Why is MCPS radicalizing our children?

[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'.

NP. The "3rd party 'fact checker'" in the link above is Jonathan Dresner, associate professor of Japanese history at Pittsburg State University. So, yeah, I would definitely trust someone with a Ph.D. in Japanese history to offer a reputable analysis. I love an autodidact, and as a historian I believe in the power of returning to the original document, sadly that art is being perverted by self-taught conspiracy theorists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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'.

NP. The "3rd party 'fact checker'" in the link above is Jonathan Dresner, associate professor of Japanese history at Pittsburg State University. So, yeah, I would definitely trust someone with a Ph.D. in Japanese history to offer a reputable analysis. I love an autodidact, and as a historian I believe in the power of returning to the original document, sadly that art is being perverted by self-taught conspiracy theorists.

You mean that the Anonymous poster ignorance is not just as good as Dresner's knowledge? You are a radical who doesn't let children make up their own minds about stuff. This is how MCPS is radicalizing our children, to quote the excellent thread title that we are debating on.

[Anonymous]

I love that my child is participating in the MCPS protest. I 100% support it and think it's a great way to learn civics and how to stand up for his rights (like not getting shot in school). And he'll be of voting age in a few months - excellent way for him to get started on the importance of voting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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'.

NP. The "3rd party 'fact checker'" in the link above is Jonathan Dresner, associate professor of Japanese history at Pittsburg State University. So, yeah, I would definitely trust someone with a Ph.D. in Japanese history to offer a reputable analysis. I love an autodidact, and as a historian I believe in the power of returning to the original document, sadly that art is being perverted by self-taught conspiracy theorists.

LOL. You are so lathered up you are attacking someone who agrees with you.
Well done. In the name of teaching history you declare only facts matter. Context, analysis, and theory must be cast aside.
Well done indeed, you have just armed (pun not intended) gunner side with all they need. Just the facts.
In 2013 the prestigious Institute of Medicine estimated between 108,00 and 3 million people per year protected themselves with guns. While approximately 34,000/year were killed by gun violence. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence
It’s a fact. By your own declarations nothing else matters. How can you possibly argue we need less guns? Gun ownership saves lives. If it saves one life…
You are your own worst enemy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL. You are so lathered up you are attacking someone who agrees with you.
Well done. In the name of teaching history you declare only facts matter. Context, analysis, and theory must be cast aside.
Well done indeed, you have just armed (pun not intended) gunner side with all they need. Just the facts.
In 2013 the prestigious Institute of Medicine estimated between 108,00 and 3 million people per year protected themselves with guns. While approximately 34,000/year were killed by gun violence. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence
It’s a fact. By your own declarations nothing else matters. How can you possibly argue we need less guns? Gun ownership saves lives. If it saves one life…
You are your own worst enemy.

Did you buy the paperback or the Ebook? And what does 108,00 mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL. You are so lathered up you are attacking someone who agrees with you.
Well done. In the name of teaching history you declare only facts matter. Context, analysis, and theory must be cast aside.
Well done indeed, you have just armed (pun not intended) gunner side with all they need. Just the facts.
In 2013 the prestigious Institute of Medicine estimated between 108,00 and 3 million people per year protected themselves with guns. While approximately 34,000/year were killed by gun violence. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence
It’s a fact. By your own declarations nothing else matters. How can you possibly argue we need less guns? Gun ownership saves lives. If it saves one life…
You are your own worst enemy.

Making up quotes and claiming that "they likely accurately capture his sentiments" does not provide context, analysis, nor theory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

LOL. You are so lathered up you are attacking someone who agrees with you.
Well done. In the name of teaching history you declare only facts matter. Context, analysis, and theory must be cast aside.
Well done indeed, you have just armed (pun not intended) gunner side with all they need. Just the facts.
In 2013 the prestigious Institute of Medicine estimated between 108,00 and 3 million people per year protected themselves with guns. While approximately 34,000/year were killed by gun violence. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence
It’s a fact. By your own declarations nothing else matters. How can you possibly argue we need less guns? Gun ownership saves lives. If it saves one life…
You are your own worst enemy.

This is what the report actually says:

Estimates of gun use for self-defense vary widely, in part due to definitional
differences for self-defensive gun use; different data sources;
and questions about accuracy of data, particularly when self-reported.
The NCVS has estimated 60,000 to 120,000 defensive uses of guns per
year. On the basis of data from 1992 and 1994, the NCVS found 116,000
incidents (McDowall et al., 1998). Another body of research estimated
annual gun use for self-defense to be much higher, up to 2.5 million incidents,
suggesting that self-defense can be an important crime deterrent
(Kleck and Gertz, 1995). Some studies on the association between selfdefensive
gun use and injury or loss to the victim have found less loss
and injury when a firearm is used (Kleck, 2001b).

You should read the whole report. Really. It's what a good historian would do -- the whole document, not just the numbers they heard somebody else cite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. You are so lathered up you are attacking someone who agrees with you.
Well done. In the name of teaching history you declare only facts matter. Context, analysis, and theory must be cast aside.
Well done indeed, you have just armed (pun not intended) gunner side with all they need. Just the facts.
In 2013 the prestigious Institute of Medicine estimated between 108,00 and 3 million people per year protected themselves with guns. While approximately 34,000/year were killed by gun violence. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence
It’s a fact. By your own declarations nothing else matters. How can you possibly argue we need less guns? Gun ownership saves lives. If it saves one life…
You are your own worst enemy.

Making up quotes and claiming that "they likely accurately capture his sentiments" does not provide context, analysis, nor theory.

I thought that was funny, too -- He didn't say anything of the sort, but he might have thought it! You can't prove that he didn't!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. You are so lathered up you are attacking someone who agrees with you.
Well done. In the name of teaching history you declare only facts matter. Context, analysis, and theory must be cast aside.
Well done indeed, you have just armed (pun not intended) gunner side with all they need. Just the facts.
In 2013 the prestigious Institute of Medicine estimated between 108,00 and 3 million people per year protected themselves with guns. While approximately 34,000/year were killed by gun violence. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence
It’s a fact. By your own declarations nothing else matters. How can you possibly argue we need less guns? Gun ownership saves lives. If it saves one life…
You are your own worst enemy.

Making up quotes and claiming that "they likely accurately capture his sentiments" does not provide context, analysis, nor theory.

I thought that was funny, too -- He didn't say anything of the sort, but he might have thought it! You can't prove that he didn't!

Now s/he switched gears, s/he wants us to read a whole report on something completely different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is what the report actually says:

Estimates of gun use for self-defense vary widely, in part due to definitional
differences for self-defensive gun use; different data sources;
and questions about accuracy of data, particularly when self-reported.
The NCVS has estimated 60,000 to 120,000 defensive uses of guns per
year. On the basis of data from 1992 and 1994, the NCVS found 116,000
incidents (McDowall et al., 1998). Another body of research estimated
annual gun use for self-defense to be much higher, up to 2.5 million incidents,
suggesting that self-defense can be an important crime deterrent
(Kleck and Gertz, 1995). Some studies on the association between selfdefensive
gun use and injury or loss to the victim have found less loss
and injury when a firearm is used (Kleck, 2001b).

You should read the whole report. Really. It's what a good historian would do -- the whole document, not just the numbers they heard somebody else cite.

Do you have something better than speculation? Where did you take your 108,00 (sic) and 3 million numbers from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what the report actually says:

Estimates of gun use for self-defense vary widely, in part due to definitional
differences for self-defensive gun use; different data sources;
and questions about accuracy of data, particularly when self-reported.
The NCVS has estimated 60,000 to 120,000 defensive uses of guns per
year. On the basis of data from 1992 and 1994, the NCVS found 116,000
incidents (McDowall et al., 1998). Another body of research estimated
annual gun use for self-defense to be much higher, up to 2.5 million incidents,
suggesting that self-defense can be an important crime deterrent
(Kleck and Gertz, 1995). Some studies on the association between selfdefensive
gun use and injury or loss to the victim have found less loss
and injury when a firearm is used (Kleck, 2001b).

You should read the whole report. Really. It's what a good historian would do -- the whole document, not just the numbers they heard somebody else cite.

Do you have something better than speculation? Where did you take your 108,00 (sic) and 3 million numbers from?

I'm the PP who posted that paragraph. I couldn't find those numbers, although that doesn't mean they're not there. One of the findings of the report is that there are lot of research questions that need to be answered, but currently, because the government shut down the research in the 1990s, they can only be answered with speculation. Indeed even if the 108,000-3 million range is in the report, that should tell you how uncertain the information is. It's as though you asked somebody the temperature outside, and they told you that it's between 3 degrees and 84 degrees F. It's not easy to decide what to wear when that's the range of possible temperatures, and it's not easy to make good policy when the data are that iffy. I certainly wouldn't call 108,000-3,000,000 a fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love that my child is participating in the MCPS protest. I 100% support it and think it's a great way to learn civics and how to stand up for his rights (like not getting shot in school). And he'll be of voting age in a few months - excellent way for him to get started on the importance of voting.

While I disagree with what they are protesting, we can both agree that taking a child to an organized civil protest can help them learn civics. My older daughter attended a couple of the Tea Party rallies when she was in HS. She found it an enriching experience. My current MS child will be going to the March For Life next year. I see this as a form of educational enrichment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP who posted that paragraph. I couldn't find those numbers, although that doesn't mean they're not there. One of the findings of the report is that there are lot of research questions that need to be answered, but currently, because the government shut down the research in the 1990s, they can only be answered with speculation. Indeed even if the 108,000-3 million range is in the report, that should tell you how uncertain the information is. It's as though you asked somebody the temperature outside, and they told you that it's between 3 degrees and 84 degrees F. It's not easy to decide what to wear when that's the range of possible temperatures, and it's not easy to make good policy when the data are that iffy. I certainly wouldn't call 108,000-3,000,000 a fact.

So you meant this is another smoke screen to hide behind after the Admiral Yamamoto quotes smoke screen dissipated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP who posted that paragraph. I couldn't find those numbers, although that doesn't mean they're not there. One of the findings of the report is that there are lot of research questions that need to be answered, but currently, because the government shut down the research in the 1990s, they can only be answered with speculation. Indeed even if the 108,000-3 million range is in the report, that should tell you how uncertain the information is. It's as though you asked somebody the temperature outside, and they told you that it's between 3 degrees and 84 degrees F. It's not easy to decide what to wear when that's the range of possible temperatures, and it's not easy to make good policy when the data are that iffy. I certainly wouldn't call 108,000-3,000,000 a fact.

So you meant this is another smoke screen to hide behind after the Admiral Yamamoto quotes smoke screen dissipated?

It means that I didn't read the whole 121-page report, so I can't be certain that they're not there. I am not the Yamamoto-"quote" PP; read more carefully, please.

[Anonymous]

Our middle school (rosa parks) just sent an email about their plans. Instead of a walkout, they're holding an assembly (makes sense) and then honoring the victims by showing their pictures and reading their names and bios (which makes me wonder if that's a bit too heavy for middle schoolers). Then they are having 17 Minutes of Silent Writing (advocacy letters---sounds okay, but also sounds a bit heavy for kids who might be emotional/fearful).

They reminded us to tell our kids that anyone who walkouts will have an unexcused absence.

Thoughts on this approach?