Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2010 14:52:45 GMT -6
I never dared to ask about it because it's so sensitive, what about the racial and eugenic issues ? Will (should) something be written about it in the new volume of the CoC bible and what is your view on it Master Satanis ?
Ia Ia Cthulhu fhtagn.
|
|
|
Post by I AM the Way on Sept 6, 2010 19:40:16 GMT -6
I never dared to ask about it because it's so sensitive, what about the racial and eugenic issues ? Will (should) something be written about it in the new volume of the CoC bible and what is your view on it Master Satanis ? Ia Ia Cthulhu fhtagn. We can talk about race and eugenics without disparaging an ethnicity. Personally, I feel the genetic difference between those favoring the Left Hand Path and everyone else is definitely worth exploring.
Awake!
Venger As'Nas Satanis High Priest Cult of Cthulhu
|
|
|
Post by A'Zodul F'eid on Sept 7, 2010 7:31:11 GMT -6
I personally do have some "racial" bias, but that's understandable as in many parts of the U.S. There are many tensions here involving minorities that have more to do with incorrect blending than incompatibility. There are stereotypes against blacks, whites, middle easterners, Mexicans and most other races that have not to do with genetic qualities of their race or of their homelands customs, but of how they allow themselves to fall into certain stereotypes without knowing it has grown to define them. I wouldn't say that Eugenics is a non issue but I would prefer to say that Society is a larger one. Those are my views though and they are far from a majority opinion. I've noted mostly PC racial acceptance on the rise even within Left Hand Path groups such as this one. I too would like to see some Bible space for the subject, Yrreiht, but I suspect it's a bit of a loose soil subject for much light to be given to it.
Awaken!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2010 7:58:04 GMT -6
I personally do have some "racial" bias, but that's understandable as in many parts of the U.S. There are many tensions here involving minorities Ha ! It's the same everywhere in the world, in Europe, as in Australia, Russia, etc. And the issue is getting bigger every year, with the minorities becoming the majority in sight. I expect some very big problems in less than 20 years. When the stars are right.
|
|
|
Post by Shaz'rahjeem on Sept 7, 2010 19:41:44 GMT -6
the only minority we should worry about are the racists. Race is not important and serves as just another false barrier in this prison. I think the only thing bad to come from racial mixing is the potential loss of culture.
awake
|
|
|
Post by A'Zodul F'eid on Sept 12, 2010 21:43:46 GMT -6
The potential loss of culture is what many in intellectual "racism" fear. The fact is sometimes the races don't mix well. Conquistador plus Aztec equals disaster.
When the Stars are right!
|
|
|
Post by boksmutant on Sept 27, 2010 7:39:34 GMT -6
I see nothing wrong with eugenics in regards to health & fitness. Race I dont care. But If your gonna bring a child(stealing from another dimension I say) into the fucked up world you created. At least give it the opportunity to blend into your fucked up world.
Race does not matter. Sure losing the culture thing sucks, But dont be naive. If our species could live on indefinitely, we would have all been merged together into one race anyway. Ten thousand years from now,on a spaceship 40million light years from earth, do you really see Chris Tucker & Jackie Chan making their stupid jokes. Actually their jokes are rad. But as for physical disability; I think its cruel. The kid always resents you & his disability. "Gatica"(the movie) had it right. At least give me the chance to be average. What ever the going human is these days:) The tools to defend ones self.("and my mitts"). Just the basics. Thankfully science now allows us to know if our baby's gonna have one eye, or no fingers. And who are we to say "yep, our baby wont give a shit if its got no legs. It'll thank us when its older for keeping the world so diverse". Think of D&D the roll playing game. Remember how you were allowed to make one extra re-roll on a stat(statistic like strength,dexterity,charisma,ect.) after you were already done with your character! What kind of bullshit is that! But we all loved it. Thoughts? Its in our nature to want the best chance at life.
Ia Ia Cthulhu fhtagn!
|
|
|
Post by xiaogui17 on Oct 2, 2010 20:28:54 GMT -6
I'm big on eugenics, but race doesn't come into it for me. There's more variation between individuals within a race than there is between races, so anyone who made the basis of their eugenic experiment racial would be shortchanging himself. It's in the eugenicist's best interest to widen his pool of potential candidates as much as possible so as to truly get the best of the best, not just the best within a particular group. Besides, genetic variation is part of what makes a population healthy and able to survive; different races help contribute to the robust genetic variation of a population.
His ichor cleanses the sin of all mankind.
|
|
|
Post by egodiabolus on Oct 2, 2010 23:59:03 GMT -6
I'm big on eugenics, but race doesn't come into it for me. There's more variation between individuals within a race than there is between races, so anyone who made the basis of their eugenic experiment racial would be shortchanging himself. It's in the eugenicist's best interest to widen his pool of potential candidates as much as possible so as to truly get the best of the best, not just the best within a particular group. Besides, genetic variation is part of what makes a population healthy and able to survive; different races help contribute to the robust genetic variation of a population. His ichor cleanses the sin of all mankind. Eugenics tends to be limited to genetic attributes, the hit-or-miss potential of certain desirable traits being expressed or undesirable traits being suppressed. I agree that race, or breed to put it in a manner that is both more and less politically divisive, should not be a factor when considering desirable traits, only which traits are best suited for the survival of the species as a whole.
This is where a social-element comes into play, as what traits would be considered the "best" will be relative to the standards of the society backing the eugenics program. An interesting bit of science fiction I read once sighted a program where humanity, populating different planets, developed along different eugenic parameters. One planet was a world of intellectuals, another of warriors, a third of artists, etc. The most problematic of the planets was the world of spiritual fanatics, though the moral of the story was revealed when the other planets moved to wipe out the fanatics and a mediator appeared insisting that the traits of the fanatic, having been honed to the ultimate degree, where as necessary as the other traits for the eventually re-integration of the species resulting in an evolutionary leap.
Earth, of course, is where the old-world human-mutts resided.
Another way to look at eugenics is to go beyond the genetic aspect and to consider social-eugenics. This is an aspect of our society that we can see being played out, though in an unguided and mechanical manner. The wealthy, successful, and motivated members of our society breed with their own kind, while the least successful breed amongst themselves. This decades-old process is resulting in increased stratification in our society, a desirable result from a Satanic perspective as suggested in LaVey's Pentagonal Revisionism. The problem created by the mechanical nature of this process is that while the wealthy breed amongst themselves, producing offspring with ever greater potential for success, the least successful in our society breed in greater numbers, and are encouraged to do so by social welfare programs.
The result is that the least successful members of our society are on the increase, consuming the resources needed for the most successful to thrive... causing us socially to begin to evolve backward. The rise and fall of a civilization is inevitable, and if allowed to run its course nature will no doubt reverse this trend on its own. Each turn in this cycle is more extreme and brings us closer to annihilation, while also affording a greater opportunity for humanity to recognize the answer and take a direct hand in the process; social evolution through Awakened programs rather than mechanical process. Once society accepts that a finite amount of resources are available at any given time and must be managed and that the most important aspect in resource management is to reduce the number of non-producers (or at least find ways to encourage them not to breed so prolifically), we will see the conscious institution of programs meant to establish an "upward" spiral in the cyclical process of social development, instead of the downward spiral we are witnessing today.
We have, here and now, all the tools and research necessary to implement and support social programs designed to reduce the number of non-producers, allowing those individuals to choose for themselves the manner in which they will voluntarily participate while also making haphazard reproduction criminal. Court cases are already on the books and both men and women have been jailed for spawning children they had neither the means nor the motivation to care for. What is lacking is the will to do so. Humanity is typically a sleeping giant that doesn't wake until it is kicked in the balls.
Where we fit in, as always, is encouraging discussion and the acceptance of this view-point amongst our peers while serving as an example. We must work to remove the negative connotations from the concept of eugenics, expressing how this process already exists naturally and is artificially induced in our society in a malignant manner. We must be producers, waiting until we have established our fiscal and material stability before choosing to breed, and then we must breed responsibly, producing only as many children as we can manage sensibly while also producing enough children to encourage successive generations of producers and help offset the numbers amongst the non-producers. We must also seek every legal and political opportunity to motivate our society to take a stand against the programs that encourage non-producers to breed. There are segments within our culture which see it as a matter of pride to be "baby-factories" and fully subsidized by the welfare-state. This should infuriate each and every one of us, and we should encourage that sense of frustration amongst others.
Social-eugenics is one of the tools leading to the Awakening of humanity as a whole and unified species. If we fail to take advantage of the opportunities we have now, we face the eventual fall of Rome, leading to another Dark Age, during which it will be up to us to produce the next Renaissance.
Personally, I could go either way.
Ia Ia Cthulhu Fhatgn!
Ego Diabolus Priest of R'lyeh Cult of Cthulhu
|
|
|
Post by xiaogui17 on Oct 3, 2010 2:30:06 GMT -6
I greatly appreciate your contribution, Master Diabolus. I personally advocate both positive eugenics (encouraging those with what I consider desirable traits to breed more), and negative eugenics (discouraging those with undesirable traits from breeding). I also support (as my recent threads elaborate) the use of reproductive technology to enhance the genomes of future offspring as much as possible. Where we differ, it appears, is in the following (my own emphasis added): We have, here and now, all the tools and research necessary to implement and support social programs designed to reduce the number of non-producers, allowing those individuals to choose for themselves the manner in which they will voluntarily participate while also making haphazard reproduction criminal. Liberal eugenics is individuals freely choosing to make personal choices that are considered eugenically sound, such as active family planning. Gentle nudges that discourage (or remove incentives for) irresponsible reproduction, such as the elimination of said welfare programs, also fall under this banner. (This is more for third parties than for your sake; I'm sure you're aware of the distinction.) This is what I most actively promote because it seems the most easily implemented objective for the near future, as well as the least likely one to be abused. Compulsory eugenics, on the other hand, would involve the criminalization of invalid reproduction or even go as far as mandatory sterilization of unfit parents. While this is great in theory (and as much as I'd love to be the first US Secretary of Sterilization), in practice it opens a whole new can of worms. 1) Who defines the standards for legitimate reproduction? (For example, would a person in an unconventional relationship be considered an unfit parent?) 2) Could this create a slippery slope limiting civil liberties in other areas of individuals' lives? 3) Would the social climate of today ever consider implementing this on a large scale? It's hard enough to get simple reproductive technologies approved, and there still movements against abortion and even birth control. It seems more likely that the government would recognize polygamy than implement eugenic policies. 4) The advocacy of such an extreme position could create paranoia and hurt the cause of more moderate measures. Naturally the concept itself is, again, one I think is excellent in theory. But at the moment, I think it's too dangerous to take that route and I tend to focus on liberal eugenics. Regardless, I appreciate your elaboration of the subject. You have raised a number of excellent points. ia ia Cthulhu fhatgn!
|
|
|
Post by egodiabolus on Oct 3, 2010 7:24:36 GMT -6
I greatly appreciate your contribution, Master Diabolus. I personally advocate both positive eugenics (encouraging those with what I consider desirable traits to breed more), and negative eugenics (discouraging those with undesirable traits from breeding). I also support (as my recent threads elaborate) the use of reproductive technology to enhance the genomes of future offspring as much as possible. Where we differ, it appears, is in the following (my own emphasis added): We have, here and now, all the tools and research necessary to implement and support social programs designed to reduce the number of non-producers, allowing those individuals to choose for themselves the manner in which they will voluntarily participate while also making haphazard reproduction criminal. Liberal eugenics is individuals freely choosing to make personal choices that are considered eugenically sound, such as active family planning. Gentle nudges that discourage (or remove incentives for) irresponsible reproduction, such as the elimination of said welfare programs, also fall under this banner. (This is more for third parties than for your sake; I'm sure you're aware of the distinction.) This is what I most actively promote because it seems the most easily implemented objective for the near future, as well as the least likely one to be abused. Compulsory eugenics, on the other hand, would involve the criminalization of invalid reproduction or even go as far as mandatory sterilization of unfit parents. While this is great in theory (and as much as I'd love to be the first US Secretary of Sterilization), in practice it opens a whole new can of worms. 1) Who defines the standards for legitimate reproduction? (For example, would a person in an unconventional relationship be considered an unfit parent?) 2) Could this create a slippery slope limiting civil liberties in other areas of individuals' lives? 3) Would the social climate of today ever consider implementing this on a large scale? It's hard enough to get simple reproductive technologies approved, and there still movements against abortion and even birth control. It seems more likely that the government would recognize polygamy than implement eugenic policies. 4) The advocacy of such an extreme position could create paranoia and hurt the cause of more moderate measures. Naturally the concept itself is, again, one I think is excellent in theory. But at the moment, I think it's too dangerous to take that route and I tend to focus on liberal eugenics. Regardless, I appreciate your elaboration of the subject. You have raised a number of excellent points. ia ia Cthulhu fhatgn! I do agree that a liberal pursuit of the eugenics issue is ideal. Unfortunately, as is demonstrated by the social-ills we see in our news daily, hoping that the majority of people will simply eventually see the light is unrealistic. The criminalization of irresponsible reproduction is already a road our society, through our courts, is beginning to go down.
My suggestions (and these are only my suggestions) would leave everyone with a choice. No one would be punished for having children. What would be punishable is criminal negligence in regard to one's proven failure to care for the children you have.
I would begin with the welfare program, placing strict guidelines on how benefits are distributed. I would suggest that the state only be willing to subsidize 3 children for every mother or single father. Any additional children would not be subsidized, and failure to provide for those additional children on your own to minimal socially determined standards would be criminal. Of course, the state would have to provide for these additional children when the parent is jailed for their negligence, but at that point the children should be removed from that environment as it is; it is akin to these people that have too many animals, and not enough room or resources to care for them. If you have the material requirements and time to have a dozen children, more power to you, but bringing more life into this world beyond your ability to meet the demands for that life is willful negligence.
Furthermore, the subsidizing of any one child ends when they begin going to school. Funds could be diverted to school-lunch programs and even school-clothing programs, instead of to the irresponsible parent who often spends those funds on anything other than their child's welfare.
I would suggest re-addressing our social definition of marriage; removing the moral and religious aspects of the arrangement completely from the picture and requiring that the marriage contract be treated like a business contract. It should involve more legal preparation and funding at the front end, preparing a contract that clearly delineates the financial, social, sexual, and familial obligations of each party, how resources will be allocated, what offenses constitute a dissolution of the contract, and how mutual property and responsibility will be divided. Divorces should be cheap, simply carrying through and the contractual arrangement.
Greater emphasis should be placed on a woman's responsibility for her reproductive potential. Far too many women have children confident that the father who they let impregnate them will be held accountable by the state. Demanding freedom to do what one wishes with one's body has yet to be coupled with requiring the responsibility for one's choices. This again leads to willful negligence. If women were told from day-one during discussion of their reproductive potential that the burden of financial responsibility for any children produced would fall primarily on them, most women would be more focused on taking whatever steps necessary to avoid unwanted pregnancy. An "accidental" pregnancy is far rarer than what we see today. Everyone knows that if you place a penis in a vagina with no precautions, chances are high that a child might be the end result.
Furthermore, abortion is still an option for months after the unwanted "accidental" pregnancy is discovered. We need to remove the moral stigma from the abortion issue, and re-enforce the concept that an abortion is often far more ideal than an "accidental" child, raised in an impoverished household, with not but the streets to look forward to in it's future.
I would also suggest that couples could receive social approval for reproduction; couples willing to reproduce who meet socially established minimal parameters for the care of their potential children would be guaranteed assistance from the state should circumstances require it. Those who do not meet those minimal standards would simply be on their own, warned in advance that while they have the right to reproduce, the rest of society will not be held responsible for their choice.
With the funds saved by these programs, society could then offer the the irresponsible non-producers cash for voluntary sterilization; say $10,000 for every woman who chooses to sterilize and $2000 for every man. Criminal charges for willful negligence resulting in irresponsible reproduction could be commuted by opting to undergo sterilization (as has been ruled by some courts already). This would keep breeders from producing children while meeting the reason that many women choose to be "baby-factories"; short-term financial gain.
To answer your questions.
1) It is a social program, and we are a representative democracy. Let the society determine its own standards.
2) Any choice is a "slippery-slope". Any political or social decision could have unwanted consequences. As with all such issues, it is up to the society to select between the lesser of two (or more) evils.
3) The problem you bring up is created by society's moral perspectives based on irrational religious views. Our society is becoming ever more secular. We need to continue to push for rational, not moral, legislation on all fronts. This will create the political environment where such social-eugenics programs can be considered seriously.
4) "Soft-selling" these ideas will not help the cause. It only allows the "moral majority" the opportunity to criticize them from an irrational position. The strategy is not to "enforce" or "mandate". Rather, it is only to argue the position, allowing for clear, succinct, rational discussion to be absorbed and advocated by an ever growing number of voters, until these "radical" and "extreme" positions are considered common-sense.
Ia Ia Cthulhu Fhatgn!
Ego Diabolus Priest of R'lyeh Cult of Cthulhu
|
|
|
Post by xiaogui17 on Oct 3, 2010 11:20:44 GMT -6
My suggestions (and these are only my suggestions) would leave everyone with a choice. No one would be punished for having children. What would be punishable is criminal negligence in regard to one's proven failure to care for the children you have. This clarifies the issue, and I like what you've proposed. Far from encroaching on civil liberties, it simply holds people accountable for their own actions and removes many of the incentives to reproduce irresponsibly. Cutting welfare for litters of children, using school as a means of making sure the money goes directly to the child, shifting financial accountability to the mother (no more getting pregnant in hopes of trapping a man into marriage/child support), making abortion more culturally acceptable, funneling previous welfare funds into voluntary government subsidizing of sterilization... wow. You've clearly put a lot of thought into this and covered the issue on many fronts, and I like all these policies. I'd definitely vote for someone who ran for public office on this platform! I also like the shift to marriage as a contractual arrangement. In the trailer for American Marriage, I remember Kelly Chang Rickert (a family law attorney) rattling off of a laundry list of forms and paperwork required for a divorce... and then, "to get married, apply for a marriage license. It's one page." XP This basically turns marriage into an act much like sex: easy for anyone to do, though they may not always be prepared for the consequences. Requiring people to put more forethought into marriage, hopefully, will help them think about what it entails, what they want out of it, and whether they really want to do it. It also opens up the dynamics of marriage to be determined by the individuals getting married, not the state's definition of what it thinks marriage should be. Gay, poly, open, "traditional," it will all be possible and determined by those whose business it is in the first place. I definitely plan on contractually determining the terms of my committed relationship(s). I will only do so on my terms, knowing what I'm getting into. ia ia Cthulhu fhatgn!
|
|
|
Post by I AM the Way on Oct 3, 2010 14:28:43 GMT -6
Both of you are coming up with great stuff! Instead of, or in addition to, controlling the genetic potential aspects of birth, maybe we should be focusing on the developmental potential of progressive education? Not only better schools but creating programs that help kids become more productive citizens.
How about a state or perhaps Cult run daycare during the summer months when school is not in session. The daycare could educate children as it steered them in the right direction. Because it helps out parents who go to work during the summer months, collecting money to pay for the "Cthulhu daycare" staff shouldn't be an issue. I can only imagine the untapped potential released from 3 months a year of instilling and reinforcing conscious guidance.
Awake!
Venger As'Nas Satanis High Priest Cult of Cthulhu
|
|
|
Post by xiaogui17 on Oct 3, 2010 15:09:43 GMT -6
Both of you are coming up with great stuff! Instead of, or in addition to, controlling the genetic potential aspects of birth, maybe we should be focusing on the developmental potential of progressive education? Not only better schools but creating programs that help kids become more productive citizens.
How about a state or perhaps Cult run daycare during the summer months when school is not in session. The daycare could educate children as it steered them in the right direction. Because it helps out parents who go to work during the summer months, collecting money to pay for the "Cthulhu daycare" staff shouldn't be an issue. I can only imagine the untapped potential released from 3 months a year of instilling and reinforcing conscious guidance.
Awake!
Venger As'Nas Satanis High Priest Cult of Cthulhu I'm thrilled that you've mentioned this, Master Satanis! Nurture, as well as nature, is in my mind a vital aspect of investing in future generations. (I prefer to do everything I can, so I intend to maximize both.) One of my personal goals is the eventual development of a Montessori Academy. But I'm getting ahead of myself... I'm a firm believer in Montessori education (done in early childhood, 0-12 years of age). An extensive body of research shows that this instructional style leads to high levels of conceptual comprehension and retention of material. Not only do Montessori-educated children develop verbal and analytical skills at a much more rapid rate than their peers, they also develop more quickly psychologically, learning concepts such as theory of mind and centration at earlier ages than normally thought developmentally possible. I always intended to send my future children to a Montessori school, but I was taken aback by the cost of such schools, approximately on par with the annual tuition of a private undergraduate institution! In addition, genuine certified Montessori academies are few and far between, so that a parent seeking a real Montessori program may be severely limited geographically. Many schools fill up before parents have the opportunity to get their children a slot! To complicate the matter, many are Christian affiliated. But then, I realized that the annual salary of a Montessori instructor costs less than the annual tuition for two students. So if I planned on having more than one child (and I do), it would actually be more cost-effective to hire an instructor myself than to send my children to a separate Montessori academy. Not only will I save by buying in bulk, I'll have more control of the curriculum to ensure my children get a strong philosophical foundation. Naturally, if I'm starting my own Montessori academy anyway, I would make it open to others. I'd be happy to include a summer program for other interested Cult members. They'd get the quality of Montessori instruction, but more accessible, more affordable, and more LHP friendly. This isn't happening any time soon, though it's well within the scope of reason if my current life plans pan out. The Cult of Cthulhu shall never die!
|
|
|
Post by Apsara Kamalli on Oct 3, 2010 18:08:53 GMT -6
I do agree that a liberal pursuit of the eugenics issue is ideal. Unfortunately, as is demonstrated by the social-ills we see in our news daily, hoping that the majority of people will simply eventually see the light is unrealistic. The criminalization of irresponsible reproduction is already a road our society, through our courts, is beginning to go down.
My suggestions (and these are only my suggestions) would leave everyone with a choice. No one would be punished for having children. What would be punishable is criminal negligence in regard to one's proven failure to care for the children you have. Our courts are starting to enforce only current laws in place. However, our laws are shortcoming to the suggestions you have mentioned. You are correct that hoping we will all band together to make positive changes is unrealistic, especially when it comes to very controversial issues such as eugenics, abortion, and stem-cell research. The far right insists on yelling louder; that they are correct about these issues going against God. And regardless of the economical impact that these shortcomings are creating on our society, they are not willing to budge on their faith in God's decisions. I work for a medical equipment company. We provide durable medical equipment such as wheelchairs, walkers, incontinence supplies, diabetic supplies, etc. When this job opportunity arose, it really didn't sound like too big of a deal. We provide equipment to people that need it. Simple. After working there for a few years, I have had my eyes opened to many of the underlying social issues that don't tend to make the news or go into our line of thinking when we vote. Here are a few examples: 1. The latest wheelchair we provided to a teenager with severe brain damage due to a genetic disorder cost the taxpayers around $30k. This was the client's fifth wheelchair since birth, all of them costing around the same amount. Through eugenics, this is an expense that could have prevented. Not that the parents would have chosen to abort the child. But... if they were aware of the disorder before birth, and chose to have the child anyway, we could have limitations in place stating that they would also be choosing to assume all financial responsibility for the child as well. 2. In the state of Texas, our Medicaid program will pay for teeth-whitening for migrant farm workers when it is considered medically necessary to help them "fit in." However, Medicaid will only pay to resuscitate a new-born child once per 24hr period. What? We will pay to have a migrant farm worker's teeth whitened through a series of treatments just to help them feel better, but we'll only pay to have a US citizen resuscitated once a day? 3. Abortion is legal. However, in the state of Texas, if you are a physician that performs a voluntary abortion, and the state finds out about it, they will not only deny all claims filed by your office from here on out, you will also be required to pay back all funds paid by the state to your office within the last (however many) days. This is government's way of regulating a legal procedure that they don't support. There are more stories, endless ideas, that have come across my desk that make me realize just how insignificant my vote seems to be on election day. So other than Master Diabolus' suggestion of spreading the knowledge and information through word-of-mouth, where do we turn to make the necessary adjustments so that more people will open their eyes to what is really going on? Posted by xiaogui17 on Today at 3:09pm: I, too, like the Montessori style of education rather than the traditional public education that most of our future generations are experiencing. However, after researching several local Montessori schools and visiting them with the intent on placing my now kindergartner in one, I realized that this type of learning style is also being manipulated to mold our children into something we may not be aware of. Several of the teachers and owners that I met emphasized to me that they are promoting a tolerant awareness of other cultures and pushing children to blind themselves to cultural and racial differences. At first, I thought this was a great idea. Tolerance, acceptance, one cultural for us all: this all sounds right up my line of thinking. But when it was broken down for me in a follow-up tour where I actually spent some time in a classroom, I realized that it was more than teaching tolerance. A child of about 6 yrs old made a comment to the teacher that he didn't understand how the black child could have white mommy & daddy. To me, an adult onlooker, this was an obvious foster or adoption situation. Rather than explaining the possibilities of how families can be created with such diversity, the child was reprimanded for seeing and acknowledging the difference in skin color. The teacher followed the reprimand up with an explanation of how it's that line of thinking that prevents us from evolving. While I support the idea of tolerance and acceptance and merging cultures, I also acknowledge the dangers that blind acceptance can create. The learning style of Montessori, I support. Some of the philosophies that are being forced upon those children are no better than those used in the public education system. The idea of a CoC daycare makes me chuckle a little, but essentially, it should be how we are all raising our children when they are at home anyway. The impact we have on our children should not be limited to just how to pick up after themselves, be home when they say they will, or here's how to operate the washing machine. Higher thinking and open spirituality should be just as prevalent in our parenting skills. Awake! Apsara Kamalli Esoteric Herald of the Old Gods Cult of Cthulhu
|
|
|
Post by xiaogui17 on Oct 3, 2010 19:51:29 GMT -6
I, too, like the Montessori style of education rather than the traditional public education that most of our future generations are experiencing. However, after researching several local Montessori schools and visiting them with the intent on placing my now kindergartner in one, I realized that this type of learning style is also being manipulated to mold our children into something we may not be aware of. Indeed, one of the downfalls to Montessori is that, because it is considered an "alternative" form of education, it tend to attract very counter-cultural people: hippies, vegans, radical cultural feminists, cultural relativists, and folks with a heavy dose of (pardon the term) liberal white guilt. I think it's as silly to hate yourself for being white as it is to be proud of being white, but some folks take the opposite extreme to sort of "make up" for history. A child of about 6 yrs old made a comment to the teacher that he didn't understand how the black child could have white mommy & daddy. To me, an adult onlooker, this was an obvious foster or adoption situation. Rather than explaining the possibilities of how families can be created with such diversity, the child was reprimanded for seeing and acknowledging the difference in skin color. The teacher followed the reprimand up with an explanation of how it's that line of thinking that prevents us from evolving. To me, this is clearly a case of an adult projecting adult-oriented thought on a child. It's similar to conservatives having a hissy fit over Katy Perry's boobs bouncing as she was running in her video with Elmo (as though three year olds would really notice that). Their outrage reflects what their minds were on more than what was wrong with the video itself. When I was just under 3, I met one of my father's students (he's a college professor), who was black. I commented, in a matter-of-fact manner, "My father has the darkest skin in my family (he has a ruddy complexion), but yours is even darker!" She took it well; she had the good sense to understand I didn't intend any offense. It was just an observation. The learning style of Montessori, I support. Some of the philosophies that are being forced upon those children are no better than those used in the public education system. Very true, which is just another reason I feel it's best that I take matters into my own hands. Tentaclednephilim (a member here) has expressed his intent to become a certified Montessori instructor, and I am glad that I personally know who will be working with the children. ia ia Cthulhu fhatgn!
|
|