Debate Now The Dumbing Down of America

[Dhara]

Yesterday on NPR they were discussing the Iowa caucus and voting practices in general. I was surprised to learn the "secret ballot' is relativly new phenomenon. There has historically been an effort to keep the poor and less educated from voting.

The OP argument reminds me of that.

 

[Dhara]

I'd like to add that it isn't poor and uneducated people who can be misled in campaigns and be manipulated by candidates. Plenty of highly educated people are manipulated by their parties.

 

[Dhara]

Check out fivethirtyeight.com

 

[Holos]

I have an opinion about this, but I don't quite feel comfortable casting my vote because my opinion is of a progressive nature and would include different options given in the poll given the extended sequentialism I envision. I actually have gone through this same structured argument many times and have had to swallow back my own words because of such blatant neglect and refusal to take great leaps in step by step logic (to me a natural feature of an interesting argument).

Anyway, because here we have 23 pages of the issue being discussed I will assume there will be modest interest in a serious discussion about the problem as I introduce my perspective.

My first thought is that basic knowledge as described in the OP does not matter the least. That is, such history and documents are far from being basic. Basic is cooking and cleaning. Basic is exercising and knowing your neighborhood. Basic is appreciating your time, company and conditions wherever and however you are. Basic is understanding the concept of service. Those are examples of authentic basic knowledge in my opinion that should indeed be taught at the very beginning of education and gradually developed beyond High School.

Now, what do I think of National History and Documentation? I think those are very advanced and complex forms of knowledge, very far from being basic. And I will say more. The features of our culture you have mentioned as distracting and detrimental, OP, such as television and other forms of propaganda, are indeed in my opinion incredible achievements that allow us to be at such a point in history as to not only learn and read historical documents "as is" but indeed interpret them and logically modify them to achieve even greater forms of communication than we have ever been presented with.

The National Historical Documents are far from necessary for a basic but high quality and safe life, including the service for your neighbors and countrymen. That History and those Documents are there for more than simple maintainence, standardizing and reproduction. They have come to be as they are for authoritative and respectful modification in my opinion, allowing a projected transition to occur with space for alternatives and implements.

This is a little of what I think about the matter. I would like to delve further, but after being absently neglected and dismissed so many times I feel very stiff myself towards the description of my thoughts on this topic.

I think it is worth discussing anyhow.

 

[320 Years of History]

Jesus, Mary and friggin' Joseph! Those students are dumber 'n' the day is long! How the hell does any college see fit to admit folks who cannot answer those questions? This is what goes on in the U.S.; it's little wonder that and why mental midges and prevaricators like GW Bush and Mr. Trump have viable Presidential candidacies.

Upon reading the OP, I was inclined to offer that perhaps the phenomena/trends you cited are rarefied. Upon seeing the video, I'm persuaded that it may be the education I and my kids received that be that which is rarefied.

WTF?

• Interviewer: Who is the Vice-President?
  Respondent: Is this a trick question?

Really!?!

Truly, I'm not sure who should be more chagrinned, the high schools (systems) that graduated those kids, their parents for allowing their school system to be so pathetically ineffective, or the college that admitted them.

On top of that, but for her support of Habitat for Humanity, I wouldn't know who Jennifer Aniston is, let alone that she was once married to Brad Pitt. LOL

 

[Foxfyre]

Jesus, Mary and friggin' Joseph! Those students are dumber 'n' the day is long! How the hell does any college see fit to admit folks who cannot answer those questions? This is what goes on in the U.S.; it's little wonder that and why mental midges and prevaricators like GW Bush and Mr. Trump have viable Presidential candidacies.

Upon reading the OP, I was inclined to offer that perhaps the phenomena/trends you cited are rarefied. Upon seeing the video, I'm persuaded that it may be the education I and my kids received that be that which is rarefied.

WTF?

• Interviewer: Who is the Vice-President?
  Respondent: Is this a trick question?

Really!?!

Truly, I'm not sure who should be more chagrinned, the high schools (systems) that graduated those kids, their parents for allowing their school system to be so pathetically ineffective, or the college that admitted them.

On top of that, but for her support of Habitat for Humanity, I wouldn't know who Jennifer Aniston is, let alone that she was once married to Brad Pitt. LOL

That's it. We always have to allow for some cherry picking in which interviews they put on the You Tube clip, but Wattters and some of the others conducting interviews swear they didn't just pick the dumb ones. I remember one of these Jesse Watters interviews in which the subjects couldn't answer the simplest questions of our history or government, but when asked a series of questions in which the correct answer was Sarah Palin, every single one of them answered every question flawlessly. That was when Sarah was most in the news during the McCain/Obama campaign. This suggests to me that these people are getting ALL their information from Twitter or Facebook or You Tube or similar means but they are not being taught much about history or government in school. And that is sad.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have an opinion about this, but I don't quite feel comfortable casting my vote because my opinion is of a progressive nature and would include different options given in the poll given the extended sequentialism I envision. I actually have gone through this same structured argument many times and have had to swallow back my own words because of such blatant neglect and refusal to take great leaps in step by step logic (to me a natural feature of an interesting argument).

Anyway, because here we have 23 pages of the issue being discussed I will assume there will be modest interest in a serious discussion about the problem as I introduce my perspective.

My first thought is that basic knowledge as described in the OP does not matter the least. That is, such history and documents are far from being basic. Basic is cooking and cleaning. Basic is exercising and knowing your neighborhood. Basic is appreciating your time, company and conditions wherever and however you are. Basic is understanding the concept of service. Those are examples of authentic basic knowledge in my opinion that should indeed be taught at the very beginning of education and gradually developed beyond High School.

Now, what do I think of National History and Documentation? I think those are very advanced and complex forms of knowledge, very far from being basic. And I will say more. The features of our culture you have mentioned as distracting and detrimental, OP, such as television and other forms of propaganda, are indeed in my opinion incredible achievements that allow us to be at such a point in history as to not only learn and read historical documents "as is" but indeed interpret them and logically modify them to achieve even greater forms of communication than we have ever been presented with.

The National Historical Documents are far from necessary for a basic but high quality and safe life, including the service for your neighbors and countrymen. That History and those Documents are there for more than simple maintainence, standardizing and reproduction. They have come to be as they are for authoritative and respectful modification in my opinion, allowing a projected transition to occur with space for alternatives and implements.

This is a little of what I think about the matter. I would like to delve further, but after being absently neglected and dismissed so many times I feel very stiff myself towards the description of my thoughts on this topic.

I think it is worth discussing anyhow.

 

[320 Years of History]

Jesus, Mary and friggin' Joseph! Those students are dumber 'n' the day is long! How the hell does any college see fit to admit folks who cannot answer those questions? This is what goes on in the U.S.; it's little wonder that and why mental midges and prevaricators like GW Bush and Mr. Trump have viable Presidential candidacies.

Upon reading the OP, I was inclined to offer that perhaps the phenomena/trends you cited are rarefied. Upon seeing the video, I'm persuaded that it may be the education I and my kids received that be that which is rarefied.

WTF?

• Interviewer: Who is the Vice-President?
  Respondent: Is this a trick question?

Really!?!

Truly, I'm not sure who should be more chagrinned, the high schools (systems) that graduated those kids, their parents for allowing their school system to be so pathetically ineffective, or the college that admitted them.

On top of that, but for her support of Habitat for Humanity, I wouldn't know who Jennifer Aniston is, let alone that she was once married to Brad Pitt. LOL

That's it. We always have to allow for some cherry picking in which interviews they put on the You Tube clip, but Wattters and some of the others conducting interviews swear they didn't just pick the dumb ones. I remember one of these Jesse Watters interviews in which the subjects couldn't answer the simplest questions of our history or government, but when asked a series of questions in which the correct answer was Sarah Palin, every single one of them answered every question flawlessly. That was when Sarah was most in the news during the McCain/Obama campaign. This suggests to me that these people are getting ALL their information from Twitter or Facebook or You Tube or similar means but they are not being taught much about history or government in school. And that is sad.

Yes...well, it's no surprise either why Donald Trump is even viable at all as a candidate. He sits in the same celebrity space as Ms. Aniston, Ms. Palin and Brad Pitt. Folks have heard of him, and that, for a lot of folks, matters more than anything else:

"Oh, Donald Trump. I've head of him. He must be good if a total idiot like me knows who he is."

 

[Foxfyre]

Jesus, Mary and friggin' Joseph! Those students are dumber 'n' the day is long! How the hell does any college see fit to admit folks who cannot answer those questions? This is what goes on in the U.S.; it's little wonder that and why mental midges and prevaricators like GW Bush and Mr. Trump have viable Presidential candidacies.

Upon reading the OP, I was inclined to offer that perhaps the phenomena/trends you cited are rarefied. Upon seeing the video, I'm persuaded that it may be the education I and my kids received that be that which is rarefied.

WTF?

• Interviewer: Who is the Vice-President?
  Respondent: Is this a trick question?

Really!?!

Truly, I'm not sure who should be more chagrinned, the high schools (systems) that graduated those kids, their parents for allowing their school system to be so pathetically ineffective, or the college that admitted them.

On top of that, but for her support of Habitat for Humanity, I wouldn't know who Jennifer Aniston is, let alone that she was once married to Brad Pitt. LOL

That's it. We always have to allow for some cherry picking in which interviews they put on the You Tube clip, but Wattters and some of the others conducting interviews swear they didn't just pick the dumb ones. I remember one of these Jesse Watters interviews in which the subjects couldn't answer the simplest questions of our history or government, but when asked a series of questions in which the correct answer was Sarah Palin, every single one of them answered every question flawlessly. That was when Sarah was most in the news during the McCain/Obama campaign. This suggests to me that these people are getting ALL their information from Twitter or Facebook or You Tube or similar means but they are not being taught much about history or government in school. And that is sad.

Yes...well, it's no surprise either why Donald Trump is even viable at all as a candidate. He sits in the same celebrity space as Ms. Aniston, Ms. Palin and Brad Pitt. Folks have heard of him, and that, for a lot of folks, matters more than anything else:

"Oh, Donald Trump. I've head of him. He must be good if a total idiot like me knows who he is."

Well I'm not sure they think that, but you probably are right that most people have heard the name Donald Trump and "Apprentice" fans know very well who he is. And name recognition is a huge advantage at any level of politics. If these people cannot name the Vice President of the United States, they almost certainly never heard of Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or Bernie Sanders, etc. On the other hand, I think it's a good bet they won't vote either, so maybe it's a wash?

 

[320 Years of History]

Jesus, Mary and friggin' Joseph! Those students are dumber 'n' the day is long! How the hell does any college see fit to admit folks who cannot answer those questions? This is what goes on in the U.S.; it's little wonder that and why mental midges and prevaricators like GW Bush and Mr. Trump have viable Presidential candidacies.

Upon reading the OP, I was inclined to offer that perhaps the phenomena/trends you cited are rarefied. Upon seeing the video, I'm persuaded that it may be the education I and my kids received that be that which is rarefied.

WTF?

• Interviewer: Who is the Vice-President?
  Respondent: Is this a trick question?

Really!?!

Truly, I'm not sure who should be more chagrinned, the high schools (systems) that graduated those kids, their parents for allowing their school system to be so pathetically ineffective, or the college that admitted them.

On top of that, but for her support of Habitat for Humanity, I wouldn't know who Jennifer Aniston is, let alone that she was once married to Brad Pitt. LOL

That's it. We always have to allow for some cherry picking in which interviews they put on the You Tube clip, but Wattters and some of the others conducting interviews swear they didn't just pick the dumb ones. I remember one of these Jesse Watters interviews in which the subjects couldn't answer the simplest questions of our history or government, but when asked a series of questions in which the correct answer was Sarah Palin, every single one of them answered every question flawlessly. That was when Sarah was most in the news during the McCain/Obama campaign. This suggests to me that these people are getting ALL their information from Twitter or Facebook or You Tube or similar means but they are not being taught much about history or government in school. And that is sad.

Yes...well, it's no surprise either why Donald Trump is even viable at all as a candidate. He sits in the same celebrity space as Ms. Aniston, Ms. Palin and Brad Pitt. Folks have heard of him, and that, for a lot of folks, matters more than anything else:

"Oh, Donald Trump. I've head of him. He must be good if a total idiot like me knows who he is."

Well I'm not sure they think that, but you probably are right that most people have heard the name Donald Trump and "Apprentice" fans know very well who he is. And name recognition is a huge advantage at any level of politics. If these people cannot name the Vice President of the United States, they almost certainly never heard of Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or Bernie Sanders, etc. On the other hand, I think it's a good bet they won't vote either, so maybe it's a wash?

Red:
One can only hope....

 

[320 Years of History]

With regard to your available poll responses, OP, I have to ask what on Earth is the point of option #2? What ever would make it acceptable for one to, during high school, know who won the Civil War, when and from whom the U.S. obtained its independence and who the current vice-president is, but no longer need to retain knowledge of those data points after high school?

For example, I'm sure a lot of folks (perhaps most folks?...is biology required in most high schools?) at one point in high school bothered to briefly memorize any number of things such as:

• The glycolysis equation
• The slope intercept and point-slope forms of the equation of lines
• How and when to use commas and semicolons and how to interpret their appearance in a sentence, to say nothing of things like the distinction between and uses of the indicative, imperative and subjunctive moods
• The meanings of the greater majority of words they learned for the SAT/ACT exams (assuming they bothered to study them).
• The meanings of simple words -- at least once a month I see someone write "passed" for "past," or, although less often, vice versa.

...and very shortly after the exam for which they needed to know it, forgot it each and every one of those things, and more. I would hope that same sort of knowledge loss is not what is implied as acceptable by poll option #2.

FWIW, in the interest of giving my fellow citizens, and those dolts in the OP video, some modicum of credit, as well as just trying to be fair, I suspect that the phenomena you mention in the OP result more often from folk memorizing rather than learning the material presented to them.

It's been my experience -- for myself as well as for the young people I raised and/or mentored -- that what one retains and what one forgets is a function of the study habits one applied to learning the material more so than anything else. The "stuff" I paid attention to and thought about as I was learning it, even as far back as high school (40+ years), I still recall quite easily. The stuff about which I thought/felt "yeah, so what...I'll never need to know this beyond the exam," I can barely, if at all, remember.

 

[Foxfyre]

With regard to your available poll responses, OP, I have to ask what on Earth is the point of option #2? What ever would make it acceptable for one to, during high school, know who won the Civil War, when and from whom the U.S. obtained its independence and who the current vice-president is, but no longer need to retain knowledge of those data points after high school?

For example, I'm sure a lot of folks (perhaps most folks?...is biology required in most high schools?) at one point in high school bothered to briefly memorize any number of things such as:

• The glycolysis equation
• The slope intercept and point-slope forms of the equation of lines
• How and when to use commas and semicolons and how to interpret their appearance in a sentence, to say nothing of things like the distinction between and uses of the indicative, imperative and subjunctive moods
• The meanings of the greater majority of words they learned for the SAT/ACT exams (assuming they bothered to study them).
• The meanings of simple words -- at least once a month I see someone write "passed" for "past," or, although less often, vice versa.

...and very shortly after the exam for which they needed to know it, forgot it each and every one of those things, and more. I would hope that same sort of knowledge loss is not what is implied as acceptable by poll option #2.

FWIW, in the interest of giving my fellow citizens, and those dolts in the OP video, some modicum of credit, as well as just trying to be fair, I suspect that the phenomena you mention in the OP result more often from folk memorizing rather than learning the material presented to them.

It's been my experience -- for myself as well as for the young people I raised and/or mentored -- that what one retains and what one forgets is a function of the study habits one applied to learning the material more so than anything else. The "stuff" I paid attention to and thought about as I was learning it, even as far back as high school (40+ years), I still recall quite easily. The stuff about which I thought/felt "yeah, so what...I'll never need to know this beyond the exam," I can barely, if at all, remember.

I do think high schoolers should be exposed to some life skills. My home economics class, for instance, has proved to be invaluable to me my whole adult life. But we learned basic skills such as smart shopping, home budgeting, some basics of cooking, sewing, cleaning, time management etc. Quite comprehensive and useful knowledge to be recalled or refamiliarized with as I needed it.

For sure I didn't remember a LOT of chemistry, geometry, biology, algebra, or English literature for that matter beyond the final exam. But the information was in my head and available as something familiar when I did need to recall it or ran across it later in life. And the most basic necessary information such as reading comprehension, spelling, grammar, punctuation, basic math--addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, percentages, ratios, multiplication tables--were so ingrained that they became a part of us, were all tools we could use naturally and effortlessly and only improved with use.

As for history, government, civics, economics, such subjects are well within the grasp of the average student to comprehend. And those of us who had it left high school with a basic understanding of what this country is all about, what made it great, what good citizenship is, and we were informed voters from the very first vote whether or not we went on to college.

 

[candycorn]

I wonder why the video didn't show the students that got the answers correct. I also wonder why the PC video was included.

Consider the source

 

[Asclepias]

Proposed:

The modern generations are not being taught our history, our Constitution, or basic civics. They aren't being taught the reasoning of the Founders or about the great philosophers who informed them. Modern day students are not being required to study the Founding Documents or the circumstance that encouraged people to risk everything to come here and then to form a new nation.

They are not being taught basic economics, the principles of supply and demand in a free market system, the pros and cons of economic systems, or all the effect of government programs. The are not exposed to or encouraged to hear all points of view or use critical thinking to evaluate them.

They are spoon fed sound bites and slogans and the politically correct dogma of the day. Or what they know is gleaned from bits and pieces of internet sources or sounds bites from television or message boards. In short, too often they are being indoctrinated and effectively brainwashed instead of educated.

Some anecdotal evidence:


youtube watters world interviews - Bing video

youtube people can't answer political questions - Bing video

QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: Should basic history as described here be core curriculum, and should students have a reasonable command of it before graduating high school and college? Why or why not is that important?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
1. Links are allowed but are not required and if used must be summarized in the member's own words.
2. Definitions for this discussion only will be provided by the OP as necessary.
3. Comment on the member's argument only and not directly or indirectly to or about the member making the argument.

I think it depends on what history they learn. There is the history I learned which I found out is selective and used to indoctrinate people and then there is real history that is not so flattering, honorable, or as easy to digest. If its real history I am all for it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Proposed:

The modern generations are not being taught our history, our Constitution, or basic civics. They aren't being taught the reasoning of the Founders or about the great philosophers who informed them. Modern day students are not being required to study the Founding Documents or the circumstance that encouraged people to risk everything to come here and then to form a new nation.

They are not being taught basic economics, the principles of supply and demand in a free market system, the pros and cons of economic systems, or all the effect of government programs. The are not exposed to or encouraged to hear all points of view or use critical thinking to evaluate them.

They are spoon fed sound bites and slogans and the politically correct dogma of the day. Or what they know is gleaned from bits and pieces of internet sources or sounds bites from television or message boards. In short, too often they are being indoctrinated and effectively brainwashed instead of educated.

Some anecdotal evidence:


youtube watters world interviews - Bing video

youtube people can't answer political questions - Bing video

QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: Should basic history as described here be core curriculum, and should students have a reasonable command of it before graduating high school and college? Why or why not is that important?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
1. Links are allowed but are not required and if used must be summarized in the member's own words.
2. Definitions for this discussion only will be provided by the OP as necessary.
3. Comment on the member's argument only and not directly or indirectly to or about the member making the argument.

I think it depends on what history they learn. There is the history I learned which I found out is selective and used to indoctrinate people and then there is real history that is not so flattering, honorable, or as easy to digest. If its real history I am all for it.

I tried really hard to describe in the OP what sort of history I want in that core curriculum. I am one a crusade to get away from indoctrination of students both in public schools and universities.

 

[Asclepias]

Proposed:

The modern generations are not being taught our history, our Constitution, or basic civics. They aren't being taught the reasoning of the Founders or about the great philosophers who informed them. Modern day students are not being required to study the Founding Documents or the circumstance that encouraged people to risk everything to come here and then to form a new nation.

They are not being taught basic economics, the principles of supply and demand in a free market system, the pros and cons of economic systems, or all the effect of government programs. The are not exposed to or encouraged to hear all points of view or use critical thinking to evaluate them.

They are spoon fed sound bites and slogans and the politically correct dogma of the day. Or what they know is gleaned from bits and pieces of internet sources or sounds bites from television or message boards. In short, too often they are being indoctrinated and effectively brainwashed instead of educated.

Some anecdotal evidence:


youtube watters world interviews - Bing video

youtube people can't answer political questions - Bing video

QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: Should basic history as described here be core curriculum, and should students have a reasonable command of it before graduating high school and college? Why or why not is that important?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
1. Links are allowed but are not required and if used must be summarized in the member's own words.
2. Definitions for this discussion only will be provided by the OP as necessary.
3. Comment on the member's argument only and not directly or indirectly to or about the member making the argument.

I think it depends on what history they learn. There is the history I learned which I found out is selective and used to indoctrinate people and then there is real history that is not so flattering, honorable, or as easy to digest. If its real history I am all for it.

I tried really hard to describe in the OP what sort of history I want in that core curriculum. I am one a crusade to get away from indoctrination of students both in public schools and universities.

Well I noticed in your last sentence for example that you thought it was important to know why people risked coming here. The truth is not all people risked everything because they were forced to come. Those things are just as if not more relevant and missing in the curriculum.

 

[Foxfyre]

Proposed:

The modern generations are not being taught our history, our Constitution, or basic civics. They aren't being taught the reasoning of the Founders or about the great philosophers who informed them. Modern day students are not being required to study the Founding Documents or the circumstance that encouraged people to risk everything to come here and then to form a new nation.

They are not being taught basic economics, the principles of supply and demand in a free market system, the pros and cons of economic systems, or all the effect of government programs. The are not exposed to or encouraged to hear all points of view or use critical thinking to evaluate them.

They are spoon fed sound bites and slogans and the politically correct dogma of the day. Or what they know is gleaned from bits and pieces of internet sources or sounds bites from television or message boards. In short, too often they are being indoctrinated and effectively brainwashed instead of educated.

Some anecdotal evidence:


youtube watters world interviews - Bing video

youtube people can't answer political questions - Bing video

QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: Should basic history as described here be core curriculum, and should students have a reasonable command of it before graduating high school and college? Why or why not is that important?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
1. Links are allowed but are not required and if used must be summarized in the member's own words.
2. Definitions for this discussion only will be provided by the OP as necessary.
3. Comment on the member's argument only and not directly or indirectly to or about the member making the argument.

I think it depends on what history they learn. There is the history I learned which I found out is selective and used to indoctrinate people and then there is real history that is not so flattering, honorable, or as easy to digest. If its real history I am all for it.

I tried really hard to describe in the OP what sort of history I want in that core curriculum. I am one a crusade to get away from indoctrination of students both in public schools and universities.

Well I noticed in your last sentence for example that you thought it was important to know why people risked coming here. The truth is not all people risked everything because they were forced to come. Those things are just as if not more relevant and missing in the curriculum.

Those chapters in history are important of course, and should be taught honestly and completely. But they have nothing to do with the motivation of those who first arrived here which was a good deal of the inspiration for the Constitution.

 

[candycorn]

If the history being taught to students is taught from any viewpoint; that is an indoctrination of sorts.

The only way to avoid indoctrination is to roll events into bullet points and include them into a matrix-like collection via subject matter. Students will have to study all subject matter and come away with their own assumptions if you don't want the perspective of the professors or teachers.

 

[Geaux4it]

Proposed:

The modern generations are not being taught our history, our Constitution, or basic civics. They aren't being taught the reasoning of the Founders or about the great philosophers who informed them. Modern day students are not being required to study the Founding Documents or the circumstance that encouraged people to risk everything to come here and then to form a new nation.

They are not being taught basic economics, the principles of supply and demand in a free market system, the pros and cons of economic systems, or all the effect of government programs. The are not exposed to or encouraged to hear all points of view or use critical thinking to evaluate them.

They are spoon fed sound bites and slogans and the politically correct dogma of the day. Or what they know is gleaned from bits and pieces of internet sources or sounds bites from television or message boards. In short, too often they are being indoctrinated and effectively brainwashed instead of educated.

Some anecdotal evidence:


youtube watters world interviews - Bing video

youtube people can't answer political questions - Bing video

QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: Should basic history as described here be core curriculum, and should students have a reasonable command of it before graduating high school and college? Why or why not is that important?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
1. Links are allowed but are not required and if used must be summarized in the member's own words.
2. Definitions for this discussion only will be provided by the OP as necessary.
3. Comment on the member's argument only and not directly or indirectly to or about the member making the argument.

I think it depends on what history they learn. There is the history I learned which I found out is selective and used to indoctrinate people and then there is real history that is not so flattering, honorable, or as easy to digest. If its real history I am all for it.

I tried really hard to describe in the OP what sort of history I want in that core curriculum. I am one a crusade to get away from indoctrination of students both in public schools and universities.

Well I noticed in your last sentence for example that you thought it was important to know why people risked coming here. The truth is not all people risked everything because they were forced to come. Those things are just as if not more relevant and missing in the curriculum.

Curious as to where the quality of life is better. America or Africa?

Some see slavery as an investment in the future of the black race. If not for it, we wouldn't have rap, basketball and other things blacks excel at.

-Geaux

 

[Asclepias]

Proposed:

The modern generations are not being taught our history, our Constitution, or basic civics. They aren't being taught the reasoning of the Founders or about the great philosophers who informed them. Modern day students are not being required to study the Founding Documents or the circumstance that encouraged people to risk everything to come here and then to form a new nation.

They are not being taught basic economics, the principles of supply and demand in a free market system, the pros and cons of economic systems, or all the effect of government programs. The are not exposed to or encouraged to hear all points of view or use critical thinking to evaluate them.

They are spoon fed sound bites and slogans and the politically correct dogma of the day. Or what they know is gleaned from bits and pieces of internet sources or sounds bites from television or message boards. In short, too often they are being indoctrinated and effectively brainwashed instead of educated.

Some anecdotal evidence:


youtube watters world interviews - Bing video

youtube people can't answer political questions - Bing video

QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: Should basic history as described here be core curriculum, and should students have a reasonable command of it before graduating high school and college? Why or why not is that important?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
1. Links are allowed but are not required and if used must be summarized in the member's own words.
2. Definitions for this discussion only will be provided by the OP as necessary.
3. Comment on the member's argument only and not directly or indirectly to or about the member making the argument.

I think it depends on what history they learn. There is the history I learned which I found out is selective and used to indoctrinate people and then there is real history that is not so flattering, honorable, or as easy to digest. If its real history I am all for it.

I tried really hard to describe in the OP what sort of history I want in that core curriculum. I am one a crusade to get away from indoctrination of students both in public schools and universities.

Well I noticed in your last sentence for example that you thought it was important to know why people risked coming here. The truth is not all people risked everything because they were forced to come. Those things are just as if not more relevant and missing in the curriculum.

Curious as to where the quality of life is better. America or Africa?

Some see slavery as an investment in the future of the black race. If not for it, we wouldn't have rap, basketball and other things blacks excel at.

-Geaux

That depends on where in america and where in Africa for starters. Then you have to define quality. For example I will be moving to Africa because I love the quality of life and find it much better than the US.

Of course slavery was an investment. Blacks built the US into an economic power, were among the leaders in many technological advances like getting to the moon, and as you mentioned gave the US various genres of music. Yes we also excel at other things like basketball and football to the delight of white women who love our bodies and manliness, white children who want to emulate us and begrudgingly white males amazed at the incredible combination of mental and physical might.