I want to know your ideas about why you think school was made please.I think it was made so parents have a little quiet time!.

quote:

Originally posted by Leenol:
I want to know your ideas about why you think school was made please.I think it was made so parents have a little quiet time!.

Yes, that is correct.

School was invented (by a mess of fishes) because it made economic sense to concentrate the chilluns and the taheechers in one well-known locus. Previously, only the wealthy could edumacate their chilluns with the use of paedogogical slaves.

School was made too make children's life hard.Also it was made to help you get on the right path in life.

School was created shortly after teachers were invented as it kept them off the streets.

Hi by the way, leenol. I haven't yet issued you with a welcome to the board, so, well... er... that was it .

Cat, feeling sick after having eaten 3/4 of a 500ml tub of Green & Blacks Dark Toffee ice cream.

You're all wrong. School was created so those of us who no longer go there, can tell those of you who still do, that your schooldays "are the happiest days of your life".

School was created because it's not much fun being an adult so we like to take the fun out of being a kid.

...I'm only hoping you've gotten enough education from school (or anywhere else) to recognize irony when you see it!

Whales and dolphins invented schools a long time before we did.

I did manage to find a little bit on the origins of public schools . . . and other things relating to them, on Wikipedia.

I am just curious. In the U.S. kids don't have to attend school. Parents can home-school children. Depending on the state, some states are fairly liberal as to the curriculum, while others are stricter and require testing.

Do they have home schooling in England? If so, is there a specific curriculum?

Yes we can home school.

If England were an American state it would be one of the most liberal with respect to homeschooling.

quote:

Originally posted by Leenol: I want to know your ideas about why you think school was made please.I think it was made so parents have a little quiet time!.

And vice versa. Honestly, would you want to spend every day, all day long, with your parents?

Actually shufitz...i wouldn't so good point.

Hello Lee

quote:

Actually shufitz...i wouldn't so good point.

That's why I could never understand why some kids want to be home-schooled. Here they are, home all day, learning with their parents! They don't have any friends around, even at breaks or lunch or after school! What a drag!

There's a very good Asimov short story entitled "The Fun They Had" about a time when all learning was by computer (Asimov called it a "mechanical teacher") at home . I won't spoil the story for you since you can read it here
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/SF/funtheyhad.html

The story was written in 1951 (when I was at school!) so don't denigrate the technology - the first electronic computer had only been invented about 8 years earlier).

By the way all you newer posters, if you've never read Isaac Asimov - do yourselves a favour and do start now.

quote:

That's why I could never understand why some kids want to be home-schooled. Here they are, home all day, learning with their parents! They don't have any friends around, even at breaks or lunch or after school! What a drag!

Homeschooled kids don't sit around the kitchen table doing workbooks. Our daughter, for example, is currently taking French and Italian at the local community college. Her Spanish is native-like. Twice a week she runs with the San Francisco Fire Fighters, she's on a local swim team and she takes fencing with the U.S. National coach. She has over 30 college credits. Like any other 13-year-old she would be on the phone with her friends all day if we let her. She doesn't seem terribly bored.

Homeschooling, like nearly everything, has a range of quality. I've seen many homeschool families in my tenure as a public librarian. Some families are like neveu's, with a wide range of interesting and stimulating activities for their kids, a quality, interest-driven curriculum, and well-educated parent/teachers. On the other end of the spectrum is the man I helped out around 12 years ago who was looking for a list of all the videos we owned "so's he could copy that for them school people ta git off'n his back." He could not even form a proper sentence and he expected to homeschool all 5 of his children.

There are families all along that spectrum. In this area there are several consortiums where families who homeschool get together to share science curriculum and labs, or provide special activities for their children in groups so they have those friendships and group contacts.

I've worked alongside young adults who have been homeschooled, and they generally have a great work ethic (having had to be self-motivated all those years probably doesn't hurt!) and are extremely intelligent.


I don't know if I have the temperament to homeschool my son, even if I have the education. There are specific reasons I did not become a teacher, afterall. He would also have some things to say about it! Even though he says he'd rather be home every day than school, he would miss the routine he's got now. However, when that tuition gets taken out of my account each month, I wonder if we'd be successful if we changed our lifestyle to include homeschooling!

Well, there I go again, rattling off at the mouth without knowing the facts. Sorry, neveu. Your daughter sounds like she is getting an excellent education. I noted that the runner-up in the recent Chicago spelling bee that I had posted about was a girl was was being home-schooled.

I do have a cousin though who is home-schooling their children. They aren't that bright themselves, and their kids are quite obviously not doing well. The seem quite socially backward especially. I suppose that's where I got my negative opinion, but I am also sure that they are an outlier family.

Again, I apologize, neveu, if I offended you. Thanks for the facts.

Actually, I think school is so that children have the chance for a more equal education. But I imagine the work force thing probably started the other direction. If all the children are bunched together under one adult, then the rest of the adults can keep working at other things.

quote:

school also provides an important social setting for the children

Yes - I can't think of a better environment for weeding out the deep and the sensitive and utterly destroying them.

I suppose prison comes a close second.

And the military, too, Cat.

Public education started in different places for different reasons. In the USA the first compulsory education laws were passed in response to the influx of Irish (later Italian and Eastern European) immigrants by the infamous Know-Nothing legislature in Massachusetts in the early 1850s. The population at that time was still largely Anglo-Saxon Protestant, and they feared that should the Irish (for example) continue to see themselves as Irish first and American second they would, when the demographics allowed it, vote to simply redistribute the money for themselves. That's why so much of American schooling has been about Good Citizenship, it's why school history books portray such an absurdly heroic version of American history, and it's why 77% of Americans say they are proud of their country. Whatever its other shortcomings, American education successfully accomplished what it was intended to do.

Do American schools still have the "pledge of alliegance" (or whatever it's called) where the children go through some form of affirmation of loyalty to the USA?

I don't currently have close contact with any public school but I assume they still recite the Pledge of Allegiance in "morning exercises."

A Mondegreen says, "I led the pigeons to the flag .. and to the republic for Richard Sands...."

During my own primary school years (1936 - 1942 - grades one through six) we did it every morning. At first, the accompanying hand gesture was Right Arm Extended Forward, open palm facing down. But in 1940 that was recognized as the same as the Nazi salute, so the right hand was placed over the heart, instead.

Originally, we said, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954 the words "under God" were inserted after "one nation."

This stirs up controversy about mixing Church and State. But the controversy is hard to understand since every piece of American money bears the motto "In God We Trust."

Interesting question, Richard. I was about to say that some public schools do and some don't, but clearly I don't know for certain. I do know that private schools don't say the Pledge of Allegiance, unless of course they want to. However, many private schools start out with a prayer. I will never forget my first meeting as a faculty member of a Jesuit University. We started out with quite a Catholic prayer, with Jesus Christ in it and all. I wondered what in heck this Jewish woman had gotten into! However, it seemed to be the dean at the time. She left, and the Catholicism part wasn't so pronounced.

One of the many variants on the Pledge written by Matt Groening (Simpsons creator) for the comic "Life in Hell". This one is the most mondegreenic.

I plead alignment to the flakes of the untitled snakes of a merry cow. And to the Republicans, for which they scam, one nacho, underpants, with licorice and jugs of wine for owls.

I plead alignment to the flakes of the untitled snakes of a merry cow. And to the Republicans, for which they scam, one nacho, underpants, with licorice and jugs of wine for owls.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the guffaw! I really needed it!

I found this one online:

I pledge a lesion to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the republic for Richard Stans, one naked individual, with liver tea and just this for all.

quote:

Originally posted by jerry thomas:
In 1954 the words "under God" were inserted after "one nation."

This stirs up controversy about mixing Church and State. But the controversy is hard to understand since every piece of American money bears the motto "In God We Trust."

The first motto of the USA was " E Pluribus Unum and first appeared on the half-eagle ($5 gold coin) in 1795. In 1861, Rev. M. R. Watkinson wrote a letter to Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase urging the inclusion of "GOD, LIBERTY, LAW" on United States coins. In response to this and other letters the motto "In God We Trust" was adopted by the Treasurer Chase and first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.

Apparently Rev. Watkinson's letter was the result of an organized campaign by 11 protestant denominations. In 1863 these denominations organized the National Reform Association (NRA) to push for an amendment to the Constitution to make it a more religious document. The Constitution was written as a secular document and " contains not a single reference to a deity or to divine inspiration." The NRA weren't content with this. They wanted the Constitution to " declare the nation's allegiance to Jesus Christ."

"In God We Trust" was declared an official motto of the United States in 1956 and first appeared on currency in 1957.

There has been and continues to be controversy about this. Though the push for and adoption of this motto was clearly religious, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Aronow v. United States - 1970) declared it to be secular: "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency, 'In God We Trust'--, has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise." BS.

The phrase "One Nation Under God" was similarly instigated. In 1951 (or 1953, by some accounts) during the McCarthy era and the Cold War the Knights of Columbus apparently proposed the addition to counter the threat from the "Godless Communists." In a sermon in 1954 Rev. George Docherty (a British citizen at the time; he became a U.S. citizen in 1960) proposed that God be mentioned in the Pledge of Allegiance. President Eisenhower was in the congregation, at Rev. Docherty's invitation. Eisenhower agreed with the suggestion and the words were subsequently added.

The original Pledge was written by a Baptist minister and Christian Scientist, Francis Bellamy (and first cousin to Edward Bellamy) . He was also chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association and was responsible for planning an 1892 Columbus Day celebration. His original pledge read as follows:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The "to" was not in the original but was added after the first ceremony.

He wanted to add the word "equality" to the pledge, but knew that members of his committee didn't believe in equality for women and blacks.

Note that the original pledge did not even refer to the United States. It simply referred to "My flag." In 1924 the National Flag Conference changed "My Flag," to "the Flag of the United States of "America" in 1924. Bellamy protested this change, to no avail.

One account I've read says that "one nation, indivisible" originally read "one nation indivisible," without a comma. That is the way I remember saying it when I was a kid.

Both the motto, "In God We Trust" and the phrase "one nation under God" were added as a result of religious campaigns and were not secular statements, despite what the courts say. I think both should be removed.

Tinman

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
Do American schools still have the "pledge of alliegance".

Yes, many of them do. Here in California the 'under God' part was the subject of a lawsuit that went to the U.S. Supreme Court, who decided to not decide it by deciding that the father who brought the suit didn't have standing to sue.
I don't know how common it is or how often they say it. I suspect that it is said every morning in many schools.

I'm glad to see people are answering to my subject.

Clearly this is one reason why Americans are so patriotic. I hesitate to call it propaganda but can think of no better word. We will all tend to believe the propaganda with which we are bombarded from babyhood. For eaxmple, we tend to grow up believing in the religion of our parents, regardless of what it is. It's not until we get older that we even think of questioning our beliefs - and many people do not, even then.

If Americans are bombarded with messages about the superiority of their country since babyhood then surely they will believe it. Which is why it comes as such a shock when they find out that not everyone else in the world shares that view.

One of the really interesting things about propaganda is how it gets believed regardless of how little truth there might be in it. One has only to look at the cynical way in which Governments, even so-called democratic ones, have, and do, use propaganda to further their own ends. Choose your own example of a stongly-stated Government belief - the more entrenched the better - and then investigate the facts (now easier to do than ever before in history). It is often a truly shocking revelation to find that one's deeply-held beliefs are nothing more than prejudiced propaganda.

Thank you, Tinman, for that wonderful history of the erosion of our secular democracy. I am an atheist. I was chilled to the bone when George Bush the First stated in response to a reporter's question about whether he would seek the support of atheists:

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English (emph. added):
Clearly this is one reason why Americans are so patriotic. .. propaganda ... bombarded with messages about the superiority of their country since babyhood then surely they will believe it. Which is why it comes as such a shock when they find out that not everyone else in the world shares that view.

Ah yes. Brits love their country because its achievements are (as Richard has repeatedly noted) superior, but US patriotism results solely from inculcation.

A rule of thumb: when someone claims something is 'clearly' or 'obviously' the case, it is typically neither clear nor obvious.

Let's not be divisive or derisive, shall we?

quote:

Clearly this is one reason why Americans are so patriotic. I hesitate to call it propaganda but can think of no better word.

It's indoctrination, pure and simple. I think Americans also tend to assume that everyone is equally indoctrinated by their own national educational system, and can't understand why others aren't as patriotic with respect to their own countries. Frequently they conclude 1) it's just a lack of character or 2) the other country is so obviously inferior that no amount of indoctrination would be effective.

But the statistics I posted (and I am happy to quote their source) show that the American love for their country is far greater than the British love for Britain. And please, take my comment in toto; selective quotation can alter any meaning.

And so far as "clearly" is concerned, I do not agree that it means anything more than "it seems obvious from the data quoted".

I could have written "...The above must be one reason why Americans are so patriotic..." Apart from being more wordy, would that have been more accurate, less divisive or even less derisive.

My point is simply that we all grow up to believe the things, propaganda or whatever, that we learn at our mothers' knees. We can't help it. If American babies are continuously being told that their country is the greatest in the world, then they will believe it - and many will not question that belief for years, if ever. It's much the same as religion; most believers stick with the religion they have learnt. A minority challenge their beliefs and some even change their religion - but that is the exception, not the rule.

Amd since all relgious belief are simply beliefs - there are few facts to support any of them - it can only be the "propaganda" that has done the job of creating the belief.

quote:

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

I'm not very hot on the US Constitution but I had always assumed it specifically permitted freedom of religion. And if it does, then it surely must permit freedom not to believe as well.

jo, your quotation of George H. W. Bush may be a fake. The supposed remark, which appears extensively on sites devoted to atheism, was allegedly was made at a press conferences at Chicago's O'Hare airport on August 27, 1987. But I can't find a single contemporaneous citation in the mainstream press.

The only "reporter" claiming thas statement is Rob Sherman, who says he attended that news conference as Midwest Bureau Chief of American Atheist Press. And he admits that not one other reporter reported anything of the sort. He claims a conspiracy of silence, stating, "The entire Chicago political press corps was there, along with members of the White House press corps and national news reporters, but no reporter thought that this anti-atheist bigotry was sufficiently newsworthy to do anything with it, other than me."

I do not find Sherman's quoted language the least bit credible. Which is more likely:

• Bush said it, but the entire press corp (other than Sherman) covered it up? or
• Bush didn't say it; Sherman made it up?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <wordnerd>,

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
But the statistics I posted (and I am happy to quote their source) show that the American love for their country is far greater than the British love for Britain.

Assuming that to be the case, it doesn't follow that we in the US are more subjected to, or more susceptible to, patriotic propaganda. It may be, for example, that you have a larger percentage of immigrants, who as children lived elsewhere and did not receive such propaganda. Or that your country has a more active counter-propaganda. Or that the news reports, focusing as they do on current events, are less effective in conveying the historical events in which Brits take such just pride. Or even (whisper the thought) that we have much to be proud of.

quote:

Or that the news reports, focusing as they do on current events, are less effective in conveying the historical events in which Brits take such just pride.

Do you mean US news reports?

And I have never suggested the Americans have nothing to be proud of. Yours is a wonderful country. It has much to be proud of. But it's not a perfect country and has much to be ashamed of too. My own feeling is that the balance of belief is wrong.

quote:

It may be, for example, that you have a larger percentage of immigrants, who as children lived elsewhere and did not receive such propaganda. Or that your country has a more active counter-propaganda. Or that the news reports, focusing as they do on current events, are less effective in conveying the historical events in which Brits take such just pride.

It may also be that America is a country of immigrants who endured great hardship to come to this country and are immensely grateful for the life they've had here. Try dissing America in front of my friend's Filipina mother-in-law and you're in for a three-hour lecture on the Japanese occupation and the joys of washing clothes by beating them on a rock.

Since I have a trusted friend who was there and heard the entire exchange... I know what I believe.

Also, Mr. Bush's son, our current President, has commented on several occasions that Wiccans, who are recognized as a religion by the World Council of Churches, are not a "true" religion and should be banned from the military and prison chaplaincies.

Your mileage my differ, but from where I sit the Bushes and their cohorts are no friends of my lack or religion or the religion of my friends.

quote:

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sheesh, I leave for a couple of days and look what happens. Our word board has gone political!

As you know, I am politically liberal; I have made that point time and time again. Still, George Bush, Sr., I respect. He is different, in my opinion, from his son. I don't believe he said that, and just saying, "a friend heard it" doesn't do it for me. I am going to see if the reporters at the Chicago Tribune still have a recording of that interview. I also intend to write to ex-President Bush and ask him. While I would trust what he says because I trust him, I can certainly understand that others wouldn't; it would be similar to saying, "I had a friend there who heard it." Therefore, the tape recording is the best solution.

I just read the Environment thread too, which is similar in tone to this one. I don't think Americans are different from others in their love for their country. It's more semantics than anything. I have seen a strong patriotism here from the Brits; it just isn't as overt as American patriotism.

Now, back to words!

quote:

I also intend to write to ex-President Bush and ask him.

Not politics, but words. Kalleh, I am delighted to see that you have been associating with we UK English speakers long enough for you to write:"...I intend to write to Ex-President..."

In the past you'd have written. "...I intend to write Ex-President..."

And, incidentally, the item about US versus other's patriotism is not a matter of opinion. The statistics are there and they don't lie. The top ten nations are ranked as follows on the question "are you very proud of your nationality":

1. United States 77%
2. Ireland 77%
3. Australia 70%
4. Canada 60%
5. Austria 53%
6. United Kingdom 53%
7. Norway 48%
8. Finland 44%
9. Sweden 43%
10. Denmark 42%

The Weighted Average is 51.37 %

The same organisation also asked which people are NOT proud of their nationality and the top 17 responses were:
1. Japan 36%
2. Germany 34%
3. Netherlands 23%
4. Switzerland 20%
5. Belgium 18%
6. Norway 14%
7. Finland 13%
8. France 13%
9. Sweden 13%
10. Denmark 13%
11. Italy 12%
12. United Kingdom 11%
13. Austria 7%
14. Canada 6%
15. Australia 3%
16. United States 2%
17. Ireland 2%

The Weighted Average here is 14.3%

This proves, to my satisfaction, that the Americans and the Irish are far more patriotic than any other country. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing I do not want to judge - but it is a fact. On both counts Americans and Irish are very much more patriotic than the average. The UK is just slightly more patriotic than average, and the Scandinavian countries are about average.

(Source: World Values Survey)

I am delighted to see that you have been associating with we UK English speakers long enough for you to write

... us ...

Write, like give, is a ditransitive verb. One can say or write, perfectly grammatically:

(1) I wrote a letter to Mr Lear.

(2) I wrote Mr Lear a letter.

(3) I gave a book to Mrs Quickly.

(4) I gave Mrs Quickly a book.

H-bomb

It was an A-bomb. H-bombs came latter. It has also suggested that the bombings in Japan were more for the benefit of showing our then allies the Soviets that we had working atomic weapons.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jheem,

Let's look at our letter writing from a psycholinguist's point of view.

"I will write Mr. Jones a letter" vs. "I will write a letter to Mr. Jones". The first sentence seems to imply a more direction connection between the writer and Mr. Jones, whereas the phrase "to Mr. Jones" establishes some psychological distance between the writer and his intended recipient. This psychological distancing by syntax however does not appear to be a measure of the actual social relationship between the two.

Studies of formal vs. informal speech acts, both written and oral, show that this distancing by use of the prepositional phrase increases measurably as the perceived formality of the act increases. Note that it is the "act" which is formal, not the perceived relationship between actor and recipient. Thus, while I have no relationship at all with Mr. Bush, if I make a very formal speech act I might write, "I will compose a letter to Mr. Bush" whereas if I am being informal I might write or say, "I'll send Mr. Bush a letter."