The horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight.
That argument only holds true if the school only teach the kids to read, write and calculate.
But now we have things like history and social science. Those are topics impossible to keep neutral, and thus I prefer if the state is the one swaying the neutrality, not the individual teachers.
I don't know what social science is up there in vikingland but I doubt it makes me very happy. Scrapping it in an instant would be the first thing I would do anyhow, Scandinavians are too crazy in their leftism for their own good, they get peeled like an onion by forces that mean them harm
The horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight.
But you live in India, scandi countries have this stubborn wllingness to put the boundaries of what is reasonable for their countries to the test, a great part of it is moulding young minds into being what they like to call 'world citizins'. And they have no trouble whatsoever to start their campaign of submission at a very young age, they are truly idiots there.
Shouldn't you be arguing for patriotic songs then?![]()
The horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight.
This, I think, is key.
Even reading is a cultural activity, hell the habit of reading is cultural, not all cultures do it.
In the case of children who are first and second generation immigrants it most definately is the responsibility of the school to educate the children about the host country.
The idea that schools have no "moral" dimension is also troubling, because without that element you have no hope of enforcing dicipline (as seen in British schools currently).
To condense that - moral and cultural relevatism are moral and cultural viewpoints, adhering to them is no better than adhering to Christian moralism or "traditional" culture.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
All right, say moderation and neutrality are the correct way to go for schools. The correct way to teach kids.
The bottom line is, that somewhere else in the world there are people who aren't so moderate. And they do everything they can to make their kids unreasonable bigots. I do not support such people. They need to be stopped.
But would you rather see your kids be disillusioned about their country at a tender age or would you rather want them to grow up being happy about where they were born, and then once they are old enough, decide what is wrong and what is right?
In my opinion, children going to kindergarten do not need to learn about every single mistake their country has made. They need to feel good about their home, their city and their country.
If you stop them from singing a patriotic song, I don't think many of them will understand that it was done so as not to offend immigrants. Chances are they will feel resentful towards those immigrant kids because they were the reason they could not sing a nice song......
Moderation is the key no doubt, but it should be moderate moderation.
And in the end, no matter how moderate one wants to be, no matter what the issue, eventually, one needs to get off the fence.
@HoreTore
When you tell someone about an event from one perspective and leave the job of explaining the other side for someone else, it's not being neutral.
The horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight.
Uhm, what? I aim to present as many viewpoints("sides") as possible on each subject.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
If you tell them about how other people who do not like their country see it, then you must tell them about how people who do like it see it.If you as a parent feel that pride in your country is a valuable lesson for your kid, rajpoot, then I suggest you as a parent teach them that. That's your job, not mine. My job is to make them aware that other people might see things differently.
The horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight.
See I don't completely agree with this. Young children will get enough dirt on their own country (no matter what country it is) when they read the newspaper or watch the television. No kid should grow up feeling that his country isn't good enough.
I'm not saying that children should be taught in such a manner that they grow up to be hardcore nationalists, but some degree of pride in their own country is important. For if they are not proud of their own country and it's people, how do you expect them to work for its betterment?
The way I see it, one cannot really control all the things that influence a kid. But one can ensure that the few places that can be controlled (like schools) have a positive influence.
Edit:
Because the person born in that country is a part of it, and eventually he can either work so that it becomes a better place or he can be a jerk....
Do you feel proud about your favourite sports team? Do feel happy when they win?
Furthermore I think it must be clarified that the children in question are kindergarten kids and the song wasn't being taught to them. They were planning to sing it when they passed out of kindergarten.
Last edited by rajpoot; 06-14-2012 at 11:02.
The horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight.
National pride is meaningless. Pride is something you feel when you accomplish something. You don't choose what country you're born in. Nationality is not an achievement. So, why should one feel proud about a country? And if a country does something good, why do random people, who had nothing to do with it, feel proud?
Aren't there any music classes or what? Let them sing there. Why do you have to bring something like that(patriotic songs etc) into a class that should teach kids something different?
Bookmarks