innate ability vs. effort in education

Beliavsky wrote:
On Jan 2, 2:00 pm, Banty wrote:

Funny that - it's named for the first child born of immigrant parents, the
forefront of the most destructive mass immigration, then decries that very
process.

You characterize the English colonists who came to America (and later
founded the United States) as a "destructive mass immigration". I'd
say they created the greatest nation that ever existed. They were more
advanced than the American Indians they displaced. I don't think
that's true of current immigrants on average.

But, from my meagre knowledge of American history (and stop me if this
is wrong), they also killed off a lot of the existing population, took a
lot of their land, and were generally destructive to their culture. And
that's *also* not true of current immigrants on average. The original
colonists founded a nation that would ultimately go on to do some very
constructive things, but I don't think that changes the fact that they
were *also* very destructive.


All the best,

Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell

user wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:55:36 -0500, Stephanie wrote:

Wait. Guns equals advanced? I must have missed something!

To make guns on even a small scale, you need to be proficient at mining,
refining, metallurgy, chemistry, machining, and a host of other semi-commercial
or commercial activities.

To make a spear you need to be able to rub a stick against a rock.

So yeah, guns == advanced.

I think what you mean is that guns are a *subset* of advanced, not equal
to it. (Where 'advanced' means 'technologically advanced', that is.)


All the best,

Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell

"user" wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:55:36 -0500, Stephanie wrote:

"Penny Gaines" wrote in message
news
Stephanie wrote:
"Beliavsky" wrote in message
...
On Jan 2, 2:00 pm, Banty wrote:

Funny that - it's named for the first child born of immigrant parents,
the
forefront of the most destructive mass immigration, then decries that
very
process.

You characterize the English colonists who came to America (and later
founded the United States) as a "destructive mass immigration". I'd
say they created the greatest nation that ever existed. They were more
advanced than the American Indians they displaced. I don't think
that's true of current immigrants on average. In what way were they
more
advanced?

Technologically advanced: having guns and ships.




Wait. Guns equals advanced? I must have missed something!

To make guns on even a small scale, you need to be proficient at mining,
refining, metallurgy, chemistry, machining, and a host of other
semi-commercial
or commercial activities.

To make a spear you need to be able to rub a stick against a rock.

So yeah, guns == advanced.

- Rich


Technologically, perahaps. Not necessarily societally, philisophically or
morally.

In article , user says...

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:55:36 -0500, Stephanie wrote:

"Penny Gaines" wrote in message
news
Stephanie wrote:
"Beliavsky" wrote in message
...
On Jan 2, 2:00 pm, Banty wrote:

Funny that - it's named for the first child born of immigrant parents,
the
forefront of the most destructive mass immigration, then decries that
very
process.

You characterize the English colonists who came to America (and later
founded the United States) as a "destructive mass immigration". I'd
say they created the greatest nation that ever existed. They were more
advanced than the American Indians they displaced. I don't think
that's true of current immigrants on average. In what way were they more
advanced?

Technologically advanced: having guns and ships.




Wait. Guns equals advanced? I must have missed something!

To make guns on even a small scale, you need to be proficient at mining,
refining, metallurgy, chemistry, machining, and a host of other semi-commercial
or commercial activities.

To make a spear you need to be able to rub a stick against a rock.

So yeah, guns == advanced.

- Rich

In those ways, sure. But my *point* is that the website Beliavsky pointed us to
is a racial-purity site which opposes immigration, but actually named itself for
the first immigrant born here.

His response was basically that, that's OK, because those immigrants are better
than the people they decimated, as opposed to the immigrants coming now. Which
is a fairly baldly racialist outlook.

Banty

On Jan 2, 11:25*pm, user wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:09:16 GMT, toto wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:11:22 -0800 (PST), Beliavsky
wrote:

Funny that - it's named for the first child born of immigrant parents, the
forefront of the most destructive mass immigration, then decries that very
process.

You characterize the English colonists who came to America (and later
founded the United States) as a "destructive mass immigration". I'd
say they created the greatest nation that ever existed. They were more
advanced than the American Indians they displaced. I don't think
that's true of current immigrants on average.

Advanced in what way? *Some advancement is destructive. *Think what
might have happened had we adopted living *with* the land instead of
destroying it to build concrete wastelands.

* *The fact that you have the wherewithal to even post this means that
it's highly likely that all of your children will live to adulthood.

Yes, and the computer she uses likely uses Windows or Mac OS X,
American products, or possibly Linux, a clone of an operating system
(Unix) developed in America. America has also been a pioneer in
computer hardware.

More broadly, the U.S. has set a positive example for the rest of the
world by showing what people can accomplish in an environment of free
enterprise and limited, democratic government.

Toto has taught school for many years, and her attitude to the U.S.,
which I think is overly negative, is probably common among American
school teachers and especially university professors. I will try to
inculcate different attitudes in my kids.

Chances are, you will never be even *remotely* close to starving or
freezing to death. *You will have the ability to learn how the world
*actually* works, instead of relying on superstition. *You can communicate
with people of wildly varying opinions from all over the world, learn
from them, and teach them something, in return.

* *Or, you could live in socially and technologically stagnant societies
like the Native Americans did, watch half ( or more ) of your children
die before the age of three, and live a life where you're a very short
step from death by disease or starvation by any number of means.

* *If you ask me - I *like* being a fat, lazy American corporate drone,
secure in my suburban cocoon. *Beats the heck out of the alternative!

Well put.


- Rich-

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 06:12:45 -0800 (PST), Beliavsky
wrote:

More broadly, the U.S. has set a positive example for the rest of the
world by showing what people can accomplish in an environment of free
enterprise and limited, democratic government.

Toto has taught school for many years, and her attitude to the U.S.,
which I think is overly negative, is probably common among American
school teachers and especially university professors. I will try to
inculcate different attitudes in my kids.

You are totally wrong if you think that I am negative about America.
I don't, however, believe that our government or society is perfect.
Democracy, btw, is not equivalent to freedom. Democracy is a method
of deciding who shall rule. It does not determine the morality of the
resulting government. At best, democracy means that government has
popular support. But popular support is no guarantee that government
will protect your freedom. The United States was originally conceived
as a limited constitutional republic, NOT a democracy. The problem
is that those who originally came here did not protect the rights of
those already here (and they should have). There is no great virtue
in making heroes of those who did things that were ethically and
morally unsound. If we do not understand what happened, then it is
more likely to be repeated.

Beliavsky wrote:
[snip]
Yes, and the computer she uses likely uses Windows or Mac OS X,
American products, or possibly Linux, a clone of an operating system
(Unix) developed in America. America has also been a pioneer in
computer hardware.

Linux however was developed by a Finnish software engineer.

It is just as well, for jingoist Americans, that this discussion is
taking place on Usenet, rather then the world wide web, as that uses
protocols developed by a British citizen working in a cross-European
scientific establishment.

;-)

[snip]

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

On Jan 3, 7:05*am, "Stephanie" wrote:

snip

Wait. Guns equals advanced? I must have missed something!

* To make guns on even a small scale, you need to be proficient at mining,
refining, metallurgy, chemistry, machining, and a host of other
semi-commercial
or commercial activities.

* To make a spear you need to be able to rub a stick against a rock.

* So yeah, guns == advanced.

- Rich

Technologically, perahaps. Not necessarily societally, philisophically or
morally.

You can skim the Wikipedia sites on American Indians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_..._United_States and
Ancient Greece http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece and remind
yourself that in many respects, such as science, mathematics,
literature, and philosophy, the American Indians were less advanced
than a European civilization that existed more than 2000 years before,
much less the Western Europeans in the period 1500-1800.

"Beliavsky" wrote in message
...
On Jan 3, 7:05 am, "Stephanie" wrote:

snip

Wait. Guns equals advanced? I must have missed something!

To make guns on even a small scale, you need to be proficient at mining,
refining, metallurgy, chemistry, machining, and a host of other
semi-commercial
or commercial activities.

To make a spear you need to be able to rub a stick against a rock.

So yeah, guns == advanced.

- Rich

Technologically, perahaps. Not necessarily societally, philisophically or
morally.

You can skim the Wikipedia sites on American Indians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_..._United_States and
Ancient Greece http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece and remind
yourself that in many respects, such as science, mathematics,
literature, and philosophy, the American Indians were less advanced
than a European civilization that existed more than 2000 years before,
much less the Western Europeans in the period 1500-1800.




..........................

Yeah but they had us beat with humanitarianism hands down.

"Stephanie" wrote in message
. ..

"Beliavsky" wrote in message
...
On Jan 3, 7:05 am, "Stephanie" wrote:

snip

Wait. Guns equals advanced? I must have missed something!

To make guns on even a small scale, you need to be proficient at
mining,
refining, metallurgy, chemistry, machining, and a host of other
semi-commercial
or commercial activities.

To make a spear you need to be able to rub a stick against a rock.

So yeah, guns == advanced.

- Rich

Technologically, perahaps. Not necessarily societally, philisophically or
morally.

You can skim the Wikipedia sites on American Indians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_..._United_States and
Ancient Greece http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece and remind
yourself that in many respects, such as science, mathematics,
literature, and philosophy, the American Indians were less advanced
than a European civilization that existed more than 2000 years before,
much less the Western Europeans in the period 1500-1800.




.........................

Yeah but they had us beat with humanitarianism hands down.



That was, of course, intended as a joke.