Homeschooling vs. Howard Zinn
There is a popular belief that the best way for children to learn is for them to be sent away to a “brick and mortar” school, where highly trained educators will teach them the subjects they need to succeed in the world.
This belief rejects homeschooling, because dedicated mothers and fathers are simply not as good as government school teachers.
For the sake of argument, let’s say they are right. Let’s say that, as a homeschool dad, I’m not as good.
Still, when I teach my children about our nation’s history, I will be teaching from three different texts. The first is The Great Republic : A History of America by Sir Winston Churchill. The others, America: The Last Best Hope: Volumes I and II, are by Dr. William J. Bennett, former secretary of education under President Ronald Reagan.
Both of these authors know America’s history and have created fantastic texts from which to teach it. While I may not be a history major, or a certified teacher, I can read these books, teach from them, and supplement the text with additional curriculum of my choosing.
If my child were in a public school, what would they be learning from?
One of the more popular texts is The People’s History of the United States by the late Howard Zinn, a radical Marxist.
As noted on Big Hollywood, Zinn not only admitted his text is biased, he said he wanted it to be “part of the social struggle”:
I wanted my writing of history and my teaching of history to be a part of the social struggle. I wanted to be a part of history and not just a recorder of history and a teacher of history. So that kind of attitude towards history, history itself is a political act, has always informed my writing and my teaching.
For an example of how bizarre Zinn’s accounting of history is, consider his take on World War II. According to Zinn, America was at fault. We provoked Japan.
Zinn also fails to mention “Washington’s Farewell Address, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and Reagans’ speech at the Brandenburg Gate.” D-Day’s Normandy Beach invasion isn’t covered by Zinn, but he dedicates several pages to the My Lai Massacre. His efforts to paint America as an evil country are visible on every page of the text.
While the untrained homeschool dad is teaching his children about American history from two authors who focus on facts, the trained teacher is busy educating students about how terrible America has been from its creation, because the author of their text “wanted to be a part of history.”
But then again, the students in the all important “brick and mortar” school may not even be burdened with learning history. North Carolina state education leaders recently floated the idea of starting high school level American history at 1877, foregoing all that unnecessary learning about the Revolutionary War or even the Civil War.
Why would this even be considered?
Rebecca Garland, chief academic officer for the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, says they are trying to “figure out a way to teach [history] where students are connected to it, where they see the big idea, where they are able to make connections and draw relationships between parts of our history and the present day.”
The Foundry, the Heritage Foundation’s blog, explained what that means:
By implication, nothing before 1877 has any meaning to students …
Early 20th century Progressives also taught that nothing before 1877 has meaning for today. In his new book We Still Hold These Truths: Rediscovering our Principles, Reclaiming Our Future, Matthew Spaulding recounts Progressives attack on America’s First Principles. The Progressives sought to remake America, so that the Declaration’s Founding Principles, the Constitution’s institutional structures, and the Civil War’s meaning as a victory for Founding principles would no longer ring true. The progressives argued that equal, natural rights were non-existent; government creates rights.
Between the leftist slant in the texts and the outright banishment of a century of American history, it is difficult to see how having the endorsement of the state government automatically results in a better education.
It must be the advanced training government school teachers have in the subjects they teach. That is another argument opponents of homeschooling offer in defense of public schools. Judge Sue Carol Browning wrote:
I have a doctorate degree. And I do not feel that I am capable of giving my child the education that he deserves.
I have not had intensive training in each of the aspects that high schools teach. You know, I don’t have specialization in algebra, in chemistry, biology, language arts, all the different things.
Judge Browning believes that every teacher in the government school system went to school to teach the subjects they teach and are specifically trained experts. That just isn’t true. Many teachers find themselves teaching subjects they know little about and have minimal, if any, training in. Shortages in teachers require schools to fill slots, so they do the best they can with what they have. But most teachers are no more prepared than the mom who buys curriculum secondhand from a local homeschool group.
In reality, it’s the government school students who are at the disadvantage. Homeschooling moms and dads have more flexibility than government school teachers in what they teach, where they teach, and how they teach it. And while government school students are crammed into overcrowded classrooms, learning just enough to pass a state exam, homeschool students are in the museums and libraries, learning what it is to be an American.
Most importantly, homeschool students have teachers that are more emotionally invested in their success than any government school teacher could ever be.
Brick and mortar buildings can’t compete with that.
IF I had not been able to afford private tuition for my sons, thus choosing a place where they would be educated and NOT indoctrinated, I would have done anything to keep them out of public school.
It is not necessarily that the teachers are subpar, (though some CLEARLY are deadweight)it IS that they are working off of teaching tools where ‘social justice’ has replaced actual education; where core subjects are taught to make sure that everyone feels good; where the advanced student is dumbed down, and where history is dead and buried – all in the name of ‘equality’.
The public school system as it stands should itself be buried.
Of course “progressive” (and statist) educators love Howard Zinn; why let facts stand in the way of an ideology that makes them feel good about themselves?
Why let somebody like Howard Zinn, who is so much smarter than you’ll ever be even on your best day, get in the way of your own ignorant bias? At least her cares enough to tell the truth about what happened in history, instead of re-writing history to fit some hick fundamentalist version of the way they wish things had been.
So you were there when history happened? That’s why you know what was “re-written”? Wow…you must be frickin’ OLD.
I frequently use Amazon to buy books. I was on there one day and decided to see if they had the Zin History book.
They did, and it was highly rated. I decided to put a content warning in the comments sections, and the
PROGRESSIVES went
CRAZY attacking me! I tracked it through my email and it was one after the other. It was very eye opening.
They were so mean, and angry. They hated the fact that I had an adverse opinion about one of their own.
#1 Adina: It IS necessarily true that teachers are sub par — at least in the US.
Public school teachers often union drones, but ALL learned John Dewey, Rousseau and audio/visual mechanical skills. That’s pretty much it. It has long been thought that knowledge of the subject is not necessary if you know “how to teach”. How-to-teach is by Dewey. Might as well be Mao.
God Bless You Duane Lester! Now go one further. Go Galt.
Homeschoolers better pray for a miracle because the government-raised side simply has more. By the time the next generation has the ability to vote the country will be so lop-sided toward Statism it will be unchangeable. Why is Statism really that bad? Well, you can see the fruits of Statism already in the establishment of a State-Religion: Evolutionary spiritism. Yes, it is contradictive, but even atheist’s need spirituality, because, you see, we are made in God’s image. And don’t think a little inconsistency will prevent the enemies of God.
For any of you who still believe this is about money or power, guess again. The narrative of History has been all along to eradicate the Biblical God. You see, that Biblical God is a Just God, and gives men the right and even the ability (in it’s fullest sense) to choose, Him or the world. And the Bible predicts it will lose the cultural battle on Earth even, because God is interested in the believer’s soul, not the world.
So, buck up and learn about why Genesis is true. The real question is, Is it possible for Jesus to lie?
Home school is only for people that want a first rate education for their kids. If you want group think, do the public/private school “thang”. If you want to be like the “Jones” by all means abandon your kids to the public/private schools! If you want them to have to overcome the terrible “social” (drugs, early sex, perverts, et al); public/private is for you! Maybe “Cat’s in the Cradle” (Harry Chapin) is your goal; again public/private schools are perfect for you!
Now if you want socially adjusted, well educated, think for yourself offspring that have a good and positive relationship with you (parents) and a high probability of successful lives and marriages; then home school till at least 9th grade is your only option!
Lazy, just plain lazy. If history were taught properly in schools – there would be no need for Harry Potter and fiction in general. Properly taught history is full of “you just can’t make this stuff up!” moments.
We home school are kids and love it. Especially history. There is so much good balanced material, you do not have to be an expert to teach any of it.
Dear Mr. Lester,
This may well be true in the US but here in the UK I was state educated and along with many others received an absolutely stellar education.
All the best.
When were you state educated. Up till 30 or 40 years ago, state education in most of the US wasn’t that bad either.
How do you know your education was first rate? By what standards did you measure it?
Excellent article Duane. We have homeschooled for four years and everything you say is true. There is a popular yet false understanding that public school teachers (and administrators) are best equipped to train our children. Sadly, the environment created by excessive government intervention and political correctness has turned our public school system into Amtrak or the post office. Ultimately this drives the best and brightest away from teaching, leaving in many cases those that do the minimum needed to get through the day.
There could be no clearer example of how corrupt and politicized some parts of the Education Establishment has become than the use of Zinn’s pseudohistorical screed as a textbook.
I have several advanced degrees (law and poli sci). Despite having attended two very well respected colleges, most of the important things I’ve learned came from my own endeavors and my own reading.
I’ve learned more about life and human relations from working 12 hour days, 7 days a week. I’ve discovered that the young adult who learned discipline, respect, hard work, and thrift, is leagues beyond the young adult who attends Berkley on Mommy and Daddy’s dime, doesn’t work, and likes to to march in protests.
This is going to sound ridiculous, but I believe I’m correct when I say that there are too many people in higher leaning today. It’s all become unproductive in many ways. Woman’s studies? Anthropolgy? I know a kid who obtained a degree in “Irish Classics”. He recently lost his job at Starbucks. Want to be a doctor? Then you must attend a medical school. Want to make a million dollars? Well then, by brother (who earns over a mil a year) can teach you a few lessons. He never went to college. He became a commercial real estate broker. He works 14 hour days.
Beware of the schools and Hollywood. Howard Zinn types infest the school. And that douche disciple of his, Matt Damon, is Zinn’s biggest promoter.
5. KevinButterfield:
Homeschoolers better pray for a miracle because the government-raised side simply has more. By the time the next generation has the ability to vote the country will be so lop-sided toward Statism it will be unchangeable. Why is Statism really that bad? Well, you can see the fruits of Statism already in the establishment of a State-Religion: Evolutionary spiritism. Yes, it is contradictive, but even atheist’s need spirituality, because, you see, we are made in God’s image. And don’t think a little inconsistency will prevent the enemies of God.
For any of you who still believe this is about money or power, guess again. The narrative of History has been all along to eradicate the Biblical God. You see, that Biblical God is a Just God, and gives men the right and even the ability (in it’s fullest sense) to choose, Him or the world. And the Bible predicts it will lose the cultural battle on Earth even, because God is interested in the believer’s soul, not the world.
So, buck up and learn about why Genesis is true. The real question is, Is it possible for Jesus to lie?
—————————————————————–
Your religious ideology is just as bad, if not worse, then the statists. Yes Jesus could lie since he was just a man. No, Genesis isn’t true. No, man is not made in god’s image since god isn’t real and we evolved for a simian forefather. The bible’s god is not just. He is spiteful and vengeful. Atheists don’t need spirituality. And Evolutionary spiritism [sic] isn’t a state religion. God has no enemies since god isn’t real.
Your thinking is that of a brainwashed man who is so emotionally invested in the lie you fear the truth.
If you are so convinced that God doesn’t exist, then you must have ironclad proof of the same.
Let’s see it.
As to Socialization for Homeschoolers.
That’s the point people always make. “But they lack the socialization…”
The first order of socialization they will miss out on is the classroom interaction. you know, the classroom where they spend 90 percent of the school day. Where there are two rules “Sit Down and Shut Up.”
They then get the opportunity to see the glamourization of the “Rebel” you know the unruley student who will not follow the rules and the complete inability of the teacher to impose discipline on the class. What a Good Lesson in Socialization.
Next they learn the Recess Ground Pecking Order. Bullies Rule.
Bullies also never seem to get into trouble, because teachers can’t control bullies, but they can control those who follow the rules any time they fight back. Another stunning lesson in Socialization.
And finally they learn the Socialization lessons of Smoking, Drugs, and the increase of one’s own self esteem by breaking down the self esteem of another. Joining cliques on the playground can teach such important lessons of Socialization.
Oh, by the way, The Complete Idiot’s Guides by Allan Axelrod to the different major wars of history, as well as the Complete Idiots Guide to American History are all very good texts as well.
jd
Another far more damaging aspect of public education, which has also found its way into private institutions, is so-called constructivist education theory. Education schools have developed a veritable cult mentality supporting constructivism, no different in most respects from the credulous, quasi-religious groupthink mentality that clings to the anthropogenic global warming lie.
In the environment governed by constructivism, students are arbitrarily promoted to the status of learner which, with its concomitant demotion of the teacher to facilitator, linguistically and systemically erases the traditional teacher/student relationship that has driven classical education for centuries, and which is responsible for virtually ALL scientific, social and industrial progress experienced by Western Civilization.
Constructivism imposes a radical new model on the education environment (see also: Change). In this model students seek truths on their own terms while teachers act as “guides on the side”. If this sounds vaguely like a daycare center, you’re beginning to see the problem.
Classical education was once an arena where the knowledgeable and experienced transferred their knowledge and thinking skills to ignorant, unskilled minds. Tangible and often substantial rewards were offered to those individuals who excelled in assimilating, synthesizing and extending this knowledge. In the general sense, this process promoted individual mastery, as well as individual accountability and responsibility – the fundamental requirements for a society founded on individual liberty. In at least one specific sense – and per the topic of Mr. Lester’s valid concerns – it also promoted a broad, deep understanding of human social behavior, especially through the objective study of human history.
That all changed with the influence of Dewey, Piaget, constructivism, “new math”, modular scheduling, et al.
Through the influence of constructivism, contemporary education has devolved into an amorphous and artificially egalitarian “learning process” which eschews progress assessment (tests and grades) and often has no fixed curriculum; it transforms the student from a uniquely accountable individual, responsible for mastering a specific set of skills, to a dependent member of a collective, through emphasis on group activities and, often, group evaluation.
Since constructivist theory demands that objective assessment be minimized, and that much of the learning process be collective in nature, it provides no incentive whatever for the individual to assimilate and master the information and thinking skills that must be (and once were) a part of growing into adulthood and functioning as a productive, independent individual in a free society. By the time life proceeds beyond this new, historically novel academic experience, graduates have been effectively indoctrinated with a mindset that sees collective, pathological dependence on an omnipotent, therapeutic State as “normal”. Developmentally, this process replaces (and continues) the parents’ unconditional support for their child by offering unconditional rewards irrespective of academic performance. The product is an adult “adolescent” who, not surprisingly, engages in transference in the form of a feeling of entitlement, i.e., to continued, unconditional support from the world at large and the State in particular.
Philosophically, constructivism encourages “learners” to, literally, construct their own truths. This is in keeping with the narcissist notion that is central to the “Change” mantra, supported by many constructivist learning theorists – that is, that there are no moral absolutes, and reality is not something we can ever know because reality doesn’t exist outside our collective ability to define it. This is the foundation of moral relativism, and it’s become a fundamental part of contemporary public education precisely because it imparts a broken thought process to the “learner” – a process that fits the “intellectual” model of the postmodern citizen who rejects the socially cohering intuitive ethics that are bound up in cultural tradition, religion, national identity and respect for authority.
The outcome of all this constructivist poison, which we’ve been paying through the nose to have injected into our public education system for decades, is wholly predictable.
The graduates of a constructivist education system are guaranteed to be functionally illiterate, innumerate, ignorant of history and virtually incapable of critical thinking. They are also guaranteed to posses enormous (and dangerous) reserves of unwarranted self-esteem after years of having been rewarded regardless of how they actually perform academically. At the same time, those “educated” under the collectivizing rubric of constructivism are also guaranteed to hold a favorable view of collectivist social mechanisms like “universal” health care, welfare, infinite extensions to unemployment benefits, Social Security, unions and, above all, a sense of entitlement.
This predictable outcome completely and accurately describes the product of contemporary public education. And it’s no accident, because it completely and accurately describes the type of person most accommodating to an elitist, overweening, unaccountable government – such as the one which currently resides in Washington. Through constructivism – which is nothing short of active, purposeful sabotage of traditional, classical education – the education process has degenerated to fit the needs of the totalitarian super-State, in direct support of Socialism’s long march through American institutions.
Additional information on this phenomenon is archived here.
14. Phranc
>>Your thinking is that of a brainwashed man who is so emotionally invested in the lie you fear the >>truth.
Oh boy, where to start. Phranc, you have your belief. Unfortunately, It’s not based on facts. It is totally based upon fabrications of the human mind. Evolution is a total fantasy. The geologic column is a total fantasy. No evidence exists. Only wild inferences. The funny part is that so many call it science. Non of it is either observable, nor repeatable (science). They just use one assumption on top of another and say “that’s science”. Text books are written as if it is fact. Who’s the deluded one?
Do you know everything? How about half of everything? That’s right, the answer is no. Now for the head exploding question. Don’t you think God can exist in the half that you don’t know?
You come across a painting, a watch, a laptop and instantly know it was created. You see amazing life forms all around that are so many times more complicated than anything man can create and you think it came about by chance. Once again, who’s the deluded one?
The only answers that fit are those found in the Bible. It will tell you all about the history of the universe and even tell you why you act the way you do. Of course, you will resist the truth. You don’t want to have to admit your not your own god.
If life is really as you say, then why should anyone not just kill anyone? Survival of the fittest, and all that. I’d say you don’t do that, not because of any human laws, but because you know in your heart it’s wrong.
I was just like you and so full of what I thought was knowledge. Open your heart to the Holy Spirit and you can have your eyes opened to the truth. It’s very uncomfortable uncovering how evil we truly are.
The only difference between you two is the nature of the mindless ideology you spew.
No evidence of evolution? Have you read no books on biology?
The evidence that the earth is billions of years old is conclusive, shown by hundreds of independant tests.
Amerika in the last few decades has been terrible towards humanity. Corporate controlled military and congress. Multiple wars. Infinite war for infinite peace. The country that I saluted as an Eagle Scout is long since gone, taken over by corporations. We now live in a corporate controlled oligarchy in which the middle class are its peasants and serfs.
The US has been taken over by corporations? Are you totally daft man?
In case it may be helpful, Dinesh D’Souza’s marvelous essay “the Crimes of Christopher Columbus” can be read to a bright middle schooler and it can effectively inoculate them against the brainwashing. Our child’s twenty-something teacher was genuinely impressed by his ability to question her authority and admitted that it led her to new understandings.
Great topic,………But!!
The argument by Lester has to be dismissed or at least disregarded because of his bias. I read little or none of a two-sided argument. Anyone can, and most folks do, slam something they do not like, and find reasons to support that view, but we need more of what reporters are suppose to do, look at two sides. I tire easily of one-sided inductions.
Both of my daughers have college degrees, and taught K-3 grades for some years. They know about teaching firsthand. On several occasions I would visit their (Christian) classrooms and read a book to their students. I always brought enough copies of the book so each child could take one home. After a while I learned how they liked interaction, and after reading page by page, and stopping to show them the pictures on each two open pages, I would finish up by saying,
“Now let me see, are there any children in
this room by the name of……”
I had previously obtained the names, and would read each name. The would squeal and most would point to someone, who then come forward to receive a book. And both daughters now teach their children using homeschool, and are quite diligent in their duties.
Yet, I see two major downsides, namely knowledge and social skills. In terms of knowledge no generalist can teach as well as a specialist. I guess the concern is not great in elementary grades, but later I believe the effects widen. At one logical extreme, should parents teach university courses too? Beyond a certain point you just cannot compete with the dedicated skill and resources (gym, library, chemistry room, etc.) in public schools.
Also, peer interaction and feedback and thus social skills are critical for all children.
And both daughters, whom I love dearly, are devout christians who believe in their hearts that the world was created in seven days. They are great moms, and their homes are filled with educational books, videos, etc. Yet the founding fathers believed, as do I, that government and education should be secular.
My point is that Lester provided a disservice to his readers, and should have done a much better job. Well run and managed public schools where parents are active, and where school boards have a genuine unbiased interest in the best possible education, just cannot be dismissed so easily. And Lester’s focus on a few good or even great books is a red herring to the stated topic of homeschooling. Any parent can at will augment any course material with their own discussion, books, videos, or even visits to original locations.
As someone else already pointed out, there are no specialists in grade school, and precious few in high school.
So while it is true that in many cases, specialists should be able to do a better job than generalists, the point is not relevant to the real world of public schools.
As to your claim that the founders wanted education and govt to be secular. Have you read the writtings of the founders on the nature of govt? As for their opinion about eductation, you are aware that public education as we know it today, didn’t exist until the mid 1800′s? All of the founders, and just about everyone else who “educated” during that time period, were home schooled?
Phranc, Richard Milhaus Scurvy Wilson III, et. al:
This may come as a big honking surprise to you, but it is child’s play to tell who has had a classical liberal education and who has been a victim of Leftist indoctrination. I know you are both 20 or 30 years younger than I am because students in my generation were permitted a much freer range of belief than you were. They were-and are–much more liberal in their thinking: liberal in that they disagree with you but would defend to the death your rights. You, on the other hand, foam at the mouth would be quite pleased if all of your philosophical opponents would ph*ck ophph.
You have both been philled with sh*t by our brain-dead educational system and the irrational experiments they subjected you to. The sad thing about it is that you are so ignorant that, when my generation is gone, you won’t have the knowledge–or ability–to preserve your own freedom. And that is incredibly sad.
I am glad you are contented to be slaves of the state, because, unless the rational among us can turn back the tide–and damned soon–that is your phate.
Liberal/Conservative……..Republican/Democrat is a fake duality presented to the sheeple so they have somebody to follow. wake up and find some comoon ground and work together before the USA is entirely gone and it won’t matter what “party” one belongs to.
One thing about liberals, the first thing they need to do is get rid of labels. That makes it easier for them to hide who they really are.
17. Brutal:
Oh boy, where to start. Phranc, you have your belief. Unfortunately, It’s not based on facts.
————————————————————–
Fact is there is no god. Fact is you can’t prove god. Fact is the only reason people believe in god is because they are conditioned to through out their lives. Fact is that is brainwashing. Fact is evolution has been proven. Fact is you head exploding question fizzled out when you lit the fuse. God not existing is in the part of things I know. I don’t have to know everything to know god isn’t real. Fact evolution isn’t all about chance. Fact you don’t understand evolution. Fact if the only answers that fit for you come from a book written by other men 3000 years ago you are ignorant and brainwashed. People shouldn’t just kill each other because we are socialized creatures and survival takes more then the individual. But nice attempt at a strawman. I don’t need your fake holy spirit or your fake gods.
21. ahem:
Phranc, Richard Milhaus Scurvy Wilson III, et. al:
This may come as a big honking surprise to you, but it is child’s play to tell who has had a classical liberal education and who has been a victim of Leftist indoctrination. I know you are both 20 or 30 years younger than I am because students in my generation were permitted a much freer range of belief than you were. They were-and are–much more liberal in their thinking: liberal in that they disagree with you but would defend to the death your rights. You, on the other hand, foam at the mouth would be quite pleased if all of your philosophical opponents would ph*ck ophph.
You have both been philled with sh*t by our brain-dead educational system and the irrational experiments they subjected you to. The sad thing about it is that you are so ignorant that, when my generation is gone, you won’t have the knowledge–or ability–to preserve your own freedom. And that is incredibly sad.
I am glad you are contented to be slaves of the state, because, unless the rational among us can turn back the tide–and damned soon–that is your phate.
—————————————————————–
You assume a lot.
Real quick tell me exactly how old I am and exactly what my schooling was. Since you know so much about it those should be easy answer. Or not since you really are ignorant. Also can you quote exactly what I said that would lead you to think I am content with being a slave to the state?
I love freedom. I also love freedom from religion. A fear based religion that seeks to control others is not freedom.
Everybody has their idea of what is best to teach the kids. If you want to teach seven day creation, believe it or not, that is your right. I’d rather have a parent teach creation to a child by choice, than any other curricula by force.
The pp mentioned peer interaction. A school is not required for such a thing. That’s just the socialization argument rehashed. The word “peer” needs to be defined.
As for advanced learning, again, an old argument. One always assumes the parent is doing all of the teaching. In a successful homeschool, the students seek information and learn to teach themselves. Where to find answers to the questions you have is a skill that is rarely taught in ps.
I would hight recommend reading John Taylo Gatto on some of these issues.
The public “education” system is NOT broken; it’s doing exactly what Horace Mann envisioned 160 years ago, what John Dewey pushed in the early 20th Century, and what the teachers unions foment today.
Herr Goebbels would be very proud indeed.
Response to Phranc @23: Fact, Phranc sure says alot to actually say nothing at all.
I have yet to read any of your posts that presented you or your position in a positive light. Instead of presenting a positive defense of your position you have attempted to attack and degrade others. Seems to me to be the performance of a three year old. How about in your next post you avoid personal attacks and present something positive?
Let Phranc be, just give up. There is only one thing to convince an atheist that he is wrong, dying.
Mr. Seymour,
You state “Yet the founding fathers believed, as do I, that government and education should be secular.”. This is a commpletely false statememt and any honest reading of the founders writings will prove it. “5000 Year Leap” contains a good amount if these writings all in one place.
I am a homeshooling mom of 9, but I have experienced our public schools at work. My husband and I started homeschooling aftr the public schools nearly destroyed our oldest son.
There’s lots of good reasons for homschooling (many in this article), but ideological isolationism isn’t one of them.
I don’t think the purpose of history is to teach kids facts from books. I bet there are a lot of teachers who don’t agree with Zinn and use it to teach kids how to engage with contrary points of view.
I don’t know what they teach in teaching school, but I hope it’s that no textbook is unbiased, not even William Bennet’s. That’s the central lesson of history – that facts and history are two different things and the victors write the history books. I’d encourage you to teach both Zinn and Bennet and charge your children to figure out which is “right”.
k10 beat me to it – John Tayor Gatto is the one to look to for the roots of this kind of thing. “The Underground History of Education” is a winner. And you can read it free on his site.
Combine that with Sharpshooter – yup, it’s doing exactly as planned………. it’s PERFECT. Gatto was just able to see it from the front row…..
two notes:
1) Prof. Barry Rubin covers anti-US indoctrination in the Montgomery County, Maryland 4th grade over at RubinReports.
2)Zinn is being used as a history text at the US Coast Guard Academy.
Phranc,
Wow, where to start.
1. “There is no god.” This is not fact, this is belief. Scientific theory is based on the idea of falsification. You can’t falsify the theory that God exists, because you can’t prove that he doesn’t.
2. “You can’t prove god.”. You’re right, I can’t. But you can’t disprove him either, and that is also a fact.
3. “Fact is the only reason people believe in god is because they are conditioned to through out their lives. ”
How is this different from anything else man believes? We have no innate knowledge. We also believe that the sun is the center of the solar system. We believe this because we have been taught this. How would we know of God if no one taught it to us? That is completely non-sequiter.
4. “Fact is you head exploding question fizzled out when you lit the fuse.” Really poor ad-hominem
5. “God not existing is in the part of things I know. I don’t have to know everything to know god isn’t real.” Actually, you do. Because you don’t know everything, you can’t know if God is real or not. God not existing is what you believe, not what you know.
6. “Fact evolution isn’t all about chance. Fact you don’t understand evolution.” Scientists who spend their whole lives studying evolution can’t answer many questions about it. Nor does evolution, in whatever shapes and forms it takes, disprove that God exists.
7. “I don’t need your fake holy spirit or your fake gods.” Who is forcing one upon you? Many people turn their back on God. Some never opted to believe in him at all. Others believe in other gods. And many people do believe in God. That’s the way the world is and the way it shall be. I don’t understand the source of your anger towards those who do believe. The best part about having free will is that no one can force you to believe something you don’t want to. No one can make you believe in God so don’t be so angry at those who do, or who choose to share their belief in God. You are under no obligation to listen to, read, or follow what they say.
Susan, I hate to say it but you are dead wrong.
“The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.” (John Adams)
“Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.” (Benjamin Franklin)
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion …” (Thomas Jefferson, Treaty of Tripoli)
“I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.” and “Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies.” (Thomas Jefferson)
Public schoolteachers have unions that make them far less vulnerable to the corporate lash and hence greater freedom to tell the truth about the racist, genocidal, exploitative capitalist system than most others. Even school boards filled with corporate cronies often have trouble firing a truth-telling teacher. Home schooling serves the corporate power structure since most parents work in the private sector where they are the chattel of corporate chieftans who can sentence them and their children to death of exposure and starvation upon whim. Those parents know that their lives depend upon instilling in their children mindless corporate propaganda and an attitude of docility and conformity in the face of exploitation and oppression.
Frank,
Anyone can place quotes out of context. I agree that the founders were against the teaching of any individual religious denomination, but almost all agreed that there were principals that were fundimental and universal.
The Northwest Ordinance, in artical three states, “Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged”.
Washinton in his farewell address spoke about the absolute tie between morality and religion as “indispensable supports” for political prosperity.
The founders guarded against any one religion being taught, but advocated for teaching religious principals at length. Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and others refered to the “religion of America” and while it was not a “religious Denomination” it was most definitely a set of religious principals that they belived to be fundimental.
this was a very interesting post.
I think there are several things that need to happen to continue discussing this: first, I think people who are critiquing Howard Zinn’s book/message need to read the book.
It’s impossible to gain an understanding of the meaning within a work without actually reading and researching it. This is the whole point of the original post- that publicly educated students are not given the opportunity to understand what it means to be American within Churchill’s and other’s books. Therefore, the same standard should be applied to those who deplore Zinn’s book.
When I read Zinn’s book, I realized right away that it wasn’t trying to offer the complete historical record of America. The book stated immediately and blatantly that it was a book told from the perspective of the dominated, persecuted, etc. Keeping this framework when reading, the book offers some interesting tidbits into our past that I think would be a great supplement to a definitive book on the history of America. To take a phrase another poster (Walter R) mentioned, this book is full of “you can’t make this stuff up” moments. The one necessary thing to do is balance these tidbits with multiple sides’ perspectives which I’m sure are readily available in other supplemental works.
Second I think people should take into consideration the History and Social Science teachers. In higher ed institutions, History/Social Science is by far the most common and competitive focus for masters candidates. If there is one subject that is not lacking in talented teachers, it is History.
Last, I agree with several posters about the factorization of public schools where students are given standardized and not creative/interesting curriculum in most classes, yet I think that a lot of teachers try to overcome this by using supplemental material like Zinn.
Most important out of all this, is the difficult question of where does an American child go to get an education if they have an absent parent, or a parent who doesn’t have the time and education to teach their children past a certain grade level?
Regarding the Teaching of History:
History should essentially be taught on two levels. The first level is a simple presentation of the facts to include who, what, when, where, why, and how. Interpretation, although impossible to eliminate, should be kept to a minimum. The second level is to take those simple facts – once they have been learned – and then to look at their interpretation by examing the major points of disagreement between historians in each historical field. “Interpretations in American History” is a two volume set that looks at how different historical schools have looked at historical events over the years. It is a standard in most graduate programs.
The major problem with the way most people teach history is that they skip the first level and jump right to the second. These teachers begin with the interpretations while the students do not really know the facts. Some teachers do it out of ignorance but others do it because, without the facts, students can be more easily brain-washed. Zinn is a brain-washer. Anyone who knows the facts and looks at Zinn recognizes that he lies and distorts the facts to make his ideological case. Most leftist who agree with his ideology simply ignore it or participate in the propaganda
Until a child reaches high school, their history education should remain at the first level. A third grader does not have the intellectual resources to deal with level two questions or to defend herself against indoctrination. In high school, after the student has mastered level one, then you can introduce level two type discussions. As a history professor, I have found most 100 and 200 level college students need to stay at level one because their secondary school experience failed to give them a grasp of history. With these guys, I usually lecture on the level one material and then have class discussion on a level two type topic. For example, was the U.S. Constitution a radical or conservative document? If the students do not have the level one information, how can I expect them to discuss the level two question.
Regarding Secular Education:
Secular, as the term is often used today, means without God or reference to God. It is impossible to have secular education because the very premise of education is to teach the truth. Without God, their is no objective truth but only speculation.
After the end of the Thirty Years War in the 1640s, western man began to move away from the idea of a God who spoke truth into creation and embraced a rationalist approach geared to discovering natural laws that govern man. Since then one philosophical school has replaced another until the end came with nihilism. Nihilism said that we can know nothing because we are part of the system. We are simply a bubble of emptiness on a sea of nothingness or some such nonesense. Without a voice from outside the system, we end up in the depression and carnage of nihilism – Nazi Germany and Communism.
Jean Paul Sartre once said that without a fixed reference, all reference points are meaningless. God is that reference point. Education that does not operate under that premise starts from a meaningless reference point.
Response to Susan Fitz @37: When the Founders spoke out against the federal govenment adopting a particular Christian denomination and then enforcing that denomination upon the states. The Founding Fathers operated in a western worldview dominated by Christianity, none considered Hinduism, Islam, etc to be on par with Christianity. The Founders also had no problem with the states establishing a state church. The majority of the colonies had a state religion when the Consitution was written and continued to have ones long after it was ratified. No one saw a contradiction between the First Amendment and an individual state having a church.
Response to Lloyd @38: Zinn lies. A good example is his support for the allegations made about embalmed beef afer the Spanish American War. He supports the allegation even though their is no evidence to support it – then or now.
16. goy:
You have kids in school today? If not today, then when (if ever)?
@42. “skeeziks”: – You have kids in school today?
Kids in school. Spouse in school. Friends in school. Co-workers in school. Am in school. Teaching school. Have administered school.
I’m tempted to ask why you care, but given the experience of your screeds to date, I’ll just wait for the straw man fantasy you’re going to build from all that.
#36 APOSTLE OF LOVE(can you believe this moniker)? Congratulations! You have truly mastered the art of stringing together a farrago of every inane,hysterical,dishonest stalinist,cliche,taught by Zinn!Were that mental degenerate and stalin worshipper still alive, he’d be proud of you!By the way,”Apostle of love” ,who taught you humility?Is your court-appointed psychiatrist aware of your Jesus complex?
Zinn is to History,what Hitler was to political theory :a virulent,hate mongering propagandist of murderous utopias.Zinn’s screeds and Mein Kampf are both examples of fanaticism interpreting and distorting facts selectively, in order to justify Totalitarian criminality.Their works belong in the library of a criminologist
#35 FRANK: As an atheist,AND a coservative, I really liked your quotes;here’s another one;”There was only one christian,and HE died on the cross”NIETZSCHE .However,Zinn was pure scum,and the reason why our educational system is brain dead is Liberalism!
Response to @41 Kipling:
There seems to be supporting evidence through books written on the topic as seem at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_beef_scandal
@ 45-45 deguello:
I would be interested to hear your interpretations of fascism versus libertarianism, liberalism versus conservatism, and free-market versus collectivism.
I was graduated from high school half a century ago, in 1959; during my last two years in high school, I attended an Episcopalian boys’ day school. The differences were remarkable. Class size (eleven or twelve) was less than half that in public school and the teachers were, for the most part, better at teaching and far more knowledgeable of their subjects. They had degrees from (then) good universities in their specialties rather than in education. Disciplinary infractions were dealt with appropriately, often by a requirement to work on the school grounds on Saturdays. Students wore coats and ties and were expected to rise from their seats when any adult entered the classroom. Even then as an agnostic, I found the modest religious instruction informative and in no way offensive. Were my wife and I of child-bearing age and had children now, we would nevertheless very seriously consider home-schooling. We would do so because we have seen the results of home-schooling.
When I retired from the practice of law in 1996, we left the U.S. in our sailboat and spent several years in the Caribbean. There were lots of fellow cruisers there and some of them had children of school age. Since there were few alternatives, most home-schooled their kids. With one exception out of more than a hundred, the home-schooled kids were delightful and articulate. They interacted well with their parents, who were teaching them, and with their peers whom they met while in port; most cruisers spend more time in port than sailing. They also interacted very well with other adults. This probably had a lot to do with the responsibilities they were given and willingly accepted in boat handling during ocean passages of many days’ duration and the close, day-to-day child-parent interaction in scholastic and all other other day-to-day matters. I understand that when they eventually returned to the States, most were several grade levels above their contemporaries and had little if any difficulty adjusting socially.
Home schooling requires very high levels of commitment on the part of parents; it is a daily burden and pleasure. There is no reason of which I am aware why there should not be comparable child-parent interaction when children attend public school; unfortunately, I understand that it is uncommon. The responsibilities of both parents and children engendered by home-schooling probably promote and are promoted by such interaction.
Those who are unable or unwilling to interact significantly and to a greater extent than may be customary or enjoyable probably should not attempt it.
Response to Lloyd @47: Regarding the Embalmed Beef Scandal
First, Wikipedia is hardly a scholarly source as it has no peer review or scholastic accountability.
Second, the Wikipedia entry is as fully of error, misrepresentations, distortion and unsupported allegations as the account by Zinn. The allegations made by General Miles were investigated by the Dodge Commission, an independent commission charged with investigating the mismanagement of the Spanish American War. The Commission officially tested samples of canned and refrigerated. They found no evidence of tainted beef. General Miles continued to press the charges so the Army convened another board to investigate. Pressed for the evidence he claimed to have, Miles retracted many of his former statements. The Army Board and the Dodge Commission both found Miles’ allegations to be without cause.
Please see Graham A. Cosmas’ “An Army for Empire: The United States Army in the Spanish-American War” p. 290-296 to see how an actual historian – not a propagandist like Zinn – deals with the topic.
Kipling, in Comment #49 states, Wikipedia is hardly a scholarly source as it has no peer review or scholastic accountability.
I agree. However, the global warming folks have relied on “peer review” and “scholarly” sources for years; it has not done much good. Peer review is what is made of it and much depends on the ideologies of the peers.
Phranc, give it up dude. Instead of being an angry atheist, try being an agnostic like myself. It’s more mellow and smarter.
Us agnostics have no idea whether there’s a God or not, so we don’t waste energy trying to “prove” he doesn’t exist. What’s really creepy is not the Old Testament, but militant atheism and its antiseptic view of humanity, which is what you appear to espouse. Evolution isn’t supposed to be a “movement” from which you take your marching orders, but rather, it’s meant to be science, OK? The theory doesn’t “prove there is no God,” it just gives us a guide to what likely was the progression of life on this planet. As to those of religious bent who are railing against evolution and Phranc, you don’t get it either. You are conflating the science with the unfortunate fact that atheists and progressives have hijacked the theory for their own ends.
Freedom from religion means nobody can tell me I have to pray or belong to a church, it doesn’t mean I get to banish religion from the public square. There is nothing superior about atheism and the attendant ideologies that espouse it.
Zinn is dead. Unfortunately, his primary cheerleaders — the Bobsey Twins from Good Will Hunting are alive, young, and wealthy.
@50. Dan Miller: – … the global warming folks have relied on “peer review” and “scholarly” sources for years; it has not done much good.
Hmmm… actually, that’s not strictly accurate.
The AGW clergy have a documented history of having corrupted and manipulated the peer review process for years. That’s a very different thing. One can’t reasonably look at that, which is pretty unique across the scholarly literature spectrum, and try to use it as a defense of Wikipedia.
In my experience, Wikipedia’s good for one thing: mining it for links to references that have the standing it does not.
Peer review is not the gold standard for science. Most peer reviewers just do a cursury examination of a study. Basically, it’s little more than a sanity check.
The gold standard for science is presenting all the data from your study or experiment so that anyone who wants to can replicate it. This is where AGW science has fallen down completely. They refuse to give up their raw data, and they refuse to fully describe the methods by which the massaged the raw data to reach their conclusions. They just tell us that we have to trust them, and that isn’t science.
I did not intend in my comment #50 in any way to offend any peers. Indeed, like all right thinking people, I love the House of Peers and wish that all legislation were subject to their veto. Alas, their only fault is that the D’Oyly Carte Opera Company was allowed to fold, that it is difficult to find legitimate Gilbert & Sullivan performances and that Britain accordingly no longer rules the waves.
29. Alert1201:
Let Phranc be, just give up. There is only one thing to convince an atheist that he is wrong, dying.
—————————————————————-
And you know this for sure? No, you don’t.
Neither do you. Which is the point.
In response to Kipling @49:
I agree that wikipedia is by no means a scholarly source; what I referenced to was the books listed on the page (not the data on the page itself). That is to say, there was no lack of external resources on the topic.
I admit I tried to view page 290-6 of the book you suggested in GoogleBooks, but it only went up to 190.
I was intrigued by your assurance of the validity of a “dismissal by a executive-branch commission” (the Dodge Commission), especially by a historian who is the Treasurer of a conservative military history journal. (I only mention this to point out that he is biased just like Zinn to view and search for history at a certain angle in terms of looking for the historical record, not that what he finds may be wrong.)
So I committed to spending some time researching what I could about the increasingly interesting and contemporarily relevant scandal about “embalmed beef”.
First, I viewed the page in question in Zinn’s book (page 309, which anyone can do for free on GoogleBooks).
Next I researched other noteworthy sources on the topic. The standard definition in the paragraph entry of several encyclopedias are copied word for word from each other. Other military journals mention only the commission report. The commonalities were:
-A war commission was created to figure out the reason to what the news leaked that only 400 of 4000 fatalities came from combat, while the rest (3600) came from disease.
-The commission found that it was due to limited medical supplies that led to outbreak of disease
-The commission found no other reason for the outbreak after a very large amount of hearings.
This information is used to debunk the accusations of embalmed beef.
What was interesting that Zinn mentioned, is the connection of not only common disease but food poisoning. So I dug further and found two interesting articles:
First: http://www.harpweek.com/09Cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon.asp?Month=August&Date=13
Two interesting passages:
“President William McKinley was furious about the press leak, fearing that it would damage negotiations with Spain. He was also increasingly conscious that the War Department’s administration of the conflict was a political liability in a congressional election year. Criticism of Secretary of War Russell Alger surfaced as early as May and intensified as more horror stories about sanitary and health conditions appeared in the press. Over the next several months, McKinley worked to deflect blame from the executive branch, while Alger firmly denied culpability.” AND
“President McKinley visited the sick servicemen, refused public comment on his secretary of war, and appointed a presidential commission, headed by General Grenville Dodge, to investigate the War Department’s conduct. By appointing the commission, McKinley strategically placed himself on the side of justice, while distancing himself from the blame and eliminating the need for a congressional probe. The Dodge Commission began its work in late September 1898, thereby minimizing political damage through the November elections”
Second was:
http://everything2.com/title/embalmed+beef
Quote:
“However, the soldiers in the field didn’t get stews — they got cold, unsalted beef straight from the cans, because there were hardly any saucepans available for the army cooks to do anything else with it. Teddy Roosevelt called his men babies for disdaining the slimy stuff, but then later he tried it and found himself repulsed too. Cans were reported that contained gristle, bits of rope, maggots, or poisonous preservatives, or had been spoiled by the heat. This was most likely a very small minority of cans, sent out by packers who needed to make up a very large order very quickly. But some men did die of food poisoning, and Nelson Miles did his best to ride the scandal of bad food sent out to the defenders of the nation’s interests, with the newspapers jumping on the bandwagon.
McKinley’s commission did not find widespread contamination even after samples of the canned beef were sent for lab testing. Miles kept on trying to press his charges, hoping for the Democratic presidential nomination against the Republican administration. However, the fact that he had only pointed this out after the war, and not while his soldiers were actually suffering from the bad food they were supplied with, caused him problems. His enemies suggested that he was trying to get back at the meat-packing industry for the humiliation of his troops’ failure to control riots outside Chicago packinghouses a few years earlier. His political career folded, but the idea of “embalmed beef” remained associated with the Spanish-American war. It did spur the U.S military to make better arrangements for provisions in future conflicts, and along with publication of Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle and other exposes in the next few years, led to pure food and drug legislation in the United States.”
Which has a reference to:
Carlson, Laurie Wynn. Cattle: An Informal Social History. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2001
These things have led me to believe there was (to a much smaller scale than Zinn dramatized) cases of weird things getting into the beef because of such a large order of beef, and that there definitely was a failure to “keep” the beef in general.
Why I think this is relevant today is that it follows a similar post-war commission, the 9/11 Commission which found no connection to the towers collapsing in demolition format and the fact that the planes colliding didn’t have the trajectory or power to cause such a collapse. Was the embalmed beef a similar disingenuous report that was used for protection during political campaigning?
This whole journey is not to prove Zinn “correct” or “telling the truth” (which is hard in History anyway), but merely to point out that what Zinn does talk about is interesting, scandalous, and relevant to the actions of our current government administrations.
Carlson, Laurie Wynn. Cattle: An Informal Social History. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2001
the 9/11 Commission which found no connection to the towers collapsing in demolition format and the fact that the planes colliding didn’t have the trajectory or power to cause such a collapse.
——–
Now you’ve lost all credibility.
Nobody ever claimed that it was the impact damage that caused the collapse. It was the impact damage, plus the softening of the iron structure do to the heat of the fires.
27. Kipling:
Response to Phranc @23: Fact, Phranc sure says alot to actually say nothing at all.
I have yet to read any of your posts that presented you or your position in a positive light. Instead of presenting a positive defense of your position you have attempted to attack and degrade others. Seems to me to be the performance of a three year old. How about in your next post you avoid personal attacks and present something positive?
—————————————————————-
I said plenty. I pointed out all the factually incorrect points made as being factually incorrect. Why would I need to present a positive defense for for pointing out that some one was not being factual? Or another was assuming much while being ignorant?
34. Dude:
Phranc,
Wow, where to start.
1. “There is no god.” This is not fact, this is belief. Scientific theory is based on the idea of falsification. You can’t falsify the theory that God exists, because you can’t prove that he doesn’t.
2. “You can’t prove god.”. You’re right, I can’t. But you can’t disprove him either, and that is also a fact.
3. “Fact is the only reason people believe in god is because they are conditioned to through out their lives. ”
How is this different from anything else man believes? We have no innate knowledge. We also believe that the sun is the center of the solar system. We believe this because we have been taught this. How would we know of God if no one taught it to us? That is completely non-sequiter.
4. “Fact is you head exploding question fizzled out when you lit the fuse.” Really poor ad-hominem
5. “God not existing is in the part of things I know. I don’t have to know everything to know god isn’t real.” Actually, you do. Because you don’t know everything, you can’t know if God is real or not. God not existing is what you believe, not what you know.
6. “Fact evolution isn’t all about chance. Fact you don’t understand evolution.” Scientists who spend their whole lives studying evolution can’t answer many questions about it. Nor does evolution, in whatever shapes and forms it takes, disprove that God exists.
7. “I don’t need your fake holy spirit or your fake gods.” Who is forcing one upon you? Many people turn their back on God. Some never opted to believe in him at all. Others believe in other gods. And many people do believe in God. That’s the way the world is and the way it shall be. I don’t understand the source of your anger towards those who do believe. The best part about having free will is that no one can force you to believe something you don’t want to. No one can make you believe in God so don’t be so angry at those who do, or who choose to share their belief in God. You are under no obligation to listen to, read, or follow what they say.
—————————————————————–
1. No it is a fact. I don’t believe there are no gods I know it. It comes from being intellectually honest. You can falsify good. It’s easy Since those who say there is a god can offer absolutely no prove the absence of proof shows it is false.
2. I can disprove gods. It comes when you say you can’t prove gods. It also comes from understanding the history of religions and the social evolution of humans. See if you go back far enough there is a point where there was no belief in gods. That means some one invented gods. Of course to the religious drones this wont make much sense since it was a time before their false god created things. A time earlier in our evolution.
3. The sun is the centre and we know this to be a fact because it has been observed and proven. That is different then believing in gods because gods are not seen, measured, or proven in any way at all. I understand why you don’t understand why that would be significant.
Innate knowledge = instinct so yes we do have it.
4. I didn’t attack you I attacked your argument. The argument was weak so weak it didn’t come close to exploding anything. Read up on what an ad-hom attack means because you got it wrong.
5. Um no I don’t have to know everything to know god isn’t real I only have that they aren’t real to know they aren’t real. Again I know gods are false. It’s really simple logic. Why you have such a hard time with that isn’t surprising. Believers in god often do. It’s a defense mechanism so they can continue to believe in the unbelievable.
6.Evolution proves the Abrahamic creation story is pure bunk and man was not created in gods image. It also proves many other points made by religions to be pure bunk. Scientists not being able to answer all the questions? They don’t have to. Unlike religion that claims to have all the answers science is honest enough to admit they don’t.
7. No one is forcing it on me. I never said they were. I was told to open up to it and simply stated I don’t need to open up to false gods. I’m not angry at people who believe I simply pity them. They fool them selves and their children into believing the unbelievable. There is a reason people need to be convinced into believing in gods. And there is a reason that it starts at a very young age.
You claim that you can disprove God, and that it is easy to do.
Please, be my guest. Present your proof.
51. Don Rodrigo:
Phranc, give it up dude. Instead of being an angry atheist, try being an agnostic like myself. It’s more mellow and smarter.
Us agnostics have no idea whether there’s a God or not, so we don’t waste energy trying to “prove” he doesn’t exist. What’s really creepy is not the Old Testament, but militant atheism and its antiseptic view of humanity, which is what you appear to espouse. Evolution isn’t supposed to be a “movement” from which you take your marching orders, but rather, it’s meant to be science, OK? The theory doesn’t “prove there is no God,” it just gives us a guide to what likely was the progression of life on this planet. As to those of religious bent who are railing against evolution and Phranc, you don’t get it either. You are conflating the science with the unfortunate fact that atheists and progressives have hijacked the theory for their own ends.
Freedom from religion means nobody can tell me I have to pray or belong to a church, it doesn’t mean I get to banish religion from the public square. There is nothing superior about atheism and the attendant ideologies that espouse it.
—————————————————————–
Who’s angry? And why would I want to be agnostic when I know there is no god? How is it smart to be dishonest with my self? And how is it more mellow when I’m not angry? I don’t take my marching orders from evolution so yeah it’s ok. I know evolution doesn’t prove there is no god. It does prove a big part of the bible to be full of crap though. The first part.
Atheism is Superior. It is the truth. The dishonesty of religion is not on the same level as atheism.
In reviewing my previous post, I want to clarify for the strong connection of the two commissions. Although I do see similarities, I do not think the effect of embalmed beef was the largest on disease and casualties in the Spanish American War, yet I do think it contributed significantly enough to cause food poisoning and susceptibility to other diseases. So I believe it was a contributing factor, not THE only contributing factor, to high amount of non-combat casualties in the War.
Douglas Adams, in an interview with the American Atheist Society, claimed the title of radical atheist. He explained that he did so mainly for emphasis, because most English agnostics were muddle headed and simply didn’t want to take a position. I understand that in the Church of England, agnostic bishops are referred to as “modernists,” because if they were to claim to be agnostics they would forfeit their clerical stipends.
However, Adams went on to say that he neither believed nor disbelieved that there was a God; he was “convinced” that there was no God, but that’s rather different. Belief leaves little room for discussion; being convinced leaves at least a bit more room. Some of us agnostics don’t feel a need for emphasis, and neither believe nor disbelieve. Unlike Adams, I can’t claim to be convinced either way. Perhaps that means that I am muddle headed, but I am convinced that I am not.
Reply to Lloyd @56: I commend you on your research and determination to understand the issue. Nonetheless, you are missing several key points because your point of departure for the inquiry begins with Zinn and he basically misstated all the facts. In essence, he pulled a switch on you and most of the readers of his work when it comes to the embalmed beef scandal.
Please note that Zinn provides no footnotes or other points of reference for the quotes or data that he provides. He does not want to be bogged down with facts and historical citations because they make his points easily refuted.
General Nelson Miles made the allegations about “embalmed beef” in front of the Dodge Commission. The allegations of chemically treated beef were made specifically in reference to the refrigerated beef not to the canned beef as Zinn alleges. As I stated before, neither the Dodge Commission nor the Army board found evidence that the frozen beef had been chemically treated with harmful perservatives as Miles alleged. Both the Dodge Commission and the Army board recogized the canned beef as a normal and even nutritious part of the ration but questioned the wisdom of issuing it to troops in the tropics who had no means of preparing it properly.
The issue is not whether the beef was good or bad but rather whether or not it had been chemically altered – “embalmed” – as Miles claimed. The process of canning meat was still in its infancy in 1898 and by modern standards no one would touch the stuff. However, by the standards of 1898 it was considered great if properly prepared. Zinn takes the “embalmed” allegations and then attempt to prove those claims by showing that the beef was bad. He does not demonstrate that the beef was chemically altered as Miles claimed and as the original scandal held. In fact, Zinn is not even talking about the same beef as Miles. He has engaged in intellectual fraud by committing a bait and switch and then lowering the bar to prove his point.
Miles produced no proof. The Dodge Commission and the Army board found no proof. The press, including the anti-administration Democratic Press, found no proof. Zinn offers no proof. And yet, Zinn makes the allegation and claims scandal. If Zinn is considered a legitimate historian, then there are no intellectual or factual standards anymore.
On a side note, I found it offense that you attacked Cosmas not on his work or upon his source material but due to his associations. First, the SMH is not a conservative military historical society. Its has members from across the political spectrum. Second, Cosmas has more footnotes and cited source material on those six pages I cited than Zinn does in his entire book. Zinn is a political hack posing as a historian in order to indoctrinate unsuspecting people. His work has no place being accepted as serious historical scholarship. It is a sad commentary on our educational system that it is given any credence at all.
Though this scribble affords a fascinating glimpse in to the Mind of the Wombscholar (Pat. Pend.), Dr. Bones, one could scarcely frame a neocurriculum from it.
And I wish you, sir,
Healthy days.
Hey, JHM, I stopped listening to your delusional drivel several days ago. Stop taking my name in vain. Quit playing with your Paxsil dosage. Go get a job.
>>’That’s the point people always make. “But they lack the socialization…”’
If there’s one thing I remember being said to students in high school twenty years ago, it’s, “You’re not here to socialize!”
I’m sure I’m not alone.
Phranc,
“1. No it is a fact. I don’t believe there are no gods I know it. It comes from being intellectually honest. You can falsify good. It’s easy Since those who say there is a god can offer absolutely no prove the absence of proof shows it is false.”
That still doesn’t make it a fact. It is only a fact that you believe that God doesn’t exist. It doesn’t mean that it is a fact that God doesn’t exist. Absence of proof is not proof of non-existence. Elementary logic should tell you that.
“2. I can disprove gods. It comes when you say you can’t prove gods. It also comes from understanding the history of religions and the social evolution of humans. See if you go back far enough there is a point where there was no belief in gods. That means some one invented gods. Of course to the religious drones this wont make much sense since it was a time before their false god created things. A time earlier in our evolution.”
argumentum ad ignorantiam.
“3. The sun is the centre and we know this to be a fact because it has been observed and proven. That is different then believing in gods because gods are not seen, measured, or proven in any way at all. I understand why you don’t understand why that would be significant.
Innate knowledge = instinct so yes we do have it.”
The point was not to equivocate belief in God and the sun being the center of the solar system. It is that 99.99% of all people never observe that the sun is the center of the solar system, they simply know it to be true because that’s what they’ve been taught. Accepting the existence of God is no different that most of the knowledge that we have that we have never observed directly. It’s based on teachings that have been handed down over generations.
Instinctual behaviors and totally limited to raw physical behaviors, not learned knowledge.
“4. I didn’t attack you I attacked your argument. The argument was weak so weak it didn’t come close to exploding anything. Read up on what an ad-hom attack means because you got it wrong.”
I know what an ad-hominem attack means. Informally, it is used to describe personal attacks, which is what you were doing. I wasn’t using it in terms of a rhetorical device. From a pure logic discussion, that usage would be incorrect, but in everyday usage, it is not.
“5. Um no I don’t have to know everything to know god isn’t real I only have that they aren’t real to know they aren’t real. Again I know gods are false. It’s really simple logic. Why you have such a hard time with that isn’t surprising. Believers in god often do. It’s a defense mechanism so they can continue to believe in the unbelievable.”
Circular logic, add it to the list of problems you have.
“6.Evolution proves the Abrahamic creation story is pure bunk and man was not created in gods image. It also proves many other points made by religions to be pure bunk. Scientists not being able to answer all the questions? They don’t have to. Unlike religion that claims to have all the answers science is honest enough to admit they don’t.”
Evolution proves nothing. Know one can know the mind of God. We don’t know the origins of man or how God intended things to work. Is the story of Genesis a literal story? I’m not saying that. I don’t pretend to know. I don’t know what religions you believe are claiming to have all the answers. Certainly none I’ve ever heard of. Science however, is no more honest than any other endeavor man is involved in. There are varying degrees of honesty practiced by scientists. To claim otherwise is utter insanity.
“7. No one is forcing it on me. I never said they were. I was told to open up to it and simply stated I don’t need to open up to false gods. I’m not angry at people who believe I simply pity them. They fool them selves and their children into believing the unbelievable. There is a reason people need to be convinced into believing in gods. And there is a reason that it starts at a very young age.”
Your angry reaction betrays your words. I don’t understand why you would pity someone who believed in God. I don’t pity those who don’t believe in God. That’s their choice and the consequences of not believing will be theirs.
Many people come to God later in life. It doesn’t require indoctrination from childhood.
Your choice is your own. I agree with the Don Rodrigo. Agnostics are more laid back. Atheists fequently come across as angry, and brother, you definitely come across as angry.
Comments on Dude and Phranc Discussion @66:
I will go a step further and completely stand by the Genesis account of creation. (Please note that there is no Abrahamic creation story.) Genesis 1-11 is essential to the Christian faith as it answers the higher story questions of life: Where do we come from? What is our purpose? What is marriage and children? Where does evil come from? Where will evil end? Where do the nations come from? How does mankind look with God and without God? Liberal / progressive Christians began to abandon the Genesis account shortly after Darwin published his thesis. They called the story allegorical but even Jesus and Paul considered it to be true. If Jesus was the Son of God, then He should know. But, alas, the liberals knew better and so abandoned the premise. They believed that science would soon prove evolution and thus disprove a literal read of Genesis. So far science has failed. They have discovered no missing link or even a case of evolution between species.
The theory of evolutioary progress is bogus. If it was true then the world would be getting progressively better as we evolved. Instead the 20th century was the bloodiest in world history and atheistic regimes – supposedly the most enlightened – slaughtered millions. I will stick with Genesis thank you. The Bible tells me all I need to know about human nature and the other higher story questions of life.
Personally, I do not believe in atheists. Atheists are simply people who do not like God and are not willing to acknowledge His control over their life so they convince themselves and other that He does not exist. Perhaps your angry replies to Dude and others come from that fact. Agnostics are simply intellectually or morally lazy and therefore do not make the call.
I challenge you Phranc to seriously study the Bible for a year – to delve below a mere cursury read – and let it open itself to you. I could show you passages from Mark and Daniel that are so deep and beautiful that it would make your head swim. If you are interestd, let me know.
Evolution says nothing about morality, just the ability to survive long enough to create offspring.
So your belief that the violence of the 20th century disproves evolution is founded on nothing rational.
I’ve met people who believe that there must have been an actual, physical prodigal son, and good Samaritan. I don’t. It was part of the Jewish educational tradition, to tell a story in order to emphasis the moral point the teacher was trying to get across.
In my opinion, Genesis is an extended parable. It tells us who create the universe, and in general terms it tells us why. Those are the only lessons you need to take from it. Other tales, such as Adam and Eve, Cain and Able, tell us about our relationship to God, and our relationship to each other. They don’t have to be literally true in order to be morally true.
First I have to note that some people have successfully allowed a left wing loon to take control of this thread that is supposed to be about home schooling vs. public school indoctrination, it is not a thread about evolution vs. Genesis. In essence some folks have allowed an argument to develop that has been set out there in order to distract from the original article, one that needs to greatly discussed. I suppose if nothing else it does prove the need to go beyond indoctrination, as it should be evident that rational thinking is not the province of a great many progressives.
Next, I have to address George Seymour. The only reason someone would feel that a parent is not capable of teaching even advanced subjects would be because you have no idea of the resources available to home school parents. I may not be an expert at say, physics, however it is more than likely I can find the resources available that can. I do home school my 14 year old son, and where I am located there is a central resource available, put together by home school parents, in which courses are taught for a small fee, that I may not feel competent in doing myself. This resource is about an hour drive from me, but if I am dedicated to home schooling that should not be too much of an issue, right? One can also find football teams, soccer, basketball, prom, drama groups putting on plays etc… through home school groups. I have two large groups within an hour of me, the one cited above, which also has a large group of band students that compete in marching competition as well as marching in various festivals around the state. The other group near me allows us to be involved in yearly Science fairs, Generation Joshua, which gets home school students involved in civics and politics, there is in fact a huge amount of things one can get involved in with people who are as dedicated as we are in providing an outstanding education AND social opportunities as we are. The biggest difference between what we are providing to our child and that of public school is that we are able to decide for ourselves who we will be associating with, and we determine what is the best way for our child to learn. If he’s ready for a harder subject we do it, if he needs more time on something we can do that as well.
Another outstanding resource is from a company called The Teaching Company, website teach12.com, this company has over 200 courses on DVD, taught by outstanding college professors (a couple high school teachers as well), I have found their math resources to be outstanding for my child. The resources are out there, one simply has to look for them.
My son is often complimented on his maturity and his manners. He is involved with the church youth group weekly, does Tae Kwan Do twice a week and is also learning classical guitar. At 14 he has started algebra, and is working out of all high school books for every subject he does. I do not push him in any way, he works at his own pace, if something catches his fancy then he gets books out of library on it or does further research on the computer, whatever he wishes. His time also spends less time daily on school work then the six hours he would at school, but still manages to learn more.
Last but not least, he is learning how to learn, instead of how to regurgitate information back. Education should be about learning, not about reciting facts. The resources to competently educate anyone are available, even free classes from top universities. All one has to do is be willing to find the resources. And if your too lazy to do that you shouldn’t be home schooling anyway.
In my area, homeschooled children are permitted to take classes at the local high school. They are also permitted to take part in extra-curricular activities. (Why shouldn’t they, I still pay my school taxes.)
I’m really trying to make sure this message hits as many ears as possible.
Do you want to take back our schools? Just about every state has an elected board of education. There are no requirements to the job outside of beating the incumbent.
Its time we started taking pages out of Marx’s play book, and show the left what happens when you rouse the dragon.
We can do this. Brown has proven we can make every race a national matter. We learn from Brown, and we exploit Marx’s own tactics against his disciples. We are of greater numbers, sound mind and courage. We can do this. The Presidency is meaningless against 100 school boards. Controlling the future will allow us victory. It starts today.
Trying to beat the unions candidate is tough. All the teacher’s and their families come out to vote for the union candidate. Getting the rest of the parents out to vote for such a low level position is very tough. Getting them educated enough not to vote for the union candidate as well, is even tougher.
I think education, like most things, is not one-size-fits-all. Every child and every parent is uniquely different and has specific needs. There are students who thrive in a school environment because they like or need the structure and learn better among peers. There are also students who do not function as successfully as a part of a group. A good learning environment, whether at home or in a school, will help students find comfort in both situations. The students I have taught that struggle with either situation, can almost always learn to adapt and find a way to complete their goal/assignment/task.
Deciding to homeschool a child is a noble and all-consuming undertaking. It allows parents to choose the content, teaching method, and structure of their child’s education. I do not disagree with homeschooling, there are parents in this country everyday who do an outstanding job at home with their children, but it must also be acknowledged that when educating a child at home there are aspects of a school education that are absent. In my experience, the social development of children that are home schooled can be delayed and there is increased anxiety with deadlines and rigid structure.
Though a traditional school environment is by no means perfect, it provides a baseline for parents to supplement. One of the greatest problems we have in our country today is a parent neglecting a child’s learning. I like to think it is not done on purpose, but with more single parent families and families with two working parents, the parent relies more heavily on the schools.
68. Grace O’Malley you are so right. First, as far as institutional learning, it has been known for decades that the students in the colleges of education in the universities had the lowest IQ scores. Secondly, the education courses that I and every other formal educator were forced to take are without any substance—they are simply ‘make-jobs’ for incompetents in the educational hierarchy. Many formal classroom teachers with advanced degrees have those degrees in education. As an experiment, next time you are in a conversation with an ‘educator’ ask them to tell you one thing that they learned in an education class that wouldn’t be obvious to any everyday person. They’ll be speechless. That all being said, the finest college instructor I ever had in statistics had a doctorate in education but I think he would have been just as great without it.
History? May I be allowed a word? The basic difference between conservatives and liberals is their characterization of the competence of people. The first thinks they function best unfettered and the second thinks that everything goes better with government oversight.
Our Constitution is not only the finest political document ever written but the most radical. Imagine for a second, the Eighteenth century, a universe of kings, where it was general knowledge that the common man was barely a step ahead of, nor could be trusted any further than the beasts of the field. All except royalty and their sycophants had to be awed by pomp, regulated, and the smallest facets of their lives measured out to them from on high.
A coming together of men in America assert however that this homely, artless rough-trade with dirty hands and faces could not only form a government but maintain one; that the ‘ignoble’ could act, in sum, nobly. Witnessing the French Revolution the operant word here is “could” not “would”. A revolution of trust wherein the extenders thereof did wager their very lives and fortunes! Virtually everything known to be true in the political universe of royalty was contradicted by the US Constitution: Loosing every form of accepted control of this fractious stratum of humanity, they could, nay, were encouraged to speak their minds, assemble peaceably at their own discretion, remain armed as they saw fit and so very much more as we well know.
As I’m sure a little thought on the subject will reveal the greatest revolution was in the freeing of ideas and freedom to assemble. Think and say freely to your fellows; incredible! Proof of this lays open in present day Europe where the populations are infantilized by the elite, wherein so many ideas and words are made “outlaws”. Of course as any thoughtful person knows, education and ideas are always found dangerous and subversive by establishments of one order or another.
Just how radical are these ideas? They still are not accepted by the political elite in Washington to this day other than with lip service!
69. Andrew, you’re right the schools are ours. Let’s get them back.
BlakelyO you are wrong. Home schooling is not all consuming. We have more time as a family then we ever did when our child was in school. I set out his assignments every week, we follow the requirements of our state in terms of curriculum, what books we choose to use to meet those requirements are our choice. He goes over his assignment, I then go over it with him to ensure he doesn’t have any questions, he then gets busy and usually is done with his work by noon, one o’clock. He has learned how to learn, he does not require someone to pour information into him.
The vast majority of home schooled children function the same way. Younger children require more but allow me to tell you that my husband has a cousin with 5 children, all are home schooled, and far advanced in comparison to their public school mates. Far more advanced. Someone we go to church with had their old daughter going to college at age 16, on line classes because of her age, and then later on campus. Her exit exams scored 100%, the first time that had occurred in the college she graduated from.
In fact, had I realized how doable this was, I would have home schooled my older children. Had I done so I am confident that I would not have had the issues we had when they were teens. Public school socialization leaves much to be desired.
This is a choice that is best depending on the family. Every parent is capable of teaching their children but not every parent is capable of teaching every subject. For my family it’s best to send our children to either public or private school in which we will play an active part and also teach our children at home additional subjects and make sure the are performing up to the level in which they are capable. In math and literacy my two sons are at least two years ahead of their time so I require them to perform up to their capability.
Funny how in Goodwill Hunting, Will gets to prescribe the reading list (Zinn, Zinn, Zinn), but never indicates what the good doctor has on his shelf. His library card and extensive reading does not make him any less of a thug.
Make that briefly indicates… Dangnabbit, got to watch it again.
NO schooling is always preferable to Stalinist indoctrination.
If you want to be like the “Jones” by all means abandon your kids to the public/private schools! If you want them to have to overcome the terrible “social” (drugs, early sex, perverts, et al); public/private is for you! Maybe “Cat’s in the Cradle” (Harry Chapin) is your goal; again public/private schools are perfect for you!
My wife and I decided to place our children in a small Chrisian school. We thought long and hard about the decision. In the end it came down to a contrast of worldviews. As Christians we have a certain set of beliefs and principles that we hold to in our lives. The public school teaches a contrary set of values that is increasinly becoming more hostile to the Christian faith. The public schools are not neutral on religion as they proclaim. Why would I want my children to be taught error and exposed to role models whose lives are not governed by the truth?
Got, et al.
Iin researching homeschooling resources, I ran across this group that provides awesome classical liberal arts.. the antidote to Zinn, Dewey, Mann, and Pranc.
http://www.classicalliberalarts.com/
“A [Socialist’s} People’s History of the United States.” There, that’s better.
And darling Akeelah, don’t fear the rich kids. Fear the homeschooled kids.
About myself a child can get proper education in a school.They can’t learn properly at home.They can know every rule in a school .
Could you repeat that?
In English this time.
Sounds like you got it backwards. I would have loved to have read A People’s History in school, but no way would that book have been allowed. Strictly made-for-school textbooks.
I used to think parents that homeschooled their kids were Christian nutjobs. But after doing more research into homeschooling and the problems with our public (and even private schools) I’ve had a change of heart. A lot of these homeschooled kids simply blow public educated kids away academically. Most of them finish highschool at around 15 and enter college years ahead of public educated children. And their test scores are off the charts. I also thought they’d lack basic social schools but most of them live quite normal lives. And for some shy kids public schools are literally like living hell for them since they’re constantly picked on (and the teachers often do absolutely nothing about it). It’s so bad for some of these kids they’re even driven to suicide. Homeschooling is probably best for those types of kids especially. The left just bitterly opposes homeschooling (and bans it in much of the Western world where the left has completely taken over their countries) because they use our schools as indoctrination camps for their radical Marxist agenda.
I grew up under a popular flight path of a somewhat nearby U.S. Air Force base and my 2nd grade teacher used to tell us that the fighter jets that flew overhead were nothing more than machines of death that killed people. I was scared them for years! And my 8th grade English teacher had us celebrate Columbus Day by making “Wanted” posters with $25,000 rewards for bringing Columbus to justice for committing crimes against humanity by enslaving and killing Native Americans. My 7th grade social studies teacher had us worshipping workers unions and my 10th grade history teacher suggested that the Jews should have been shipped to a Brazilian rain forest rather than be allowed to live in Israel and had us agreeing that we would have reacted the same way that the arab muslims did if the Jews stole our homes. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg…
Thankfully I have semi-loaded parents and grandparents who said they’d pay for my future kids to go to private schools so I can at least look for a school that isn’t completely dominated by these leftist nutjobs.
A number of colleges actively recruit homeschooled kids.
Oh, and lest we forget that public school kids are being forced to watch Al Gore’s environ-mental pseudo science “documentary” film about global warming hysteria. There’s also another far left documentary being shown in our public schools which is basically advocacy for Marxism called “The History of Stuff” or something like that. That is simply inexcusable and even arrogently shameless for the standards of the left. It’s like they’re daring us to stop them or trying to cram as much BS into our kids heads while they can before we moderate and conservative Americans prevent them from doing that in the future. They must be stopped!
I know what an ad-hominem attack means. Informally, it is used to describe personal attacks, which is what you were doing. I wasn’t using it in terms of a rhetorical device. From a pure logic discussion, that usage would be incorrect, but in everyday usage, it is not.
When I was in High School, it was well understood that the reason for American History education was that after the Korean War, repatriated prisoners of War fared best when that had a good foundation in AMERICAN HISTORY!