dime-A-Dozen Day Care does. Once again, just my humble opinion, but if given the choice a thousand times over, I would forego a second income in order to raise my children in the early years before they join their fellow kiddies at Kindergarten or 1st Grade.
By the time most American children reach Kindergarten or 1st Grade, they have already been indoctrinated into the American sedentary lifestyle of sitting in front of the television with a lack of desire to learn, as a majority of their time has been spent being entertained by cartoons, video, and non-educational media sources. Along with the aforementioned will come the short attention spans and lack of self-discipline that could potentially be avoided through caring and concerned parents. Why do you think there are so many children discipline problems and learning deficiencies in the United States, which is one of the most advanced societies in the world and spends billions of dollars on education every year? You can only claim medical reasons or hyperactivity so much before the truth comes out. It is the parents’ fault, along with the modern American way of life, which has put our children behind the power curve before they even enter our institutions of learning. I will probably rant and rave about our education system somewhere down the line, but for now, my finger remains pointed at those parents who sacrifice their children’s most impressionable years for the almighty dollar. We wonder why our kids are so interested in learning video game cheat codes instead of their multiplication tables. We wonder why our kids know every Barney episode or Disney character, but can’t identify a location on a map or a famous historical person. It is our parents fault, and if we Americans don’t start changing our selfish, materialistic ways, it will soon become our fault as well, and then we will have nobody left to blame but ourselves.
Love, peace, and happiness…
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted July 28, 2004 07:24 AM |
|
|
What? Khayman, I can usually count on you for support. Nice post, though.
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted July 28, 2004 08:56 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 28 Jul 2004
|
Khayman,
I enjoyed reading your thoughts on american arrogance and ignorance. It was a well thought out post and the detail seemed quaint.
As a stay-at-home father as well, I'll have to respectfully interject that your scenario addresses your specific environment. That's the thing about america. There are so many different environments that each must be looked at on its own unique level. For example, what about migrants from other countries with very different philosophies, religions, and government structures? Many people bring the values and patterns of behavior from their own country to this one.
I'd speculate that your specific post addresses what many generational white americans do. On this level I agree that many upper class people do behave in the way you have described. It makes sense coming from someone who matches the demographic.
However to be in touch with today's america, we must remind ourselves that it is increasingly diverse with many different cultures, creeds, and races. I do agree that some family households reflect an envirnoment with too much t.v. One particular case comes to mind from Columbine, Colorado. The disturbed teens that went on a rampage of infamy did indeed suffer from the exact problems that you described. But the thing to keep in mind is that america is no longer a suburb of white kids whose parents are well-to-do. In many parts of america this is true but for the most part it isn't.
I just wanted to disagree that your synopsis was applicable to americans in general because it isn't. I think it only applies to a small and shrinking segment of the population.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted July 28, 2004 02:19 PM |
|
|
Point Taken, Counterpoint
Consis wrote:Quote:
I'd speculate that your specific post addresses what many generational white americans do. On this level I agree that many upper class people do behave in the way you have described. It makes sense coming from someone who matches the demographic...I think it only applies to a small and shrinking segment of the population.
I understand your disagreement with my perspective here, assuming that I come from a smaller percentage of the United States (upper class, white ethnicity); however, when looking directly at income level, the United States Census Bureau tells me otherwise.
Now, am I a suburban white American? Yes.
Do suburban white Americans have different cultural values and economic priorities than others in the United States? Yes.
According to the above chart, is my family's income near the 2002 median household income in the United States? Yes.
Since we only have one parent working, our 'per capita' income is higher than the average U.S. per capita income, but our household income last year (and in 2002) was very close to the median household income in the United States. I would categorize myself (and my family) as a 'middle class', perhaps even 'upper middle class' as a result of an above average per capita income, but 'middle class' nonetheless.
Regardless, you are correct when you say that there are other ethnicities and cultures that I may be overlooking in my analysis and theory, because I do not have their perspectives on life. Point taken. My reply to that would be that there are many lazy, overweight, and ignorant minority children out there in addition to those white suburban children, and I stand by my hypothesis that it is the parents who are the ones resonsible for allowing this to happen.
Thanks for reading my post, Consis and Aquaman, I am glad that you enjoyed it, although we may have different perspectives. 
|
|
Draco
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2004 03:59 PM |
|
|
1 simple solution to this problem (and I agree with it) is to do what my mom did,
we couldnt afford 1 income, so she started up a daycare in our house, she kept 3-4 kids ontop of me and my sisters, wasnt much in the name of income, but enough to keep food on the table, and she was home taking care of us all the time.
I am a firm believer in the fact that daycares shouldnt consist of more then like 4-5 kids MAX, this way, the daycare provider can actually spend time teaching the kids, and you dont need to have movie time, or tv time. you can keep them active.
side note: my mom still runs the daycare because she likes taking care of kids (this is 20 years later) and there is a lineup of people who want their kids watched here. so if you struggle with 1 income, start up a *small* daycare. it will help society more then most jobs you could be doing and pay some bills.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted July 28, 2004 05:51 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 28 Jul 2004
|
Hmm,
Quote:
there are many lazy, overweight, and ignorant minority children out there in addition to those white suburban children, and I stand by my hypothesis that it is the parents who are the ones resonsible for allowing this to happen.
After watching last night's democratic convention, it seems Barack Obama would agree with you. And since I agree with him, it would be logical to say that I also agree with you. In his keynote speech he told parents to "turn off the t.v.". I think that's a particularly important message for african americans.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted July 28, 2004 06:49 PM |
|
|
Fascinating to see Khayman and Consis discussing this!
Just a couple of points to add:
First, Khayman, I wondered at first why your post chapped my arse like it did, except that it was probably because of the truth of it. Now that comment goes to your conclucions about the current dynamic of the American family structure.
However, I think you place too much emphasis on the Civil Rights Movement and NOW. Actually NOW was the result of women moving into the workplace, not the cause of it. WWII was the primary factor in the change in the family dynamic, when women really moved in large numbers into the workplace (Rosie the Riveter). When this started happening,women began experiencing being freed from the previous sociological shackles they experienced, of which being a non-income-earning "housewife" was only one in a complex weave of a rather oppressive tapestry. Working out of the home came to symbolize the way out of the larger oppressive social dynamic.
Being a woman who was raised during the '60,'s for the most part I know of where I speak. I can tell you that a major impetus behind the great female exodus from the home into the workplace revolved around the establishment of independence and a sense of identity, which women lacked before this revolution began. I know that to a degree such things are understood in this culture to be associated with one having a career. But that is precisely the problem.
In other words, Khayman, I identify the source of the problem as running deeper than just a money issue. If the cultural values had permitted for the concept of equality for women without it relying on the financial and career elements, if women had had any sense of individual power and autonomy before the great exodus, I submit that it would not have occurred, at least not to the degree and with the magnitude of the numbers which it did.
NOW sprang up to address the fact that the women already in the workplace were earning barely more than half the money that white men were earning for the same positions and responsibilities, which was not only a perfectly legitimate goal but one which would actually alleviate some of the financial pressure on the American household, which you identify as the primary motivation behind the current structure of the two-family income.
Now then, once the economy began to adapt to the two-family income, it became more of a norm rather than the exception, and the society, for better or worse, began in turn to adapt accordingly. Add the advent of widespread television ownership and the burgeoning of the mass media as we currently know it to the mix, and you have the result you have described.
As for the American Median income: It is important to remember that "median" is a term to refer to the middle figure, which does not necessarily represent the "average." In other words, you could be the only houseold in America earning $40,000 per year, there could be a hundred thousand households earning $10,000 per year and a hundred thousand households earning $200,000 per year, and you would still be the "median" income household. So the median income figure does not give us much information about the true demographic complexities of class breakdown in America. What we really need to know is what percentage of American households earn in the range of the median income,and what percentages are above and below it and how far.
Thanks for letting me toss in my two cents.
|
|
Shai-Hulud
Known Hero
Sicomor
|
|
posted July 28, 2004 07:38 PM |
|
|
Khayman.. I must disagree with you here... I'll take my family example. Each of my parents earns about 200$ a month, so they had to take both a job. So in final my family got about 400$. Even if both had to work( actually my father has a job from 18 and my mother 20) so not much care for us except that given in the pregnancy and when they arrived home. Yet, as I said before me and my brothers are considred really good. Why? Beacuse we know what money, life, love for parents and human mean. In the meanwhile, american kids get a quite big house for granted( I and most romanians live in apartments), money, TV, computer all this stuff get them for nothing. Well, the only way I've got a computer at the age of 14 was that beacuse I was at a special computer related class and my brother was at university at the same speciality. Otherwise, our chances got minimized. I can give you many examples of kids in Romania who were from rich families and got in a bad situation. For examples, the Minister's son, got at the simulation exam before 9th grade 2.30 that would in your resultd a G or something like this. That is not funny. That is the situation in U.S. Kids in
U.S. are pretty sure that they'll learn only what their job asks for, they won't have problems. While in their free time, americans kids watch TV and play computer games, others learn something different from what they're teached at school. For example... I only learned at school C++. In my spare time I've learnt also Flash MX and HTML and networking( taking Cisco courses). Also beacuse I couldn't afford paying a specialist to change for example my coole,
I 've learned some hardware too. Now the final task!! How many american kids, read for pleasure in their free time. I, for example, read last year in one weekend( from Friday night to Monday morning) 1800 pages just for pleasure. Guess the book... Maybe I'll tell you. Dune!!! The first three volumes. I'll write more after I get back from my trip to a rock festival(3days).
See ya'll later...
____________
~~~Azzy~~~
|
|
Draco
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2004 07:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As for the American Median income: It is important to remember that "median" is a term to refer to the middle figure, which does not necessarily represent the "average." In other words, you could be the only houseold in America earning $40,000 per year, there could be a hundred thousand households earning $10,000 per year and a hundred thousand households earning $200,000 per year, and you would still be the "median" income household. So the median income figure does not give us much information about the true demographic complexities of class breakdown in America. What we really need to know is what percentage of American households earn in the range of the median income,and what percentages are above and below it and how far.
I dissagree with this statement, I think median is probably a better assesment then average in this case.
lets say the average income is 50,000$
for every person making 1,000,000$ there is 100 people only making 10,000$
the average in this case would be 50,000$ when in reality only 1 person makes over 10,000$
so with a average income of 50,000 where 1 third of the population makes 100,000 and where the rest make avg 25,000 the median of 25,000 more closely related to the average joe then the average which is double what 2/3rds of the population makes
it get even more skewed(sp?) when you take into consideration people like Bill Gates, or the Walton family(wallmart owners), who's riches exceed the billion dollar amounts.
[quote="forbes 10 richest men]
Bill Gates Net Worth: $54,000 mil
Buffett, Warren Net Worth: $33,200 mil
Allen, Paul Gardner Net Worth: $28,200 mil
Ellison, Lawrence J Net Worth: $21,900 mil
Walton, Jim C Net Worth: $17,500 mil
thats there net worth, im not sure what they make a year, but it must be considerable enough to affect the average enough. (most people with investments double there money every 6-12 years)
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted July 28, 2004 08:03 PM |
|
|
Excellent points you two are raising. But I think you're broadening the debate, instead of focusing on the particular subject of ignorance. Oh well..
Is the "exodus" of women from household to the workplace to be accounted for the malfunctions that we now have in our society? Would it be better for women if they had stayed in the kitchens and continued their good mom- obedient wife role?
I'm not that optimistic about the positive outcome of the other alternatives. Peacemaker mentioned that if the suffragate movement hadn't focused on exultance in the workplace, they would have reached the same position without the harmful effects of loss of family values. But considering the other non-private spheres, not related to the workplace, was there enough room for women to pursue their case? Education, the most important factor imo, would have still been out of reach for them, since it's closely raleted to the labour market.
Therefore, I find no guilt whatsoever in the womens' rights movement, for fighting for equality and justice.
After all, there are lots of places all around the world, where women are just as involved in the economy as men, and still there's no harm done to the family life. But they don't let their kids glue to the TV and watch cartoon network or mtv all the time. How much is that true for America? (and on a short note, i dont think that there's difference between social/racial strata in terms of how much attention they offer to their kids) How many of Americans work overtime? How many of you stay often an hour or two after work? (Sure those extra money can come in handy!) (or even worse; "if i dont stay, my boss will find someone who will")
In my opinion, this all accounts for the misidentification with values that happens in Western society. And the reason I dare to debate with you guys on your territory, is that I've seen it happening in Macedonia too. Successful companies demand devoted workers. There's a guy who went to German course with me, and had to quit because the bank he worked for demanded that he stay overtime. Every day he had to work until 6 PM, and then go to German classes. But, he was earning a high salary however. Wow, the epitome of success!
However, I think this is all part of a more global issue encompassing the entire process of socialization and forming character, while ignorance is just a particular one, that we chose to deal with in this thread. Meaning, I do not think that parents are the most important factor for education, but school is. Although parents are the ones that are supposed to teach their children about the values of education and self-discipline. However, if school doesn't become the source of knowledge, I dont think parents will ever be able to raplce that role (unless your pappa isn't Einstein or a collegue of his).
OK, second point - watching TV. If you ask an American kid what he/she enjoys doing the most, I bet the most common answer would be watching TV.
I remember when I was a kiddo, I went to Kindergarten with 20 other boys and girls, while my mum and dad were at work. And it was an extremely important and positive social experience for me. But after that, when you get home (about 4PM), we used to do something every day, together. Often watched TV, went to visit grandparents. Every weekend we went some place. (My fav was the zoo. ) When they bought me a TV and Nintendo in my room, I began to enstrange myself. And whether aware or not, when parents provide their children with such entertainment they push them away from themselves. And it was only a fortunate thing that we didn't have specialized TV programmes, so the only thing that I did watch regularly were "Ninja Turtles". (man, I loved them  )
But, in America, with 500 channels on TV, and as much games on PC, is it possible for kids not to spend more time with screens than with faces?
And the worst thing is that it's cheap entertainment. No educational value whatsoever. And when they get to school they expect also just fun and cheap games, and the incredible thing is that they get it. Who would need maths, if it's not just adding and substracting colourful images of numbers until the age of 15?!
I'm not saying education shouldn't be funny and interesting, but unless you find the interesting part in education itself, and not the jolly advertasing package it comes in, then you're free to join the rest of the gang of ignorant Americans and their companions from around the world.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted July 28, 2004 08:46 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 28 Jul 2004
|
Three Points
Shai-Hulud proves the difference in family units that I spoke of.
Draco is incorrect in his disagreement with Peacemaker. She speaks the truth and furthermore, it gets even more complicated. Google this term: "living within your means"
The reason Peacemaker is correct is because let's say you make $160,000 a year but because of regional costs for your sociological, economic, and geographic location, you only have enough money left over to buy food, pay rent, and utilities. A person like that would be living paycheck to paycheck. They're making a great deal more money than, say, someone in Mexico. The difference is that they can't go to mexico to be a big fish in a little pond because their job does not exist there. Therefore they are stuck in the region that they are in from circumstances out of their hands.
This scenario can be applied, and does occur commonly, throughout the u.s. The reasons for this are an entirely different debate but regardless of that, these people are truly poor people through no fault of their own. They don't own a car, television, or computer.
Now if you take the "median" income numbers they would probably fit in as middle class, when in fact they are not. There are many places throughout the u.s. in which this occurs and this is only one example of differentiating from the post Khayman gave. I only cite it because his original post addressed a single and shrinking demographic(type of ethnicity) which abides by its own unique set of circumstances.
Svarog brings up many excellent questions, points, ideas, etc. LoL, somehow he is able to fit it into his imaginary global socialization theories. I guess it's all part of the bigger plan eh Svarog? Hehehe, sure sure but in specific he does reiterate the point Khayman was making. And that is too many children are being made to watch television as opposed to spending quality time with their parents and loved ones.
And on a personal note, I think it's great that you spent so much time with your parents and grandparents. I think that is invaluable, in other words, there is no price you can put on the time you spend with your family.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2004 06:38 AM |
|
|
I agree that women moving to the workplace, daycare, etc is PART of the problem. As with most things of this nature, there are many causes which combine to create the problem. It's unlikely that any single one, taken alone, would cause the problem. It may contribute, but taken by itself, the results may not even be identifiable. For example Shai stated that both parents also work in his country and they don't have similar problems. On the other hand, it might be that if one of the parents WERE at home, the education in his country would improve, but maybe not substantially.
One thing I wanted to point out is that the culture and way of life varies considerably in this country. The East Coast is dramatically different from Alabama, which is dramatically different from N Dakota, etc, etc. The point is that the percentage of working women vs stay-at-home moms varies considerably. I'm originally from a Midwest state. I lived in California much of my adult life and only recently moved back so I can't say firsthand. But my sister told me she thinks the percentage of stay-at-home moms may be as high as 50% around there. Whereas in California, I'm sure it was well under 10%. There are many other things that could affect education which vary from place to place.
Peace: I suspected you were "somewhere around" my age. You've just confirmed it.
I also remember the 60's well. It was a major social revolution which affected virtually every aspect of society, never to return to the old way. I was in school then and education changed along with everything else. The "old school" was much more the way Shai described his education. It stressed the fundamentals; reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, history and the basic sciences.....and discipline.....you did *NOT* talk back to the teacher (nor any other adult). There were minor changes throughout my years of school, but it was much more dramatic during high school. The changes were both in the classes offered, and the more social aspects. For example, up through my 10th grade "English" was required through all 12 years. This was "real" English, like advanced grammar, reading Homer and writing a formal thesis about it, etc. In my 11th year, this was no longer required. Instead of just plain English, we had a choice of a bunch of classes sort of related to English class. Two of the classes I took were science fiction and speed reading because they were easy classes. An example of social change was the dress code. Used to be boys: hair cut neatly above the ears and collar, shirt tails tucked in, belts, real shoes (no sandals) etc. Girls: blouse (high neckline), skirt or dress (below the knee) etc. Then suddenly the dress code changed to...um...well, just wear something to school (us guys just LOVED those hot pants and mini-skirts, our education in anatomy improved quite a bit).
These are just a few examples of changes while I was in school. I can't really say just what affects they had. The idea may be a little extreme, but it seems to me that a method of teaching similar to the way it had been done for probably hundreds of years was suddenly changed. Spanking and the rapping of knuckles was outlawed. Social Studies changed from history, geography and learning about other cultures to social political correctness. Kids are not failed because it might cause them to have a "lower self esteem". Talking back to the teacher won't get you in trouble, but shooting the teacher will (of course it's not really the students fault because his parents were alcoholics or some such nonsense).
I've personally known three teachers who quit teaching because they weren't allowed to do their jobs. They got into teaching because they liked kids and actually thought they could teach something. What they discovered is that the schools cared more about political correctness than education. I think the bad part about this is that the teachers who quit out of frustration may be the ones who would make the best teachers.
Overall, I think we still have very good education in this country. But yes, it has declined and there are some problems with it. When I really think about it, I can't help but think one of the biggest problems, if not THE biggest problem, is the disparity in education. The disparity almost entirely has to do with money. As a whole, the suburbs have a much higher level of education than the cities. Some of this is due to the fact that the suburbs have more money and can afford better schools and teachers. But maybe a bigger factor is that the people who live in the suburbs are much more likely to have higher levels of education themselves, place a higher value on it, and instill the same value in their children. In this country the federal government does NOT pay for most of the education. The state and locality pay for most of it. Hence education varies dramatically between suburb and city, and also from state to state.
One last thing. I strongly agree with the people who say the responsibilty of education lies with the parents. The parents are responsible for every aspect of raising their children. They're responsible for teaching their children outside of school as well as encouraging them and helping them do well inside school. If the schools don't teach what the parents think they should learn, it's up to the parents to make up the difference.
One thing I can say as an "old" guy, is that the *VAST* majority of what you learn in life is not learned in school. School gives you a broad education in many areas and is a good foundation, but it's only the first step. Most of it comes later.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted July 29, 2004 08:25 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 29 Jul 2004
|
Absorbed,
Hmm, I respectfully disagree with Binabik on parental schooling responsibilities. 'Every aspect' you say? Oh so wrong in my opinion.
Whether this is related to american ignorance and arrogance in general seems to be the question though. I'll wager it doesn't because I feel ignorance is a percentage choice. In everyone's life, we all have priorities. If my top priority is too become a specified skill level that will land me a job that will put food on the table for my kids then there lies my example. You guys must be living that great american dream or something while I find myself grounded in reality. In reality, if there's time, money, and motivation then the possiblity for broadening education and lessening one's own ignorance may exist. But let's be candid and root ourselves in real life shall we?
The ignorance that foreigners claim americans have can in fact be proven and justified. Over and over you will hear Svarog discuss the narrow scope of an american mind. Granted this is a large generalization but for the most part it is true. What do I know about plumbing? I know nothing because neither the need nor the inclination exists for me. Will I ever need this skill? I own a house with plenty of pipes, you be the judge.
My counterpoint is that although we americans find ourselves highly specialized in narrow scopes of expertise, we more than make up for our setbacks by coming together as a team. In this country more people work together than not to make the end result country that the world knows us by today. So while it is true what Svarog says, I think it is also true that we are able to work together for a good cause. We are a proactive people with a plethora of thoughts and ideas. Sometimes we learn by trial and error but we come together to get the job done. That's why this country has the most culturally diverse population in the world. We are more tolerant, caring, and accepting than any other nation. We are ignorant but we are also willing to learn.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Draco
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2004 04:21 PM |
|
|
first sorry for this spam section
Quote:
We are more tolerant, caring, and accepting than any other nation.
I thought that was Canada's Job? the whole being tolerant and caring and accepting people... isnt that why half our original population was your loyalists and the destination for most slaves during the underground railroad times?
I do agree that its up to the parents to teach what the schools neglect to do. I know alot of people who were homeschooled however and I dont think they learnt nearly as much as the public school students. So its not a infallable system you propose.
Somewhere there has to be a mix, but if your parents are stupid then they cant teach you, this is why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, you cant train someone to do something you can't do yourself.
I think the school system needs some remodeling, they teach us to be accepting when they should be teaching us to reach our potentials (intelectually).
I know in highschool the teachers for the most part pretty much gave up on us as a whole, the old teachers in there 70s-80s were our best teachers they actually tried to make us learn yet we gave them the hardest times simply because we hated them I mean why would you like a teacher who would fail you at the first chance they had simply to teach you to work harder. the new teachers in there early 20's would be "cool" and if you had a 40% in the class at exam time, they would up it to 50% so you passed. in this situation you dont need to learn anything, I think this is the biggest problem we face today.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted July 29, 2004 07:26 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 29 Jul 2004
|
Two Thumbs Up
I fully agree with Draco's entire post 
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 30, 2004 06:29 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Hmm, I respectfully disagree with Binabik on parental schooling responsibilities. 'Every aspect' you say? Oh so wrong in my opinion.
You might still disagree, but let me both rephrase and qualify what I said. I should have said the parents are *ultimately* responsible. And, although I didn't say it, what I was thinking of was younger children who are wholly dependent on their parents.
I agree with what you said about priorities. The emphasis should be placed on whatever has the highest priority and education may not be highest.
To tie parental responsibility and priority together, an example would be the parents decide they want their child to take piano lessons. What I'm saying is that it's the parents responsibility to make that decision.....i.e., it was high enough on their priority list. After making the decision, the parents are responsible for picking a piano teacher and overseeing the results of the lessons. It's not saying that the parents were right in the decision, or were good at selecting the teacher and overseeing the lessons. It's merely saying they are responsible for it.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted July 30, 2004 07:45 AM |
|
|
Single Thumb Up
I agree with Binabik's new rephrasal. It clarifies what I was at odds with.
I am against, as I so eloquently targeted SaphireRavyn, parents crossing an important line in the role and responsibilites of their job.
Hands on is important, but it has to be practical and the child must be allowed to breath. As Binabik said, at the earliest years, a child needs everything from the parent except breathable oxygen. All other needs must be supplied via the parent. As the child grows, the rules change, and the parent must constantly re-evaluate their roles. But yes, as Binabik said, the Parent is ultimately responsible until the child surpasses the legal age for adulthood.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
| |
|
|
