Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Violence is decreasing

And so it seems that God may be –
To add another verse –
A concept in infinity;
Or, maybe, something worse!

Remind me; what does all this poetic stuff have to do with violence?

No idea! But I'll take poetry over violence any time,

Well said Ellis Megastar,
To point out such a thing.
Not fighting, as others are,
But peace to forum bring.

I do agree, there is no doubt,
Verse makes the forum bright;
Long may we rhyme our friendly posts,
Eschewing any fight;

But one day Pre is bound to shout:
THIS WHOLE DARNED THING IS ROT!!
YOU DIDN’T THINK THAT I’D FIND OUT,
YOU CRIBBED THE BLOOMING LOT!!!!!

That Pre was right, we cannot doubt,
The game is up, I think;
We all know now how he found out;
Yes – Orac had the link!!

FF, I agree that accessing the right kind of education is always a good thing to do, but keep in mind: WW's 1 and 2 were not started by uneducated pygmies in the heart of Africa using bows and arrows. They were started by highly educated Europeans and Asians.

Rev. I feel sure that your comments about "uneducated pygmies in the heart of Africa" were not intended to be racist; I think that would be beneath you. I mention it only lest others should interpret it differently, and to assure you that, on the basis of what I know of you, I would defend your intentions.



I think it is important to look, not just at the fact that the people involved were educated, but to take into account the content of that "education". Perhaps it is even more important to consider that education is not just academic input, it includes also child rearing methods. A study of the beliefs and methods of child rearing, between the wars, in Germany alone would be sufficient to account for all the hatred that erupted in the form of persecution and WW11. That’s without getting into the damage to children that the Victorian mindset had already caused in Britain.

BS, thanks for your comment. It begs the question: what is racism?

BTW, as I understand it: Unlike the "N" word, pygmy is not a pejorative term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_peoples Pygmies are pygmies and I feel that most of them have the education they need to survive where they are. You say I agree. I also agree when you say This is why, while not forgetting the somatological and psychological dimensions of life, I am so interested in the pneumatological dimensions as well.

I would certainly not suggest that the term “pygmy” is in any way pejorative, but calling them "uneducated pygmies”, does seem to be making an assumption about them that your own belief “…that most of them have the education they need to survive where they are” contradicts.

“somatological”… “psychological”… “pneumatological”…The ebullience of your verbosity is prodigious. For the more prosaic among us, would that be “physical, mental and spiritual” or am I missing a nice distinction?

What does it contradict? As one who has spent decades working on what some scientists have referred to as "finding islands of meaning in the oceans of information" may I ask: What is the island of meaning of your last comment?

Yes, I did speak of "uneducated" pygmies. But it was offered as a fact; not a factoid. Check out:
http://africaneyes.org/batwa.aspx

Also, check out: http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/newrels/indigen.htm

Keep in mind that when I was a child--BTW, I was born in 1930--a large percentage of the population of Newfoundland/Labrador (NL) was, in the modern sense of the word, uneducated.

In NL, at that time, there was no law saying that parents had to send their children to school. For a variety of reasons, I loved school and I was part of a few who got to university.

Number seven of a family of eight, I was the first of my family to matriculate, and the only one in my class of 23.

At the time, it was assumed that our parents were totally responsible to educate us to earn our living as they did--on the water as fishers, in the woods as woodcutters, in the mines and other such jobs. Only a select few got the opportunity to go school, regularly.

Even less in number got to go on to what we now call a "higher" education.

Rev, sometimes I wonder if you are being deliberately obtuse, or if questions like "What does it contradict?" are just part of your interesting style of discussion.

I would be interested to know if anyone else following this thread would need to ask the same question.

Perhaps I can clarify: You referred to "uneducated pygmies”, then went on to say that “most of them have the education they need to survive where they are". To say that they are uneducated, but have the necessary education for their situation does seem to me to be just a little contradictory.

Fascinating as anecdotes of your childhood may be, they actually add nothing to the relevance of your protestations.

You comment that “In NL, at that time, [presumably the 1930s] there was no law saying that parents had to send their children to school.” Are you confusing schooling with education?

Even today, there is no law in the UK that says parents have to send their children to school. In your view does that make residents of the UK uneducated?

BS, is the following, from Wikipedia just bunk?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_education#United_Kingdom

Rev, I would have thought that your interest in science would have sharpened the precision of your perception. Nothing I said contradicts your quote from that e-oracle, Wikipedia, or suggests that it is “bunk”.

You seem still to be confusing compulsory education with compulsory schooling. If you look closely at your quote you will find that only the Elementary Education Act 1880 insisted on compulsory attendance at school. That legislation was superseded by the Elementary Education Act 1870, which made education – not schooling – compulsory.

May I refer you to the book “School is not Compulsory”, to which a significant contributor was David Deutsch.

You will appreciate that this legislation gives caring parents the opportunity to take responsibility for the formal education of their children.

I have to agree with you Bill S. If 'an uneducated pygmy' is able to survive, or even thrive, in his/her own environment then I suggest that s/he is educated. S/He may not read or know about received religions, or be able to drive, or possibly, who knows, count beyond 10 but he/she is an educated citizen of his/her own culture. The problem happens for them when a dominant culture decides to 'educate' the 'savages', and they are schooled in the new culture, pronounced 'educated' and expected to cope immediately with a living situation which it took the invaders many thousands of years to achieve.

Education is so much more than school, facts and books, and it is a fact that the conquering culture has always assumed their own culture is the one and only way.

However I think that it is now impossible for the tribes in the forests and the inhabitants of remote areas of mountains and forests to live without the knowledge of the modern world. Indeed when introduced to it they adopt its culture eagerly, often, sadly to their disadvantage. Perhaps I agree a bit with what Rev says there. After all the wars (esp. WW2) were started by the most 'civilised" (by their own assessment) nations on the planet, but the term 'uneducated pygmies' is a little harsh.

I know this post is off-topic-ish but it is a particular gripe of mine!!! It is, for example, quite possible to teach something brilliantly and have the students learn nothing. Education is a two-way street, and its purpose should be to allow us to contribute and grow within our environment. We should honour any system that allows that.

I don't think a discussion about education is in any way "off-topic" in a thread about violence. In fact, I think we educate violence, in the broadest sense, into our children in schools and in many cultures - unfortunately including our own, in UK - quite often in the home.

Ellis, I totally agree with the point I feel you are making. And thanks for making it, and for opening up the whole topic of what it means to be "educated"--that is, drawing out what we already need to know to survive as we are. With this in mind, I quote you fully:

Harsh? I assume that you will understand that using "harsh" and insulting language in describing others was the farthest from my mind. I love variety.

For example, am I being harsh with myself when I admit that once I was an uneducated Newfy--one born in NL--about many things?

Ellis, you go on to say:


With the latter, I totally agree. Agape and Nameste!

BTW. Does Australia celebrate what we call THANKSGIVING?
If so, when is it... and Happy Thanksgiving, whenever.

An interesting thought arising from the celebration of Thanksgiving. I understand that the modern celebration dates from Lincoln’s proclamation of 1863. However, there was an earlier Thanksgiving which celebrated the fact that the Native Americans helped the Pilgrims to survive their first winter in the Plymouth Colony.

The fascinating thing is that in the only painting I have seen of this celebration the Pilgrims sit round a table, while the Native Americans sit on the ground, at a distance. I wonder if this reflects reality, or if it has more to do with changes in race relations by the time the picture was painted in 1914.

http://www.thanksgiving.org.au/

Australia had its begining as a penal colony

I have never heard of a National Day of Thanksgiving in Australia. There isn't one, at least not one that is recognised nationally. Paul's Day seems to be a church sponsored affair, and gives thanks to god for whatever people are to be thankful for--- so it would not be a universal day of thanks as Oz is a rather non-religious society, and allows for the possibility of God being present in any number of manifestations, or maybe none at all--- which is probably something to be thankful for indeed.

Australia was founded by the most despised and degraded of the society from which they came. From this beginning and in a harsh land with few accessible resources these dumped criminals and their gaolers founded a society which is based on individual strength and resourcefulness, but also on a sense of common interest and fair play. Until recently Australia was egalitarian and welcoming to newcomers, and accepting of differences. There has always been a sense of common purpose and 'we're all in this together'.

Recently this has gone awry a bit, and the treatment of our native population has always been appalling, but hopefully we are working on that. In the main though, from such an unpromising start Australia has done well.

The reason I can praise this country is because I came from somewhere else! No Aussie would ever carry on as I just have. Praising the country or waving the flag is seen as a bit embarassing!

The most endearing thing about the place is that the head of state is the queen of the country which dumped all the convicts here to rot all those years ago! Talk about forgiveness!

But perhaps we should be thankful for the country that has emerged as a result of hard work and good humour. We could call it --"She'll be right, mate" Day

Your comment reminded me of something I wrote in my notes a couple of years ago:

"Various suggestions have been made about possible places to look for a second dimension of time. These include the “Dreamtime” of the Australian Aboriginals. It could, perhaps, be that such a momentous truth is held by the ancient people of Australia; the people who inhabited the land long before our predecessors sought to solve some of their problems by criminalising attempts at social mobility, and then sending the offenders thus created to the colonies. This might have seemed a good idea at the time, but the embarrassment of having their descendants return to beat us at our own game (cricket, of course) can only lead one to wonder if those forebears of ours might have sent the wrong people to live upside-down on the other side of the world. I digress."