Social Benefits of Education

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:01 pm

I don't think shadzar was saying the school system should be like his school since he has said that he hated it. Now the idea he gave to fixing it was very impractical and expensive. Also many of the things that shadzar said that he would like in schools were actually available at the ones I attended.

I do agree with shadzar on getting rid of black history month and just teaching it when it time comes in the historical context. Everything else he said about other subjects that just nonsense.

Now when shadzar brought up making higher education free, that idea is good. Since I didn't hear anybody disagree with that one, I'm just assume that they agree with shad on that one.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:32 pm

Leress wrote:I do agree with shadzar on getting rid of black history month and just teaching it when it time comes in the historical context.

Because Black, Latino, and Women's history months get in the way of White Male History year.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:54 pm

shadzar wrote:Again, other people can learn what they want and should be able to IF they want, but I would have much preferred and gotten more use out of those other languages like PASCAL and FORTRAN....not that either are used that much anymore....Hell maybe even Latin so I could read the damn medicine I get at the doctor's office, or understand what is being said on CSI and shit.

Latin was an option in my school until funding cuts killed it. And, yes, it really helped in biology classes. But seriously, a lot of the value of learning a language isn't that you're going to use it (although that can be a big benefit). It also just forces your brain into new patterns, which is good for it. At this point I doubt I'll ever get much use out of learning a bit of Arabic or Mandarin, but I'm still glad I did.

That said, I'm in the same boat as you with Spanish. I was taught it 3rd through 6th grade, and remember about 5 words in the language. Immersion probably would have worked better than counting to 20.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 5:24 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:
Leress wrote:I do agree with shadzar on getting rid of black history month and just teaching it when it time comes in the historical context.
Because Black, Latino, and Women's history months get in the way of White Male History year.

Can we seriously shut the hell up about this yet? Once upon a time, white people were assholes. That may have even been 20 years ago.

Why the fucking fuck do we have one month were we talk about famous black people, so that history education goes:

1) Some stuff happened in America. Not going to mention any black people, because I'd have to teach it again in February.
2) Then the Civil War happened. I will try to avoid mentioning black people, because once again, we have a whole month devoted to them, so anything I say now is going to be overlap.
3) BLACK HISTORY MONTH! Here's a list of black people I previously mentioned when they came up, but didn't explain because I have to tell you about them now.
4) Civil Rights movement: Rosa Parks/MLK/Malcom X, but not criticizing Malcom X, even though he's crazy, because if you say anything bad about a black person during February, you are a racist.
5) So then, Robber Barons, WWI and II, Civil rights movement occurred here, but we already know all about that.
6) Skip to Vietnam.

I mean, what the fuck is so hard about just saying "teach about black people when they come up." Are you seriously fuckin worried that black people won't come up in the civil war? No one will mention Fredrick Douglas or black divisions or slavery? Are you worried that when it comes to Civil Rights in the 60s people are just going to say "and then the 60s, moving on to cool white people"?

WTF.

Black history month is exactly like "European Month" in US history classes. Spending one month teaching Revolution/1812/WWI/WWII and then not talking about them the rest of the time is fucked up.

There is a reason we teach things chronologically. Not to mention that black history month in a world history class is double retarded, because it just reinforces the crazy idea that black people are somehow fundamentally different from whites/arabians/chinese/ect.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 5:43 pm

Kaelik wrote: I mean, what the fuck is so hard about just saying "teach about black people when they come up."

Because they don't.

Okay, between the time period of Pocahontas and Harriet Stowe, name a woman that's likely to come up. You might get a Betsy Ross, as if she's anywhere near as important as even lightweight Founding Fathers like that dillweed Patrick Henry.

How about a famous Mexican American before Cesar Chavez?

And if you ask any moderately successful schoolchildren about pre-20th century blacks you'll be lucky to get anything besides George Washington Carver, Harriet Tubman, and Frederick Douglass.

That's exactly why we have these months. You could go an entire curriculum without mentioning a single famous minority and the entire history lesson would still make sense. If you're not able to see any problems with this, I don't know what to say.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:12 pm

Kaelik wrote:
Lago PARANOIA wrote:
Leress wrote:I do agree with shadzar on getting rid of black history month and just teaching it when it time comes in the historical context.
Because Black, Latino, and Women's history months get in the way of White Male History year.
Can we seriously shut the hell up about this yet? Once upon a time, white people were assholes. That may have even been 20 years ago.

Why the fucking fuck do we have one month were we talk about famous black people, so that history education goes:

1) Some stuff happened in America. Not going to mention any black people, because I'd have to teach it again in February.
2) Then the Civil War happened. I will try to avoid mentioning black people, because once again, we have a whole month devoted to them, so anything I say now is going to be overlap.
3) BLACK HISTORY MONTH! Here's a list of black people I previously mentioned when they came up, but didn't explain because I have to tell you about them now.
4) Civil Rights movement: Rosa Parks/MLK/Malcom X, but not criticizing Malcom X, even though he's crazy, because if you say anything bad about a black person during February, you are a racist.
5) So then, Robber Barons, WWI and II, Civil rights movement occurred here, but we already know all about that.
6) Skip to Vietnam.

I mean, what the fuck is so hard about just saying "teach about black people when they come up." Are you seriously fuckin worried that black people won't come up in the civil war? No one will mention Fredrick Douglas or black divisions or slavery? Are you worried that when it comes to Civil Rights in the 60s people are just going to say "and then the 60s, moving on to cool white people"?

WTF.

Black history month is exactly like "European Month" in US history classes. Spending one month teaching Revolution/1812/WWI/WWII and then not talking about them the rest of the time is fucked up.

There is a reason we teach things chronologically. Not to mention that black history month in a world history class is double retarded, because it just reinforces the crazy idea that black people are somehow fundamentally different from whites/arabians/chinese/ect.

Someone finally gets my problem with history classes.

And where the hell did Latino history, or women's history months come from? Never heard of those!

History doesn't care what religion or race you are, it happened the same way it did, you just have to find someone not bigoted to tell it to you.

"The trail of tears was good because it got all those indians to follow the rules of the US and place them on reservations."

"The Nazi's were right because it taught those Jews to follow the right religion and placed them in detention camps."

One of those wouldn't be taught in schools while the other would. But they say the same damn thing (both of which are WRONG). History is written by the victor.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:20 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:That's exactly why we have these months. You could go an entire curriculum without mentioning a single famous minority and the entire history lesson would still make sense. If you're not able to see any problems with this, I don't know what to say.

The problem is they didn't do anything of note in that time. The reason is not for want, but capability. And when you tell history correctly by placing blacks, mexicans, etc in the proper order, you would have to wonder if they just never existed, or something and magically appeared; or you realize just how much of a travesty history was because it DID prevent people from being a part of it and changing the course of the future because of actions of other people specifically to keep certain people under control, the same as it happens today.

History repeats itself, but nobody learns from history because they keep making the same fucking mistakes over and over and fucking over again.

Put blacks, maxicans, native americans etc in the proper order, and you can see what kind of impact they had by what kind they were ALLOWED to have.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:53 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Okay, between the time period of Pocahontas and Harriet Stowe, name a woman that's likely to come up. You might get a Betsy Ross, as if she's anywhere near as important as even lightweight Founding Fathers like that dillweed Patrick Henry.

Uh? Are we limiting ourselves to "in the Americas"? Because the short answer is name someone actually worth talking about. I think you have become confused.

Women will come up when they actually did something we can notice, like right a book, or manipulate a husband, or champion a women's equality movement, or you know performed some action.

Even in motherfucking women's week, which doesn't exist, they aren't going to fucking read a list of women who had no significant contribution to history just to prove that women existed.

What part of "talk about them when they are important" is so hard to understand. Do we talk about Queen Elizabeth? Yes. Anne Frank? Yes. Harriet Stowe or Harriet Tubman? Yes. Rosa Parks? Yes. How about Edith Wilson? Again, yes.

So why the fuck can't we talk about Rosa parks when talking about civil rights, Elizabeth when talking about late 16th century England, and Anne Frank during WW II? Oh right, we do that just fine, because there is no specific time of the year to teach about women, we only teach about them when they are relevant to the time period in discussion. And yet, women's history is taught just fine even though they don't have a fucking month for it.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:How about a famous Mexican American before Cesar Chavez?

Once again. Do we talk about fucking Mexico during the Mexican American War? Do we talk about Simon Bolivar? Do we talk about immigrant exploitation and Banana Republics? Yes.

So what on fucking earth is so hard about talking about these things when they are relevant instead of all during one week?

Lago PARANOIA wrote:And if you ask any moderately successful schoolchildren about pre-20th century blacks you'll be lucky to get anything besides George Washington Carver, Harriet Tubman, and Frederick Douglass.

That's with Black history month! With Black history month, you only get those three because they are the only three worth actually mentioning by name. (Well actually, Booker T and maybe WEB du bois. But it's even harder to teach them during Black history month than it is to teach them when they actually existed, and segregation hadn't been universally recognized as shit.)

So how about, when we are teaching about slavery, we mention Harriet and Fredrick, and then, we wait all the way to the 60s to talk about Rosa Parks.

That seems like a more sensible solution than arbitrarily not talking about Fredrick Douglas during the month of october, when you actually go over slavery, just so you can bring him up in february when you are talking about World War II.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:That's exactly why we have these months. You could go an entire curriculum without mentioning a single famous minority and the entire history lesson would still make sense. If you're not able to see any problems with this, I don't know what to say.

Stop being a retarded monkey. Stop it. It's not funny. Yes, if you try hard you can totally prove your ability to not understand a single fucking word of English. Great. Shut up now.

No one is claiming we should excise minorities from everything, or even famous ones. What the fuck is so hard to understand about teaching about them when they come up. Yes, you can talk about slavery without ever mentioning Fredrick Douglas. You can also talk about WWII without ever mentioning Truman. The idea here is that it is possible to talk about Fredrick Douglas during October.

The month of October is not a month in which 'Fredrick Douglas' is magically erased from your brain by aliens. We can totally talk about him when he is relevant, instead of shoving him in a corner with Rosa Parks and MLK.

Segregation is bad. Remember that? It was the whole fucking point of the civil rights movement, and when you put all the black people next to each other in history class, it just continues to set them up as 'the other' and differentiate them from other famous people.

Why do you think people complain about George Washington Carver? They basically just say "Oh, so he's George Forman of the late 19th- early 20th century. We only even mention him because he's black."

That's because we shove him in with Rosa Parks and MLK, where he's just a guy who invented shit. But if we talked about him during the period he actually existed, we could talk about how he not only invented shit, but also demonstrated the idea that blacks are intelligent and deserving of respect, and how he wanted to help the south recover from the over worked cotton farming, and this eventually lead to him strongly influencing the conservation movement.

But you know how much of that was learned during the month of february? None of it. Because you can't teach things in context, when you don't provide any context.

EDIT: Razdahs, please don't agree with me on anything. It makes my position look worse to have a retarded screaming incoherent shit about the topic.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:46 pm

Ooooh! Kileak can spell backwards.

(You are the one agreeing with me if you read the thread in chronological order, for your historical reference.

)

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:43 pm

The thing about minority history is that once a minority has been both excluded from and written out of history it is very hard to write them back in.

When ignoramuses go around saying history doesn't matter and certain bits of information can or should be forgotten that information is LOST. And you all you can get back are the few scraps that weren't lost.

Things like "Black History Week" or whatever are entirely appropriate. There are branches of history and perspectives of history that were pretty much killed off and if nothing else we have a lot to learn from the very fact they were killed off, and why and how that was done. A week of history classes being what? Two lessons tops? Is an entirely appropriate amount of time to spend on a simple lesson that, "Black people, in history, they were there, it's largely been covered up."

There are a scattering of records and rumors about the area I live in that indicate that during early white settlement there were pitched battles between white settlers/troops and aboriginal tribes in this area. A small WAR was fought in the hunter, right here in fact.

But there is no record of who did what and why. At best the white history of the region talks about "small incidents" between individual white farmers and individual aboriginals. There are lessons to be learned about that incongruity.

"Non-mainstream" historical traditions are important because they preserve information and important lessons about our societies origin, nature and future direction.

Go read my thread on socialist history and the Sydney Harbor Bridge. And get an education.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:01 pm

shadzar wrote:(You are the one agreeing with me if you read the thread in chronological order, for your historical reference. )

No dumbfuck. I am saying that are education is fucking awesome, and that history should be a fucking mandatory subject taught to everyone.

You are saying that history is fail, and needs to be expunged, then saying that one slightly inferior way of teaching is the reason why.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:04 pm

PhoneLobster wrote:The thing about minority history is that once a minority has been both excluded from and written out of history it is very hard to write them back in.

That's assuming that they're entirely written out of history and we have no knowledge to put them back in. But if people can summon up enough knowledge to have a month's worth of classes on the subject, then the knowledge is there and just needs to be reinserted in the time line.

Japan's been recently slammed for revising history in their textbooks. I know Russia's done some of that, too. Seriously, if assholes can figure out how to revise textbooks and history lessons, why can't we? Do we suck so much that we can't rewrite history's omissions?

History is taught best in context, and while Black History Month's context may be "we didn't like you and deliberately tried to erase your presence from our knowledge banks and this is our attempt to make up for it," that's not the context of Harriet Tubman.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:13 am

Kaelik wrote:
shadzar wrote:(You are the one agreeing with me if you read the thread in chronological order, for your historical reference. )
No dumbfuck. I am saying that are our education is fucking awesome, and that history should be a fucking mandatory subject taught to everyone.

Apparently our definitions and grammar are in sad need of attention.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:24 am

shadzar wrote:Apparently our definitions and grammar are in sad need of attention.

Or I just value the ability to think clearly over the ability to never make mistakes.

Eye cuold tpye erevy sginle wrod wnorg,

And it would still make more sense than any of your bullshit screeds about how the problem with education is that they teach too much history, and no one needs to know any history.

Ganbare Gincun · Post by **Ganbare Gincun** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:33 am

If you don't think certain portions of your curriculum are up to snuff, take the initiative and take additional classes that allow you to learn more about the subjects that you feel have been neglected. Go ahead and take a Black History class or a Women's History class. Do your own independent research and educate yourself if you must. But your agitation over the imperfections that you've encountered in your educational career does not invalidate the merits of receiving a well-rounded education. I realize that classwork that is not directly related to your major is cutting into your gaming time, but when you get older, you'll appreciate the benefits of the well-rounded education that you received.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:10 am

Yet more people living in a fantasy world. Since the educational system is set up a certain way for EVERYONE to get an education, if the system isn't working for many, then it needs to be fixed not them. Not everyone can get outside help for education. Sure the rich fucks with more money than brainds can, but I wish some of the peopel in thsi thread would listen to themselves. It is the students fault for not having enough money to get a better education, it is the students fault for not being taught things that will actually be of use to them later in life.

Some people just seem to like to blame anyone else rather than take responsibility for themselves, and be accountable for their own actions.

Not everyone had the chance to go to a library and read books outside of that which was in school like myself.

Remember again, that it has ALWAYS been thought that what was taught was the proper things. That is why they still teach that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and the Earth is flat correct?

Because now humanity is perfect with no conflicts or anything like that, so the education system must be perfect.

You go meet many of those well-rounded people that are over-qualified for many jobs that they could take just to get by, and under-qualified for anything they can do because they couldn't afford a degree.

Again this goes back to the premise of this thread. Though with the chance for the higher education do better in regards to health, lower crime/religion, etc.

Therefore either a) the current system doesn't work, or b) people just like to shit on people that weren't born into money to be able to go to college.

Since it seems people don't like to think and just get mad at shit they don't want to think about because "out of sight out of mind" mentality, why don't I go ahead an invoke Godwin's Law.

Hitler was taught in a school system that made him a well-rounded individual. But we could go back and forth all day naming people that went to school that would make them well-rounded, and be easily able to find people on both sides of the fence.

Quantumboost · Post by **Quantumboost** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:35 pm

Damnit shadzar, nobody here is advocating "leave the education system alone entirely", we're saying that the current spead of educational subjects is very good, and better than your apparent proposal of "cut everything not directly related to your job". I'd say "and you know it" but you're acting dense enough that I'm not sure that's the case.

Seriously, as bad as the current educational environment is, your suggested fix is several orders of magnitude worse than the status quo. It's like saying "We have a cure for cancer, so we need to implement it immediately!" when the cure for cancer is to kill everyone who might possibly get cancer. We don't implement that because it would be universally worse than doing absolutely anything else and would defeat the entire point of curing cancer.

The same goes for your proposed education fix; it defeats the point of even having a public educational system.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:48 pm

I really need to start to pay more attention to this board over the weekends (unfortunately I’m generally really busy on weekends) because I missed a doozey of an argument.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Okay, between the time period of Pocahontas and Harriet Stowe, name a woman that's likely to come up. You might get a Betsy Ross, as if she's anywhere near as important as even lightweight Founding Fathers like that dillweed Patrick Henry.

Off the top of my head, Abigail Adams who “is remembered for the many letters she wrote to her husband while he stayed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, during the Continental Congresses. John Adams frequently sought the advice of his wife on many matters, and their letters are filled with intellectual discussions on government and politics. The letters are invaluable eyewitness accounts of the Revolutionary War home front as well as excellent sources of political commentary.”

Here is another name you won’t find in the history books, even though he was one of the most publicized African Americans of the revolutionary war era, William Lee (I'd URL his wiki page, but this crap of a BBCode can't url anything with parentheses in them), “was George Washington's personal servant and the only one of Washington's slaves freed outright by Washington in his will. Because he served by Washington's side throughout the American Revolutionary War and was sometimes depicted next to Washington in paintings, Lee was one of the most publicized African Americans of his time.”

"If Billy Lee had been a white man," wrote historian Fritz Hirschfeld, "he would have had an honored place in American history because of his close proximity to George Washington during the most exciting periods of his career. But because he was a black servant, a humble slave, he has been virtually ignored by both black and white historians and biographers."

The biggest problem in teaching history is identifying the “dots” and then trying to connect them. Far too often history is too focused on some dots to see the connection to the other dots. For example, almost no American History courses really connect the dots between the struggles of the American colonies to go from a industrial restricted colonial model (where the manufacture took place in the controlling nation) to a full blown industrial model where manufacturing took place right next to the resources. Also no history book will detail the problems the Confederacy had when Union Naval forces destroyed the only major supply of salt (at the time required for any food preservation) because the southern states relied on evaporation ponds on the Atlantic coast (while the Union relied on salt mines in the North East). I myself went though school with two completely separate timelines in my head, the history of the world and the history of music, and I never even bothered to connect the dots until way after college.

Ask yourself, what was the music that George Washington listened to? (Come to think of it, do you even know William Billings and if not and you claim to be an American I can only shake my head in shame. The dots of history are legion!)

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:47 pm

Quantumboost wrote:Damnit shadzar, nobody here is advocating "leave the education system alone entirely", we're saying that the current spead of educational subjects is very good, and better than your apparent proposal of "cut everything not directly related to your job". I'd say "and you know it" but you're acting dense enough that I'm not sure that's the case.

Seriously, as bad as the current educational environment is, your suggested fix is several orders of magnitude worse than the status quo. It's like saying "We have a cure for cancer, so we need to implement it immediately!" when the cure for cancer is to kill everyone who might possibly get cancer. We don't implement that because it would be universally worse than doing absolutely anything else and would defeat the entire point of curing cancer.

The same goes for your proposed education fix; it defeats the point of even having a public educational system.

No I am saying the well-rounded shit is the problem, because the way courses are or are not offered because of that concept. They should offer more focused and less fuck-us'd curriculums in schools. For the person that has no interest in history as a career, they need to focus more on the subject matter that will help them get along in life.

The status quo...that just means things as normal. That is the problem is the status quo doesn't work. Again I direct you and others to read the original question in this thread. The study says people with a college education do better. That means the lower education including and up to high school isn't was as it is with the status quo.

Are you people really buying this well-rounded shit, and thinking that people in school have no idea what they may want out of life, and no idea what they should take to get that career? If so then how the fuck do they choose their college courses?

The status quo, or things as they are, doesn't work.

I cannot believe the number of people thinking the same shit needs to be mandatory, that doesn't serve to help people that are taking it, because of lazy fucks that don't understand how to focus education on the subjects needed for life advancement.

The high school system eneds to be set up like college, and give courses focused on the things people will be needing in THEIR chosen profession, not just a cluster fuck of trivial knowledge to make them well-rounded, and unemployable anywhere, considering most of the people in public education have no chance for the higher level education.

You know what, fuck it I reverse my orignal thought, and think free education needs to be gotten rid of. Only thoose who can afford to pay for private schooling should get education. Then you can easily see the retards because they will be defined by their parents wealth, that so many people want to do today.

Fucking total morons, that think all this stupid shit needs to be mandatory for everyone that serves them no purpose.

I god damn do not want my doctor to have taken PE and history or shit in college, when they should have been focusing on chemistry, biology, and everything they need to know to save my life, or prevent from killing me when I go in with a fucking cold!

That is the same shit needed to be done in high school is more career focused education.

Count Arioch the 28th · Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:11 pm

Yes, because a human should only know one thing. The retard rubbing shit in his hair who knows math really good is the standard we should look towards.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:29 pm

The problem is, shadzar, you simply don’t get it. Unless you are in a land ruled by a despot (in which case you’re screwed no matter what you do and what you know) it is your duty and your job (even if not a full time one) to engage in the democratic process. That means you have to have a basic liberal arts education. If you don’t, everyone suffers.

As for history, I think it is time to bring out the big guns because this is a serious subject. George Orwell once wrote, “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.”

I have a cousin, only a few years younger than I am, married with children. Apparently she is too busy to watch the news. You take her vote, you multiply it my millions, is it any wonder we wind up with half assed half despots in the United States like Bush and Obama?