Why is MCPS radicalizing our children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can you give evidence of one public university being dismantled by a governor. (Hint, reducing funding is not dismantling. Hee hee.)

Take a look at Wisconsin and Arizona.

Dismantling??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can you give evidence of one public university being dismantled by a governor. (Hint, reducing funding is not dismantling. Hee hee.)

Take a look at Wisconsin and Arizona.

Dismantling??

Yes. Successfully dismantled? Not yet. But not for lack of trying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can you give evidence of one public university being dismantled by a governor. (Hint, reducing funding is not dismantling. Hee hee.)

And yes, if they reduce funding enough, that actually is dismantling.

Even if all funding is cut off, Univerities could survive, private institutions do (not sayin it would be easy). But if you really think there is a sinister plot by governors to destroy their own universities, I can’t really have a rational discussion with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's clear the poster is an avid consumer of fake news since all the best school systems skew liberal. They don't call it conservative arts for a reason.

Drifting off topic here but liberal arts refers to a classical liberal education, exactly the thing political conservatives are trying to preserve in our schools.

Really? It seems to me that there have been a lot of efforts lately, from people who call themselves political conservatives, to get rid of the liberal-arts departments at public universities -- English, foreign languages, and so on. The idea being that if it doesn't provide a specific technical training for a job where you can earn money right away, it's a waste of time and money. Maybe these people aren't actually political conservatives, though.

The concern is many ‘liberal arts departments’ no longer teach liberals arts. Safe spaces, trigger warnings, blaterhing nonsense about white privileged and patriarchy. Censorship of conservative speakers. Condoning of violence. Voltaire would be disgusted what these Liberal Arts departments have become. Classical liberals are speaking out against these departments, people like Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, Jonathon Haidt, not exactly right wingers. It’s reasonable to advocate the dismantling of such anti-education departments. I do agree with you however that college is about building minds, not employees. Somehow we turned inivierotes into employee factories. Vocational school are a much better option for this. Universities need to provide education to develop minds, teach how to critically analyze, pursue truth, and be responsible civic minded, in the classical tradition, citizens.

Hee hee.

But indeed, as you say, universities need departments of history, literature, foreign languages, and so on. Let's tell the governors who are trying to dismantle the public universities in their states.

Can you give evidence of one public university being dismantled by a governor. (Hint, reducing funding is not dismantling. Hee hee.)

Reducing funding is not dismantling, but does qualify as "trying to dismantle".

So then by that reasoning, School systems that reduce funding or have actually cut gym, music, and art classes from their curriculum, they are dismantling their schools??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can you give evidence of one public university being dismantled by a governor. (Hint, reducing funding is not dismantling. Hee hee.)

And yes, if they reduce funding enough, that actually is dismantling.

Even if all funding is cut off, Univerities could survive, private institutions do (not sayin it would be easy). But if you really think there is a sinister plot by governors to destroy their own universities, I can’t really have a rational discussion with you.

It's not a sinister plot, at all. It's an openly stated goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can you give evidence of one public university being dismantled by a governor. (Hint, reducing funding is not dismantling. Hee hee.)

And yes, if they reduce funding enough, that actually is dismantling.

Even if all funding is cut off, Univerities could survive, private institutions do (not sayin it would be easy). But if you really think there is a sinister plot by governors to destroy their own universities, I can’t really have a rational discussion with you.

Public universities as we know them cannot survive without public funding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great question, let me refer you back to my statement, ‘marching soldier’. What weapon did the average redcoat have. A musket, this was a weapon that could be carried by a single soldier, it’s also a weapon that a citizen of reasonless means could afford and use. The Foubders didn’t think each citizen had the right to bare a common. Nor a dreadnought. They were too expensive, to complex, and too unwieldy for the individual citizen to utilize. Rifles remain affordable, usable, and potable. Tanks, F-16s, and nukes are not. Japan didn’t invade the USA in 1941 because they feared the US Navy and Army, they feared the fact that every citizen was armed (a wrong assumption on their part but they held it nevertheless) and occupying such a country would be impossible. An armed nation can lose in war but an armed citizenry can never be ruled tyrannically unless absolute total war is engaged upon them but then what’s the point. If one totally eradicates a population, not much left to govern. Thus perfectly logical, reasonable (and I think acceptable) the citizenry be armed with rifles and not cannons (or nukes). This is why we have the 2nd Amendment, this is what children need to be taught in school. Not that ‘those dumb racist rednecks want to kill you. This is the subtext to these marches and that is why I oppose them. Obviously you are entitled to your opinion and to disagree but at least you know where I’m coming from. Wouldn’t it be better for the children if they had such a debate in school? And frankly, why aren’t they??

The bolded part is BS, "no reputable historian takes it seriously": https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/150227
So, why would we teach our children BS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great question, let me refer you back to my statement, ‘marching soldier’. What weapon did the average redcoat have. A musket, this was a weapon that could be carried by a single soldier, it’s also a weapon that a citizen of reasonless means could afford and use. The Foubders didn’t think each citizen had the right to bare a common. Nor a dreadnought. They were too expensive, to complex, and too unwieldy for the individual citizen to utilize. Rifles remain affordable, usable, and potable. Tanks, F-16s, and nukes are not. Japan didn’t invade the USA in 1941 because they feared the US Navy and Army, they feared the fact that every citizen was armed (a wrong assumption on their part but they held it nevertheless) and occupying such a country would be impossible. An armed nation can lose in war but an armed citizenry can never be ruled tyrannically unless absolute total war is engaged upon them but then what’s the point. If one totally eradicates a population, not much left to govern. Thus perfectly logical, reasonable (and I think acceptable) the citizenry be armed with rifles and not cannons (or nukes). This is why we have the 2nd Amendment, this is what children need to be taught in school. Not that ‘those dumb racist rednecks want to kill you. This is the subtext to these marches and that is why I oppose them. Obviously you are entitled to your opinion and to disagree but at least you know where I’m coming from. Wouldn’t it be better for the children if they had such a debate in school? And frankly, why aren’t they??

The bolded part is BS, "no reputable historian takes it seriously": https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/150227
So, why would we teach our children BS?

There was a great dialogue a few years ago in the Naval War College Review, it was a brilliant back and forth by two Naval Historians on modern day interpretations of the events surrounding Pearl Harbor and the Battle of Midway. These two did not hold their punches as they went after each other. What a neutral reader picks up on is a lot of historical interpretations about those battles was based on post war survivor interviews. One CDR Genda particularly comes to mind as he was very influential with historians. However as living survivor with a future still ahead of him, its possible (likely) his interviews contained bias (conscious and subconscious). Over the years his interview statements regarding what others had said have been taken as verbatim statements by those others. This is not a new phenomena, it goes back to Thucydides were some say he was the first true historian and others say he was no historian at all due to his recreations of dialogues based on what was likely to be said. He was not a witness to many events but pieced together his interpretation of what was likely to have been said based on his knowledge (he was a veteran of the Peloponnesian war) and from others who witnessed specific events). I'd argue Thucydides gave us some of the best history ever written.

What's my point? I believe you are correct. In my opinion, just like there is no evidence Admiral Yamamoto said "I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve". There is no written record of him stating "America cannot be invaded for a rifle hides behind every blade of grass "

However, I'd be reticent declaring a discussion of such must be denied our children in school. Here is why, Yamamoto served as a Naval attaché to the USA, he vigorously toured the USA, he knew the USA and her people intimately. As such he was not a proponent of going to war with the USA, his thoughts and theirs were well known in Japanese military strategic planning circles where he was at times in and out of influential favor). So while he did not write these statements (as far as we know), they likely accurately capture his sentiments.

This is the joy of history. These are things that must be taught in school. Its part of the process of providing issues, context, facts, analysis, interpretations to students. Teaching them how to find such n their own as a life long endeavor. And developing skill sets to interpret and decide on their own. Much better than lazily relying on 3rd party 'fact checkers'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great question, let me refer you back to my statement, ‘marching soldier’. What weapon did the average redcoat have. A musket, this was a weapon that could be carried by a single soldier, it’s also a weapon that a citizen of reasonless means could afford and use. The Foubders didn’t think each citizen had the right to bare a common. Nor a dreadnought. They were too expensive, to complex, and too unwieldy for the individual citizen to utilize. Rifles remain affordable, usable, and potable. Tanks, F-16s, and nukes are not. Japan didn’t invade the USA in 1941 because they feared the US Navy and Army, they feared the fact that every citizen was armed (a wrong assumption on their part but they held it nevertheless) and occupying such a country would be impossible. An armed nation can lose in war but an armed citizenry can never be ruled tyrannically unless absolute total war is engaged upon them but then what’s the point. If one totally eradicates a population, not much left to govern. Thus perfectly logical, reasonable (and I think acceptable) the citizenry be armed with rifles and not cannons (or nukes). This is why we have the 2nd Amendment, this is what children need to be taught in school. Not that ‘those dumb racist rednecks want to kill you. This is the subtext to these marches and that is why I oppose them. Obviously you are entitled to your opinion and to disagree but at least you know where I’m coming from. Wouldn’t it be better for the children if they had such a debate in school? And frankly, why aren’t they??

The bolded part is BS, "no reputable historian takes it seriously": https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/150227
So, why would we teach our children BS?

There was a great dialogue a few years ago in the Naval War College Review, it was a brilliant back and forth by two Naval Historians on modern day interpretations of the events surrounding Pearl Harbor and the Battle of Midway. These two did not hold their punches as they went after each other. What a neutral reader picks up on is a lot of historical interpretations about those battles was based on post war survivor interviews. One CDR Genda particularly comes to mind as he was very influential with historians. However as living survivor with a future still ahead of him, its possible (likely) his interviews contained bias (conscious and subconscious). Over the years his interview statements regarding what others had said have been taken as verbatim statements by those others. This is not a new phenomena, it goes back to Thucydides were some say he was the first true historian and others say he was no historian at all due to his recreations of dialogues based on what was likely to be said. He was not a witness to many events but pieced together his interpretation of what was likely to have been said based on his knowledge (he was a veteran of the Peloponnesian war) and from others who witnessed specific events). I'd argue Thucydides gave us some of the best history ever written.

What's my point? I believe you are correct. In my opinion, just like there is no evidence Admiral Yamamoto said "I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve". There is no written record of him stating "America cannot be invaded for a rifle hides behind every blade of grass "

However, I'd be reticent declaring a discussion of such must be denied our children in school. Here is why, Yamamoto served as a Naval attaché to the USA, he vigorously toured the USA, he knew the USA and her people intimately. As such he was not a proponent of going to war with the USA, his thoughts and theirs were well known in Japanese military strategic planning circles where he was at times in and out of influential favor). So while he did not write these statements (as far as we know), they likely accurately capture his sentiments.

This is the joy of history. These are things that must be taught in school. Its part of the process of providing issues, context, facts, analysis, interpretations to students. Teaching them how to find such n their own as a life long endeavor. And developing skill sets to interpret and decide on their own. Much better than lazily relying on 3rd party 'fact checkers'.

I know that people with a gun fetish love the story about Japan being afraid to invade US because citizens had guns and they would like that to be taught in schools. If the students can make up their own minds and figure out what's BS and what's not, why not teach them about talking snakes, splitting waters, the angry white bearded man, huge arks and floods?

[Anonymous]

Sometimes there are no two sides to an argument, there is a rational side and a make-believe side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I know that people with a gun fetish love the story about Japan being afraid to invade US because citizens had guns and they would like that to be taught in schools. If the students can make up their own minds and figure out what's BS and what's not, why not teach them about talking snakes, splitting waters, the angry white bearded man, huge arks and floods?

Yes, the "there's really no such thing as facts, we all have to make up our own minds about reality" viewpoint is something I associate far more with postmodernism than with Voltaire. But maybe there are two PPs on this thread who consider themselves politically-conservative classical liberals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There was a great dialogue a few years ago in the Naval War College Review, it was a brilliant back and forth by two Naval Historians on modern day interpretations of the events surrounding Pearl Harbor and the Battle of Midway. These two did not hold their punches as they went after each other. What a neutral reader picks up on is a lot of historical interpretations about those battles was based on post war survivor interviews. One CDR Genda particularly comes to mind as he was very influential with historians. However as living survivor with a future still ahead of him, its possible (likely) his interviews contained bias (conscious and subconscious). Over the years his interview statements regarding what others had said have been taken as verbatim statements by those others. This is not a new phenomena, it goes back to Thucydides were some say he was the first true historian and others say he was no historian at all due to his recreations of dialogues based on what was likely to be said. He was not a witness to many events but pieced together his interpretation of what was likely to have been said based on his knowledge (he was a veteran of the Peloponnesian war) and from others who witnessed specific events). I'd argue Thucydides gave us some of the best history ever written.

What's my point? I believe you are correct. In my opinion, just like there is no evidence Admiral Yamamoto said "I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve". There is no written record of him stating "America cannot be invaded for a rifle hides behind every blade of grass "

However, I'd be reticent declaring a discussion of such must be denied our children in school. Here is why, Yamamoto served as a Naval attaché to the USA, he vigorously toured the USA, he knew the USA and her people intimately. As such he was not a proponent of going to war with the USA, his thoughts and theirs were well known in Japanese military strategic planning circles where he was at times in and out of influential favor). So while he did not write these statements (as far as we know), they likely accurately capture his sentiments.

This is the joy of history. These are things that must be taught in school. Its part of the process of providing issues, context, facts, analysis, interpretations to students. Teaching them how to find such n their own as a life long endeavor. And developing skill sets to interpret and decide on their own. Much better than lazily relying on 3rd party 'fact checkers'.

You like to misquote people: https://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There was a great dialogue a few years ago in the Naval War College Review, it was a brilliant back and forth by two Naval Historians on modern day interpretations of the events surrounding Pearl Harbor and the Battle of Midway. These two did not hold their punches as they went after each other. What a neutral reader picks up on is a lot of historical interpretations about those battles was based on post war survivor interviews. One CDR Genda particularly comes to mind as he was very influential with historians. However as living survivor with a future still ahead of him, its possible (likely) his interviews contained bias (conscious and subconscious). Over the years his interview statements regarding what others had said have been taken as verbatim statements by those others. This is not a new phenomena, it goes back to Thucydides were some say he was the first true historian and others say he was no historian at all due to his recreations of dialogues based on what was likely to be said. He was not a witness to many events but pieced together his interpretation of what was likely to have been said based on his knowledge (he was a veteran of the Peloponnesian war) and from others who witnessed specific events). I'd argue Thucydides gave us some of the best history ever written.

What's my point? I believe you are correct. In my opinion, just like there is no evidence Admiral Yamamoto said "I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve". There is no written record of him stating "America cannot be invaded for a rifle hides behind every blade of grass "

However, I'd be reticent declaring a discussion of such must be denied our children in school. Here is why, Yamamoto served as a Naval attaché to the USA, he vigorously toured the USA, he knew the USA and her people intimately. As such he was not a proponent of going to war with the USA, his thoughts and theirs were well known in Japanese military strategic planning circles where he was at times in and out of influential favor). So while he did not write these statements (as far as we know), they likely accurately capture his sentiments.

This is the joy of history. These are things that must be taught in school. Its part of the process of providing issues, context, facts, analysis, interpretations to students. Teaching them how to find such n their own as a life long endeavor. And developing skill sets to interpret and decide on their own. Much better than lazily relying on 3rd party 'fact checkers'.

So just because Yamamoto was not a proponent of going to war with the USA, you feel that it is ok to put words into his mouth, teach the students those quotes so they can make up their mind?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a great dialogue a few years ago in the Naval War College Review, it was a brilliant back and forth by two Naval Historians on modern day interpretations of the events surrounding Pearl Harbor and the Battle of Midway. These two did not hold their punches as they went after each other. What a neutral reader picks up on is a lot of historical interpretations about those battles was based on post war survivor interviews. One CDR Genda particularly comes to mind as he was very influential with historians. However as living survivor with a future still ahead of him, its possible (likely) his interviews contained bias (conscious and subconscious). Over the years his interview statements regarding what others had said have been taken as verbatim statements by those others. This is not a new phenomena, it goes back to Thucydides were some say he was the first true historian and others say he was no historian at all due to his recreations of dialogues based on what was likely to be said. He was not a witness to many events but pieced together his interpretation of what was likely to have been said based on his knowledge (he was a veteran of the Peloponnesian war) and from others who witnessed specific events). I'd argue Thucydides gave us some of the best history ever written.

What's my point? I believe you are correct. In my opinion, just like there is no evidence Admiral Yamamoto said "I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve". There is no written record of him stating "America cannot be invaded for a rifle hides behind every blade of grass "

However, I'd be reticent declaring a discussion of such must be denied our children in school. Here is why, Yamamoto served as a Naval attaché to the USA, he vigorously toured the USA, he knew the USA and her people intimately. As such he was not a proponent of going to war with the USA, his thoughts and theirs were well known in Japanese military strategic planning circles where he was at times in and out of influential favor). So while he did not write these statements (as far as we know), they likely accurately capture his sentiments.

This is the joy of history. These are things that must be taught in school. Its part of the process of providing issues, context, facts, analysis, interpretations to students. Teaching them how to find such n their own as a life long endeavor. And developing skill sets to interpret and decide on their own. Much better than lazily relying on 3rd party 'fact checkers'.

You like to misquote people: https://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/

Are you accusing someone of misquoting a misquote that the misquoting person says was never said??

By the way... who's on first??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a great dialogue a few years ago in the Naval War College Review, it was a brilliant back and forth by two Naval Historians on modern day interpretations of the events surrounding Pearl Harbor and the Battle of Midway. These two did not hold their punches as they went after each other. What a neutral reader picks up on is a lot of historical interpretations about those battles was based on post war survivor interviews. One CDR Genda particularly comes to mind as he was very influential with historians. However as living survivor with a future still ahead of him, its possible (likely) his interviews contained bias (conscious and subconscious). Over the years his interview statements regarding what others had said have been taken as verbatim statements by those others. This is not a new phenomena, it goes back to Thucydides were some say he was the first true historian and others say he was no historian at all due to his recreations of dialogues based on what was likely to be said. He was not a witness to many events but pieced together his interpretation of what was likely to have been said based on his knowledge (he was a veteran of the Peloponnesian war) and from others who witnessed specific events). I'd argue Thucydides gave us some of the best history ever written.

What's my point? I believe you are correct. In my opinion, just like there is no evidence Admiral Yamamoto said "I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve". There is no written record of him stating "America cannot be invaded for a rifle hides behind every blade of grass "

However, I'd be reticent declaring a discussion of such must be denied our children in school. Here is why, Yamamoto served as a Naval attaché to the USA, he vigorously toured the USA, he knew the USA and her people intimately. As such he was not a proponent of going to war with the USA, his thoughts and theirs were well known in Japanese military strategic planning circles where he was at times in and out of influential favor). So while he did not write these statements (as far as we know), they likely accurately capture his sentiments.

This is the joy of history. These are things that must be taught in school. Its part of the process of providing issues, context, facts, analysis, interpretations to students. Teaching them how to find such n their own as a life long endeavor. And developing skill sets to interpret and decide on their own. Much better than lazily relying on 3rd party 'fact checkers'.

You like to misquote people: https://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/

Are you accusing someone of misquoting a misquote that the misquoting person says was never said??

By the way... who's on first??

S/he was misquoting to say that even though there is no proof, most likely the misquote captures Yamamoto's sentiments. In other words, read this misquote, know that it was never said, but make sure you remember that it is exactly how Yamamoto was thinking.