Author Topic: Teaching vs Indoctrination ?  (Read 962 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline cybercoma

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2730
Re: Teaching vs Indoctrination ?
« Reply #300 on: February 26, 2018, 12:42:21 pm »
Meltdown? You asked who would be left in my perfect world and I answered. Smart people. Clearly and logically that excludes you and other brainless ideologues of the far left.
Right because everyone who disagrees with you is not smart. Your arrogance is insufferable. For all the shit I disagree with TimG about, at least he doesn't go around saying everyone who disagrees with him is an idiot.

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4024
Re: Teaching vs Indoctrination ?
« Reply #301 on: February 26, 2018, 12:47:35 pm »
Meltdown? You asked who would be left in my perfect world and I answered. Smart people. Clearly and logically that excludes you and other brainless ideologues of the far left.

please Argus! Please refrain from your purposely trollish posting content.


Offline Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8208
Re: Teaching vs Indoctrination ?
« Reply #302 on: February 26, 2018, 12:49:50 pm »
Meltdown? You asked who would be left in my perfect world and I answered. Smart people. Clearly and logically that excludes you and other brainless ideologues of the far left.

Smart people tend not to resort to insults whenever they are challenged. Try to keep that in mind if you want to join the crowd.

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Teaching vs Indoctrination ?
« Reply #303 on: February 26, 2018, 03:54:55 pm »
Right because everyone who disagrees with you is not smart. Your arrogance is insufferable. For all the shit I disagree with TimG about, at least he doesn't go around saying everyone who disagrees with him is an idiot.

I don't think EVERYONE who disagrees with me is an idiot. I think everyone who zealously embraces a position and then feels a sense of smug, moral superiority for that embrace - while putting little thought or research into it - is indeed an idiot. I also think anyone who is incapable of discussing positions without resorting to personalizing the discussion  - is a flaming idiot.

I also think that intelligent guys like you who become ideologues through embracing far left ivory tower theories with no real life application, are also idiots.
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Teaching vs Indoctrination ?
« Reply #304 on: February 26, 2018, 03:55:39 pm »
Smart people tend not to resort to insults whenever they are challenged. Try to keep that in mind if you want to join the crowd.

I'll keep that in mind if I'm ever challenged. But I don't consider some shrill harpy calling me a white supremacist to be any more of a challenge than some asshole calling me a racist.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2018, 03:57:22 pm by SirJohn »
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8208
Re: Teaching vs Indoctrination ?
« Reply #305 on: February 26, 2018, 03:59:31 pm »
I'll keep that in mind if I'm ever challenged. But I don't consider some shrill harpy calling me a white supremacist to be any more of a challenge than some asshole calling me a racist.

Once again you underscore my point.

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7928
Re: Teaching vs Indoctrination ?
« Reply #306 on: February 27, 2018, 07:12:07 am »
\
Preferably an end to attempts at political or social indoctrination. Or at the very least, make the indoctrination in favor of something universal, like a shared sense of national identity, and not just what one side or group believes in.

Yeah, well that's what I am asking for.  What do you want ? 

I started by saying, let one side pick the Canadian value to be included (eg., the "left" and tolerance) and let the other side define it...

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5092
Re: Teaching vs Indoctrination ?
« Reply #307 on: February 27, 2018, 07:59:46 am »
You mean their farmland where they raised the buffalo for food?

It wasn't farmland and they didn't "raise" buffalo as far as I know, they hunted wild buffalo.  But yes where Buffalo roamed in the plains in the prairie provinces you can make a case for that.  Though most of Canada contained no buffalo.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5092
Re: Teaching vs Indoctrination ?
« Reply #308 on: February 27, 2018, 08:20:36 am »
Well, anyone who spends any amount of time whingding about how horrible the country it is because of colonialism/patriarchy/systemic racism/cultural genocide is, by definition, less patriotic than people who focus on the positive. This makes many liberals a lot less patriotic than conservatives.

I think Sir John's point is you can't teach patriotism by filling kids heads with a never ending stream of negative propaganda about the country which is what is happening now.

People did bad stuff in the past, we need to recognize that.  But we also need to balance that by recognizing all of the good that's been accomplished too.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7928
Re: Teaching vs Indoctrination ?
« Reply #309 on: February 27, 2018, 08:37:36 am »
People did bad stuff in the past, we need to recognize that.  But we also need to balance that by recognizing all of the good that's been accomplished too.

Probably better if you admit there were bad things in the past, and pledge to do better.  Or something.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Teaching vs Indoctrination ?
« Reply #310 on: February 27, 2018, 08:48:19 am »
It wasn't farmland and they didn't "raise" buffalo as far as I know, they hunted wild buffalo.  But yes where Buffalo roamed in the plains in the prairie provinces you can make a case for that.  Though most of Canada contained no buffalo.

The buffalo were not only a source of food, all parts of the buffalo were put to use. The fat could become cooking oil or used to make soap. The hair could be used to make pillows and ropes. The bones were used for things like knifes, arrowheads, scrapers, shovels, winter sleds, saddle trees, etc. The stomach was used to make pots, buckets, dishes, etc. The horns to make cups and ladles. The hooves could be used to make glue. The brains were used in preparing the hide... and the hide made countless useful items: clothing, shelter, shields, buckets, ropes, drums, saddles, bags, etc.

No, of course they didn't "raise" the buffalo but they hunted them and depended greatly on them. The Europeans took away their lifeblood by destroying the buffalo. Yes, there were other parts of North America where the natives depended on other bounty of the land that were also destroyed like the one plentiful brook trout or how about the most important of all a reliable clean water source. The argument that the native village is the only land the native can have claim to is often made like it was above and ignores the reality of the larger ecosystem they were part of. In many cases their native village itself was stolen and they were displaced to other areas on the false narrative that all land is equal.

guest4

  • Guest
Re: Teaching vs Indoctrination ?
« Reply #311 on: February 27, 2018, 08:59:39 am »
From the link:
While there may be individual teachers with the willingness to teach the curriculum according to the guidelines you provided. However, a union representing teachers in Canada's largest province has publicly announced that they want nothing to do with teaching nuanced history and instead prefer radical left revisionism. At what point will you concede that I have good reason to be concerned and that simply pointing to the curriculum that may or may not be followed by individual teachers in BC is not enough to allay those concerns? Are you really going to argue that we have nothing to worry about as long there is one teacher somewhere teaching the material with the balance it deserves?

I disagree with the push to remove historical names from monuments and bars.  On the school issue I am torn a bit because if I were a native kid going to a school called John A MacDonald and learning about the abiuses suffered by my parents and grandparents under his leadership I might be more than a little uncomfortable, just as a Jew might feel uncomfortable attending a school named after Hitler, because some of what Hitler did was good for Germany.  (    http://www.johndclare.net/Nazi_Germany3.htm)  On the other hand,  it is part of our history.

In any case, you are calling this radical left revisionism - which is bunk.  They aren't denying that SJAM existed and clearly he will be included in any history taught - so no revision going on.   Nor is the concern of teachers for all their students "radical" - even if you don't happen to like their decision on how to keep students feeling safe.   And you've also said they have refused to teach a nuanced history, apparently based on the fact that you don't like the word "genocide".  The policies of the time were to explicity force native kids to become Christian and to take on White culture.   That you don't want to see this as an attempt at cultural genocide suggests that it's you who wants to revise history to suit your own comfort, rather than the left actually changing history under some nefarious agenda to teach the next generation to be unpatriotic.

Finally, once again you are deciding that people who disagree with you are lesser than you in terms of their love and concern for Canada and Canadians.   Right wingers talk a lot about how they aren't listened to well enough, that disagreement should be respected and not attacked.  Yet here you are, unwilling to give people on the "other side" the respect of believing they are well intentioned, that they are truly motivated by what they believe will be best for Canada or Canadians.  Much as I may disagree with you, and Argus/SJ, I don't for a moment doubt that both of you love Canada and believe that your political ideology is to all of our benefit.   But your belief in your own ideology doesn't make you morally superior and your automatic discounting of "the left" as less moral or ethical than your own is exactly what you accuse the left of doing.   Maybe you should consider being the change you want to see.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Teaching vs Indoctrination ?
« Reply #312 on: February 27, 2018, 10:38:49 am »
An example of how law schools see themselves not as teachers but indoctrinators, people leading a 'cause' rather than simply educating the young.

What is a law school for? According to the University of Windsor, revolution. Earlier this month, Windsor’s law school released a statement on the jury verdict that acquitted Saskatchewan farmer Gerald Stanley of the second-degree murder of Coulton Boushie. According to the statement, the Canadian legal system is oppressive. “Canada has used law to perpetuate violence against Indigenous Peoples,” it states, “a reinvention of our legal system is necessary.”
The statement reveals how legal education has lost its way. One could be forgiven for thinking that the purpose of law schools was to train lawyers to understand legal principles and to think logically and critically. Instead, some law schools portray themselves as political actors working for a cause. At Windsor’s law school, “we strive toward social justice. We take that commitment seriously.”


http://nationalpost.com/opinion/the-social-justice-revolution-has-taken-the-law-schools-this-wont-end-well
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Teaching vs Indoctrination ?
« Reply #313 on: February 27, 2018, 10:49:51 am »
I disagree with the push to remove historical names from monuments and bars.  On the school issue I am torn a bit because if I were a native kid going to a school called John A MacDonald and learning about the abiuses suffered by my parents and grandparents under his leadership I might be more than a little uncomfortable, just as a Jew might feel uncomfortable attending a school named after Hitler, because some of what Hitler did was good for Germany.

Seriously. The Left diminishes its arguments by equating anything and everything with which it disagrees or disapproves with Hitler and fascism. And it's even worse in that few on the Left really have any concept or knowledge of history.

While Macdonald can certainly be criticized, he was nonetheless enlightened by the standards of his time. He was in rare company in expressing sympathy for the Indigenous people: "We must remember that they are the original owners of the soil, of which they have been dispossessed by the covetousness or ambition of our ancestors … the Indians have been the great sufferers by the discovery of America and the transfer to it of a large white population."
While an overt policy of assimilation is offensive, Macdonald looks saintly compared with U.S. leadership. Indeed, many Indigenous peoples migrated north, referring to the Canada-U.S. border as "The Medicine Line."


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/to-vilify-sir-john-a-macdonald-is-to-wrongly-seek-a-single-scapegoat-for-canadas-mistreatment-of-indigenous-people/article38017335/

Quote
In any case, you are calling this radical left revisionism - which is bunk.  They aren't denying that SJAM existed and clearly he will be included in any history taught - so no revision going on.   Nor is the concern of teachers for all their students "radical" - even if you don't happen to like their decision on how to keep students feeling safe.

Of course its revisionism. It's a classic response of the Left to be indignant anyone questions their social views as a change since, after all, they're clearly the right social views and always have been! Why, had THEY been around centuries ago they'd not be racist like our ancestors! Oh no! They'd be just as 'enlightened' as they are now! So no problem judging people from a different time by THEIR moral standards! And keeping students 'feeling safe'? Seriously, the thought that young people need to feel safe from stress or challenge is one of the reasons why the upcoming generation is so delicate, dainty and helpless.

Quote
Finally, once again you are deciding that people who disagree with you are lesser than you in terms of their love and concern for Canada and Canadians.

Unquestionably true with regards to most of the Left, who despise everything about our history, culture and traditions.

Quote
Right wingers talk a lot about how they aren't listened to well enough, that disagreement should be respected and not attacked.  Yet here you are, unwilling to give people on the "other side" the respect of believing they are well intentioned, .

Nonsense. Right wingers understand that, for the most part, the Left is well-intentioned in their support of moronic policies. I've already said so. It is the Left which imputes morality to their beliefs and thus regards any who challenge them as evil.
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum