Baumrind bogus....as Larzelere

robin wrote:
kane poh --

Why is my point of view labelled rambling. Why cannot my perspective,
my gripes, my fury (if that's what it is) count as genuine, and valid?

Read your posts outloud. If that doesn't answer your question, have
someone else read them to you out loud.

Please don't post "to" me. I'm not interested in rambling on and on in
this fashion.

I'm interested in either arguing the fine points of the abusive use of
force against children and calling it "spanking" and "discipline"
erroneously, or how we might further the changes that must take place
to ban spanking, and other forms of CP forever in this and other
countries until the whole planet is a kinder and safer place for
children. When that happens, it will be a kinder and safer place for
all.

0:-



Maybe I was mistaken in assuming you have an arrogant, white,
rationalist, liberal view point. I am probably "liberal" in some of my
views, or what is often labelled "liberal."

All I'm saying is that arrogant people of whatever historic heritage
tend to get high and mighty. They tend to evolve "bullying" theories,
rationalisms, theologies, philosophies, that excuse the oppression and
exploitation of weaker or more vulnerable peoples. There are numerous
issues which you went in to which I could pick on. (I don't mean nit
pick, because I feel your point of view merits critical scrutiny.)

Civilization tends to FORCE its "superior" attitudes on others who have
not been so "blesssed." That is what I meant by Roman and feudal
tutelage. I do not deny that in many ways the Civilization of Rome, and
the West, are indeed positive and beneficial to others. But remember,
even the northern Europeans were "grafted on" to the civilization of
the Romans, Greeks, and (when they had adopted, or swallowed, the Bible
of the Christians ... who got it from the Jews).

I admit I am less qualified to get into the nitty gritty of the
Baumrind, Larselere scholarship discussion. Passions run high, which
probably (partly) reflects the seriousness of the issues. But it also
reflects the personalities of the discussants, both good and not so
good.

I appreciate your familiarity with history. My point about the Romans
imposing their law, their agriculture, their writing, their language,
and ultimately ... religion too ... is very much what was repeated much
later on during the Age of Exploration (read, Age of Colonization) by
the very peoples earlier subjugated by the Romans. The missionaries
followed in the wake of the ARMIES. It was, truth be told, a matter of
conquest, exploitation, and one could almost say ENSLAVEMENT.

You point out the good. Some of what was "good" is open to debate.
Agriculture and urbanization, for example. Rousseau perhaps went too
far in idealizing the natural state, the pristine innocence of the
tribes before Civilization got out its whip and "inspired" our
ancestors to slave away during the growing season, so there would be
food for the babies and old ones during the winters. Is the white man
Bible somehow better than the Bible which is found in sunshine and
rain, in the brooks and glens, the hills and caves and hollows .... and
in the dreams of young men, the hunger induced visions of the elderly?

It shouldn't be a white versus non white thing. After all, Aztecs did
the Roman thing of trampling down neighboring tribes, then absorbing
them into the culture, language, and empire of the Aztecs. They craved
a large population so they could multiply the work, and multiply the
wealth, that enabled all the glories of their empire. They subjugated,
and oppressed, and exploited, then tried to convince the victims that
it was a voluntary thing. Doesn't that sound like what Europeans did,
wherever they went? Imperialism, sheer and simple.

It's FORCE, and they were, if you can believe the clear record of
history, ABUSERS of the unarmed and vulnerable tribal folk in their
path.

Kane, you seem to want to dismiss others point of view, and set
yourself up as the final word.

You cite scholarly types who expound to great extents, in much breadth
and depth, the views you cling to.

Yet you dismiss someone else's efforts to bridge to gap, by labelling
it rambling.

If I treat others with disdain, or set myself up in a pretentious way
as wiser than others, do I not risk turning potential friends into
enemies?

I notice you referred to Hawaii.

Each of us has a background, some humble, others more privileged. Does
not each person, both as an individual, and as the heir of his own
tradition, have a right to assert and express his own unique
contribution?

What is being a bully? Were the old ones bullies, because they were my
teachers?

The Europeans were enlightened in many ways, and wiser than other
peoples.

But not everything "enlightened" is worthy of the name. Darwin
despised inferior races, and predicted the "natural" extinction,
through the forces of natural selection.

Freud despised the "weak" side of himself (despised the feminine side,
and considered religion to be feminine.)

Nietzsche and Rousseau each shrieked against the great OPPRESSORS of
history.

For Nietzsche the great oppressor was Christendom and civilization.
Rousseau blamed parenting, too, for its part in warping (civilizing)
the innocent child, just as Europe warped and corrupted the "noble
savage."

How true that is, both Nietzsche and also Rousseau.

Truly the two great bullies are (1) Civilization or christendom, and
(2) Parenting, our parents.

They make you do things you don't want to go. make you get dressed, go
to school, learn to work.

It's all coercion, yet they PRETEND that it aint coercion at all.

...........snip......piles of rambling rubbish and babbling and a
continued refusal to discuss the issues of child corporal
punishment.....terrible waste of the posters time, and an attempt to
waste mine......not going to happen.

0:-