rbfan
New Recruit
Posts: 4
|
Post by rbfan on Aug 2, 2009 12:42:28 GMT -8
Recently, the last living British veteran of WWI died. This author takes advantage of that event to reflect on that terrible conflict that caused for much death and destruction. (Example: in the Battle of the Somme, 20,000 British soldiers died on the first day!) www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/5955102/We-are-still-lost-in-the-mystery-of-that-war.htmlMany people, apparently most from the UK, commented. I found especially interesting EWK's detailed analysis of who was to blame for starting WWI and why. The following paragraphs are from other readers who posted comments on the article . . . Not all of it (i.e., the concept that the Bristish Empire was worth fighting for) was a lie, but enough of it was for them to die for reasons which to us seem incomprehensible now because we have lost the idea that personal happiness is of no importance: to us it is the only important thing- - - - - - - - - - -- in 1914-18 Britain was a unified patriotic nation which well understood the issues at hand and could handle being told the truth and knew what it was fighting for. Today our present government has no such faith in the nation it rules..- - - - - - - - - - - - - I hate to give a simplistic answer to such a scholar but here it is. Wars are fought because there are ambitious people who will risk everything to gain whatever they feel they must and they don't mind killing to get it. The only thing worse than fighting a horrible war like WWI or WWII would be to lose such a war. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contrary to popular misconceptions, Germany did not start the war or even "take advantage" of a situation to rush into war. The war grew out of a long running covert Serbian terrorist campaign against Austria-Hungary. The goal of the campaign was a greater Serbia, a goal pursued by the Serbs right up until the Air War with Serbia over the Kosovo province in 1999. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 3, 2009 7:31:40 GMT -8
Recently, the last living British veteran of WWI died. This author takes advantage of that event to reflect on that terrible conflict that caused for much death and destruction. (Example: in the Battle of the Somme, 20,000 British soldiers died on the first day!) I note that Earl Haig, the son of Douglas Haig, the Brit commander at the Somme, recently died according to the obits in today's fishwrap. He apparently spent a lot of his life trying to defend his father. Over the course of 4 months of stalemate at the Somme, more than 400,000 British troops died. That's just an incredible number to even begin to fathom. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Aug 3, 2009 8:25:46 GMT -8
Interesting to read the messages attached to the article. It seems that many of the responders know each other and disagree. What strikes me is; 1) The civility of the messages, and 2) The quality of the response in composition and grammar. Compare that to our AztecTalk message boards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2009 15:41:47 GMT -8
From the comments. A lesson liberals will never learn.
"When the common people lose faith in the basic myths which undergird a society or civilization, the end is at hand. One would think those most heavily invested in the continuity of that order would have the intelligence to refrain from undercutting those myths. But no, it never ceases to amaze that intellectuals and others whose life style most requires freedom, are always the most reluctant to man the battlements of their society and civilisation. All the more galling when, as here, they question the value of the sacrifice of "lesser" men who are so foolish as to take on whatever happens to be the current manifestation of barbarism"
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 3, 2009 16:53:20 GMT -8
From the comments. A lesson liberals will never learn. "When the common people lose faith in the basic myths which undergird a society or civilization, the end is at hand. One would think those most heavily invested in the continuity of that order would have the intelligence to refrain from undercutting those myths. But no, it never ceases to amaze that intellectuals and others whose life style most requires freedom, are always the most reluctant to man the battlements of their society and civilisation. All the more galling when, as here, they question the value of the sacrifice of "lesser" men who are so foolish as to take on whatever happens to be the current manifestation of barbarism" I might have known you'd grab onto that comment, given that it's typical right-wing bull$#!+. Myths are what they are and debunking them is part and parcel of an intellectual life. With the myths we are drawn into ridiculous wars of choice as we have been drawn into them since the Crusades. Without the myths, we make decisions based upon logic instead of jingoism. It never ceases to amaze me how willing the far right is to beat up on intellectuals. Of course, that makes it easier for the right to rule because their anti-intellectual propaganda allows you to have an uneducated public that is more than willing to accept the bull$#!+ "threat assessments" that the right uses to scare an uneducated American public into fearing everything it doesn't understand. Why not admit the truth? You'd love to see this country go back to where it was in the 1890s, when most kids didn't go beyond the 10th grade if they got that far. Uneducated, compliant workers is the far right's prescription for this country. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 4, 2009 4:48:58 GMT -8
From the comments. A lesson liberals will never learn. "When the common people lose faith in the basic myths which undergird a society or civilization, the end is at hand. One would think those most heavily invested in the continuity of that order would have the intelligence to refrain from undercutting those myths. But no, it never ceases to amaze that intellectuals and others whose life style most requires freedom, are always the most reluctant to man the battlements of their society and civilisation. All the more galling when, as here, they question the value of the sacrifice of "lesser" men who are so foolish as to take on whatever happens to be the current manifestation of barbarism" I might have known you'd grab onto that comment, given that it's typical right-wing bull$#!+. Myths are what they are and debunking them is part and parcel of an intellectual life. With the myths we are drawn into ridiculous wars of choice as we have been drawn into them since the Crusades. Without the myths, we make decisions based upon logic instead of jingoism. It never ceases to amaze me how willing the far right is to beat up on intellectuals. Of course, that makes it easier for the right to rule because their anti-intellectual propaganda allows you to have an uneducated public that is more than willing to accept the bull$#!+ "threat assessments" that the right uses to scare an uneducated American public into fearing everything it doesn't understand. Why not admit the truth? You'd love to see this country go back to where it was in the 1890s, when most kids didn't go beyond the 10th grade if they got that far. Uneducated, compliant workers is the far right's prescription for this country. =Bob Not to stray to far from the subject, don't you think the systematic dumbing down of society via liberal edicts in public schooling is the counter argument? I would argue that an 1890's 10th grader had as good an education as your average high school grad now. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Aug 4, 2009 8:29:25 GMT -8
I would argue that an 1890's 10th grader had as good an education as your average high school grad now. Agree and disagree. The typical education in the 1890's was much more liberal arts centered. More emphasis was spent on grammar, literature, and language (usually Latin or Greek). Our modern educational system does an injustice in this area. However, the modern student has much much more to learn. Math, science, chemistry, oceanography, computers, foreign language, etc. The schools now assume that every student is going to go to college and become an engineer. That is where the emphasis is. I don't necessarily agree. There is a place for a solid liberal arts education. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 4, 2009 10:26:05 GMT -8
I would argue that an 1890's 10th grader had as good an education as your average high school grad now. Agree and disagree. The typical education in the 1890's was much more liberal arts centered. More emphasis was spent on grammar, literature, and language (usually Latin or Greek). Our modern educational system does an injustice in this area. However, the modern student has much much more to learn. Math, science, chemistry, oceanography, computers, foreign language, etc. The schools now assume that every student is going to go to college and become an engineer. That is where the emphasis is. I don't necessarily agree. There is a place for a solid liberal arts education. I agree to a certain extent. I know that kids now are very computer literate, but math skills still have a way to go. How many kids can do a square root without a calculator or computer? The same is true about science as known at the time. How many people can troubleshoot to a component and not to just a logic board without the help of self diagnostics? I agree that things are more complex but not with the level of education needed to understand what was "state or the art" at the time. I suggest that we will never know just because things have changed so much. I think that the use of proper English would be a good measuring stick. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 4, 2009 15:33:23 GMT -8
Agree and disagree. The typical education in the 1890's was much more liberal arts centered. More emphasis was spent on grammar, literature, and language (usually Latin or Greek). Our modern educational system does an injustice in this area. However, the modern student has much much more to learn. Math, science, chemistry, oceanography, computers, foreign language, etc. The schools now assume that every student is going to go to college and become an engineer. That is where the emphasis is. I don't necessarily agree. There is a place for a solid liberal arts education. I agree to a certain extent. I know that kids now are very computer literate, but math skills still have a way to go. How many kids can do a square root without a calculator or computer? The same is true about science as known at the time. How many people can troubleshoot to a component and not to just a logic board without the help of self diagnostics? I agree that things are more complex but not with the level of education needed to understand what was "state or the art" at the time. I suggest that we will never know just because things have changed so much. Pooh, keep in mind that I grew up with a Grandmother born in 1888 and a Great Uncle born in 1898. IOW, I have experience with people who were raised during that time. I also have had the privilege of playing softball with a math teacher from Mt. Miguel and a teenager who is a student at Mt. Miguel, who also happens to be the captain of her academic team from the time she was a sophomore. What kids are required to learn these days is so far beyond what we had to learn is not even funny. They bust their asses far more than you or I ever did, and most certainly far more than my Grandmother and Great Uncle ever had to endure. You're assumption that kids learned more through 10th grade than what kids learn today in public school is ridiculous. If your grandchildren weren't home schooled, you might understand that. But since they are home schooled, you really have no clue about what public school kids are taught. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 4, 2009 15:36:50 GMT -8
I agree to a certain extent. I know that kids now are very computer literate, but math skills still have a way to go. How many kids can do a square root without a calculator or computer? The same is true about science as known at the time. How many people can troubleshoot to a component and not to just a logic board without the help of self diagnostics? Just one other thing. Your comments above are nonsense because you assume the only education worthwhile, at least from appearances, is science. Spend some time reading what Temecula has to say about education and what he teaches. And while you're at it, try considering how old you are that kids should rely upon figuring out a square root without using a calculator or a computer. Why do you assume that if they can't do it on paper, they can't be competent? =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 4, 2009 16:22:55 GMT -8
I agree to a certain extent. I know that kids now are very computer literate, but math skills still have a way to go. How many kids can do a square root without a calculator or computer? The same is true about science as known at the time. How many people can troubleshoot to a component and not to just a logic board without the help of self diagnostics? Just one other thing. Your comments above are nonsense because you assume the only education worthwhile, at least from appearances, is science. Spend some time reading what Temecula has to say about education and what he teaches. And while you're at it, try considering how old you are that kids should rely upon figuring out a square root without using a calculator or a computer. Why do you assume that if they can't do it on paper, they can't be competent? =Bob What I am telling you is that we may not be able to measure the difference. You also must remember that I see the difference in the development of kids schooled in different ways. You do not. I note where kids stand nationally in spelling bees and in science fairs. I am getting off track. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 4, 2009 22:02:57 GMT -8
This discussion is getting a bit off track, but I'll throw in my two-cents worth on the education issue. I think I am correct in saying that the reading level of widely used textbooks is a couple of grades lower than what it used to be a half century ago. The kids, for whatever reason, just aren't up to snuff, at least in terms of reading ability. And if you can't read very well, you are going to have a tough time learning difficult subjects. Yes, the high school diploma was worth more in the first couple or three decades of the last century than it is today. The curriculum in those days was non-trivial. My guess is that the H.S. diploma was at least on a par with a junior college A.A. degree of today. And look at the high percentage of college freshmen, including not a few students with high GPAs who have to take remedial English courses as soon as they arrive on campus. Something is wrong somewhere! Here's another thing to keep in mind. Only a very small percentage of students actually graduated from H.S. a century ago. High school was designed for the top 5% to 10% of the students and could therefore its content could be and was rigorous. Most of those immigrant kids whose folks came Greece, Russia, Poland, Italy, Germany, Norway, Sweden, etc. were not expected to show up on graduation day in a cap and gown. Most kids, of whatever ethnic background, were out working by age 15. Today, we expect all those immigrant kids, even those who speak little or no English, to tough it out for 12 years of public school. No wonder that their dropout rates are so high, with some exceptions (e.g., plenty of Asian kids have turned in remarkable performances despite having learned a non-European language at home). With respect to historical H.S. graduation rates, take a look at this chart . . . daugherity.com/blogfiles/HSgrad_rates.htmIn the remark section of that page, one finds this comment. . . The rate of high school graduation has increased, but is not as high as one would expect, even today.So, we have increased our percentage of young people graduating form H.S. though not as much as one might expect, while at the same time turning out more and more kids with very weak academic accomplishment. Wow, this is giving me a headache, which is basically the way I felt through 30 year of full time teaching!  Too many kids being pushed into courses that are not really right for them. I know that the European model of separating the college bound kids from the rest at about 11 or 12 years of age has been rejected here since it sounds so elitist. But, on the other hand, treating every student as if he or she is headed for college isn't exactly working, either. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 5, 2009 16:25:24 GMT -8
Yes, the high school diploma was worth more in the first couple or three decades of the last century than it is today. The curriculum in those days was non-trivial. My guess is that the H.S. diploma was at least on a par with a junior college A.A. degree of today. And look at the high percentage of college freshmen, including not a few students with high GPAs who have to take remedial English courses as soon as they arrive on campus. Something is wrong somewhere! Here's another thing to keep in mind. Only a very small percentage of students actually graduated from H.S. a century ago. High school was designed for the top 5% to 10% of the students and could therefore its content could be and was rigorous. Most of those immigrant kids whose folks came Greece, Russia, Poland, Italy, Germany, Norway, Sweden, etc. were not expected to show up on graduation day in a cap and gown. Most kids, of whatever ethnic background, were out working by age 15. Today, we expect all those immigrant kids, even those who speak little or no English, to tough it out for 12 years of public school. No wonder that their dropout rates are so high, with some exceptions (e.g., plenty of Asian kids have turned in remarkable performances despite having learned a non-European language at home). Too many kids being pushed into courses that are not really right for them. I know that the European model of separating the college bound kids from the rest at about 11 or 12 years of age has been rejected here since it sounds so elitist. But, on the other hand, treating every student as if he or she is headed for college isn't exactly working, either. AzWm Well, I'll try to respond to your points (I did do some snipping). 1. I would question whether a diploma was worth more then than it is now. For one thing, the science was nowhere near as advanced as it is now. 2. There is a problem and I think it's that English is not emphasized as it used to be. For that matter, social science of any sort isn't emphasized now as it was then, either. All one ever hears about is how awful our kids are at math and science and how those have to be the focus. How does that educate our young in how to understand and act within our civil culture? 3. Many of those kids were working by the time they were 9 or 10 and never went to school at all. A lot of the "bad scores" that California gets on education can be directly traced to the number of immigrant children, especially Latinos, that live here. Unfortunately, a lot of those kids have parents who are barely literate, if they are literate at all, in Spanish. I would say, however, that many of the Asian kids have immigrant parents who are college educated and speak English before they come here. 4. I tend to agree that kids shouldn't be offered an education that assumes they will all go to college. I think your cut-off is quite low, though. I think after 10th grade would be the time to channel them, but it has to be done with the kid's wishes in mind. Based solely upon my HS grades, I would have been channeled into something that I didn't care about. Based upon my test scores and my desire to just get through HS so I could go to college and study what I wanted to study, I would not have been channeled. When I moved out here and signed up for classes at Pt. Loma, my guidance counselor tried to channel me into "easy classes" because all she saw were my grades and then sent me to a classroom to take some test or another - Iowa Basic Skills or some such. When she got my full transcripts a month later, with all my test scores, including the one she had me take, she totally freaked out. I had scored a 10, with the highest being 10 on whatever test it was she had sent me to and had consistently scored in the 96-98 percentile nationwide on some test I'd taken my first 3 years of HS in English/reading skills. She spent the rest of the semester trying to get me to move from Contemporary Lit to English Lit, but I figured parsing Simon and Garfunkel songs was way more interesting than reading Beowulf. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 5, 2009 16:31:43 GMT -8
Too many kids being pushed into courses that are not really right for them. I know that the European model of separating the college bound kids from the rest at about 11 or 12 years of age has been rejected here since it sounds so elitist. But, on the other hand, treating every student as if he or she is headed for college isn't exactly working, either. AzWm Oh, one other thing even though this discussion is going off-track. In New York we were sort of channeled. Kids were placed in A, AB and B tracks, starting in 7th grade, depending upon test scores and grades. I was in AB because I was always abysmal in math and hard sciences, although I was allowed to elect to take hard science and math classes if I wanted (which I did and failed miserably at geometry in 10th grade and even more so at chemistry as a junior). I suppose to a certain extent it was a precursor of today's AP classes. When I first talked to my guidance counselor at Pt. Loma, I was surprised to hear that there were no distinctions like that. =Bob |
|
