Historical Perspectives on Corporal Punishment

"Carlson LaVonne" wrote in message
...
Ron,

I was referring to views of childhood throughout history. When you talk
about Plato and non-CP parenting, this is ridiculous. This term wasn't
even around in 427-347 B.C. The point was the changing and conflicting
views on the nature of children and how children best learn, grow, and
develop. The idea of children who are born evil and who must be punished
in order to break the will of the child has been contested in many forms
for centuries. Plato believed children were born good.

None of the theorists and philosophers I mentioned below have been "proven
wrong." They were theorists and philosophers. Early childhood research
did not exist at that time, so there was no research to replicate, and no
way to prove them wrong. Many of their ideas are apparent when you walk
into any early childhood classroom, which I do daily.

Current research has incorporated the ideas of Plato (use of questioning
and acceptance of response) Comenius (a teaching environment free of pain
and fear), Pestalozzi (Children learn and respond best when individuals
realize that children want to please. Punishment can create an aversion
to learning). Portions of Froebel's kindergarten (child garden) are still
around today.

These individuals weren't tooth fairies. These individuals were pioneers
in a kind and respectful view of children.

When you walk into an early childhood classroom and hear a teacher
questioning a children about their ideas, about why they think what they
do, and why, this goes back to Plato.

When you walk into an early childhood classroom and watch the teacher
incorporate knowledge of the natural environment, think Rouseau. When you
see a teacher use manipulatives to help children learn concepts of math,
think Froebel. And when you see an early childhood teacher kindly using a
picture book, think Comenius (Pictus Orbis). He wrote the first recorded
picture book for children.

We now have research that provides us with more concrete knowledge about
how children best learn, grow, and develop. This did not exist in the
centuries of the theorists and philosophers mentions below. But, it is
absolutely fascinating to trace history, and realize that so much of what
we now know had roots in those early philosophers.

I don't know what you know about educational iconography. This is a
visual description of how children have been viewed over the ages. You
may find it interesting.

I don't know why this struck such a nerve with you. I provided one
reference, which you may find interesting. Here are three classics that
you can probably acquire through Amazon, if you so desire.

It didnt really "strike a nerve", it was just an inaccurate representation
of the facts.

My educational background does not lean towards children but towards the
technical. On the other hand though, I am a parent and a foster parent,
with what most would consider significant experience. What that experience
has taught me is that those with educational bents like yours fall into the
same trap. The trap that they know more about rearing children, teaching
them, correcting them, than the 20,000 years of parents that came before
them. Individually, yes you may know vastly more than any specific
individual from that past did, but
collectively those 20,000 years of parents with their practical parenting
experience, were far wiser in this area than any group of individuals
existing today.

Wishey, B. ((1977). The child and the republic. Thge down of modern
American child nurture. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Huh? Somehow this makes no sense at all. Are we missing a few words?

Aries,P. (I don't have the date). Centuries of childhood: A social
history of family life. (translated from the French by Robert Baldick).
This book is an absolute classic, hard to get anymore, but one of the best
researched books on the history of children you will ever find.

It "may be" one of the best researched. Heavy emphasis on the term "may
be". We cant know if it was or was not, nor do we know of the original
author's agenda, political leanings, and intentions in the book. Not to
mention that it was translated, which brings another complete individual
into the equation, along with his agenda, political leanings, and
intentions.

deMause, L. (1974). The history of childhood. Harper Torchbooks.

The idea of kindness in teaching and parenting, and the idea of children's
innate goodness has been around for centuries. This is what I hoped to
illustrate in my post.

LaVonne

Given my own experience, I have absolutely no question about the innate
goodness of children. Its when they make contact with adults that they
start to get screwed up. From birth onward. From the second they enter
this world they are subjected to the attitudes, agendas, political leanings,
and intentions of the adults they come into contact with. There is no other
explanation. Otherwise how could a 4 year old molest other children?
That's right, molest, sexually. It has to be a learned behavior. As are
racism, bullying, oppositional behavior, swearing, and all the other things
that we see in our nations youth today that 75 years ago rarely existed.

Ron


Ron wrote:

"Carlson LaVonne" wrote in message
...

There are individuals on alt.parenting.spanking that claim the idea of
not hitting children in the name of discipline is a new and radical idea
by current dishonest and rabid cultists.

Plato (427-347 B.C.) believed that early childhood was a time of
plasticity and innate goodness.


Nothing in that about Plato being a non-CP parent.


Comenius (1592-1670) railed against harsh discipline, and believed that
children learn best in an environment free of fear. He advocated
teaching with kindness and love.


In the 14th and 15th centuries harsh punishment was a whipping (with an
actual horse whip), blindings, brandings, and other things that in this
day would be considered torture.


Pestalozzi (1746-1827) believed that children should be disciplined
through their desire to please rather than through fear. He warned
against using punishment to teach, fearing that children would develop an
aversion to learning.


History proved him wrong.


Froebel (1782-1852) believed children learned best by being observed and
gently guided, rather than by being punished.


Belief, unsupported by fact. Might as well believe in the tooth fairy.


While many individuals in Europe during the Middle Ages and in Colonial
America did not follow this advice, it is clear throughout history that
the idea of teaching and parenting without fear, pain, and punishment is
not an idea put forth by a few radical individuals in the 20th and 21st
centuries.


Many? How about the "vast majority" didn't didn't follow this advice?
At least that would be accurate. Historically spanking was attached to
religious belief's by such terms as "Spare the rod and spoil the child",
and since the vast majority of people prior to the industrial revolution
held strong religious convictions of one type or another they followed
their religious teachings. By comparison, your theories are "put forth
by a few radical individuals in the 20th and 21st centuries".

Ron


If anyone wants to trace the views of childhood throughout history to
present day, Roopnarine, J. & Johnson, J. (2005). Approaches to early
childhood education (4th edition). Merril Prentice Hall: New Jersey.

There are several other excellent resources, all well researched, that I
can provide if anyone is interested.

LaVonne

Ron wrote:
"Carlson LaVonne" wrote in message
...

Ron,

I was referring to views of childhood throughout history. When you talk
about Plato and non-CP parenting, this is ridiculous. This term wasn't
even around in 427-347 B.C. The point was the changing and conflicting
views on the nature of children and how children best learn, grow, and
develop. The idea of children who are born evil and who must be punished
in order to break the will of the child has been contested in many forms
for centuries. Plato believed children were born good.

None of the theorists and philosophers I mentioned below have been "proven
wrong." They were theorists and philosophers. Early childhood research
did not exist at that time, so there was no research to replicate, and no
way to prove them wrong. Many of their ideas are apparent when you walk
into any early childhood classroom, which I do daily.

Current research has incorporated the ideas of Plato (use of questioning
and acceptance of response) Comenius (a teaching environment free of pain
and fear), Pestalozzi (Children learn and respond best when individuals
realize that children want to please. Punishment can create an aversion
to learning). Portions of Froebel's kindergarten (child garden) are still
around today.

These individuals weren't tooth fairies. These individuals were pioneers
in a kind and respectful view of children.

When you walk into an early childhood classroom and hear a teacher
questioning a children about their ideas, about why they think what they
do, and why, this goes back to Plato.

When you walk into an early childhood classroom and watch the teacher
incorporate knowledge of the natural environment, think Rouseau. When you
see a teacher use manipulatives to help children learn concepts of math,
think Froebel. And when you see an early childhood teacher kindly using a
picture book, think Comenius (Pictus Orbis). He wrote the first recorded
picture book for children.

We now have research that provides us with more concrete knowledge about
how children best learn, grow, and develop. This did not exist in the
centuries of the theorists and philosophers mentions below. But, it is
absolutely fascinating to trace history, and realize that so much of what
we now know had roots in those early philosophers.

I don't know what you know about educational iconography. This is a
visual description of how children have been viewed over the ages. You
may find it interesting.

I don't know why this struck such a nerve with you. I provided one
reference, which you may find interesting. Here are three classics that
you can probably acquire through Amazon, if you so desire.


It didnt really "strike a nerve", it was just an inaccurate representation
of the facts.

As I stated, my post was meant to illustrate that the idea of kindness
in parenting and teaching has been around for centuries. This is a
fact. My post presented abbreviated ideas of philosophers and
theoriests spanning several centuries.

My educational background does not lean towards children but towards the
technical. On the other hand though, I am a parent and a foster parent,
with what most would consider significant experience. What that experience
has taught me is that those with educational bents like yours fall into the
same trap. The trap that they know more about rearing children, teaching
them, correcting them, than the 20,000 years of parents that came before
them. Individually, yes you may know vastly more than any specific
individual from that past did, but
collectively those 20,000 years of parents with their practical parenting
experience, were far wiser in this area than any group of individuals
existing today.

Twenty thousand years is a long time. Do you actually have parenting
and teaching information from twenty thousand years ago? And if so, how
does this prove that these individuals were far wiser in this area than
any group of individuals existing today? Iconography visually
represents history's view of childhood, but I doubt it goes back 20,000
years. If you have this information, I'd be interested in seeing your
sources. I think the history of childhood is fascinating.


Wishey, B. ((1977). The child and the republic. Thge down of modern
American child nurture. University of Pennsylvania Press.


Huh? Somehow this makes no sense at all. Are we missing a few words?

No there are no missing words, but I seem to have some typo issues
(grin)! This should have read "The dawn of modern American child
nurture." Even though the typing errors should not have happened, I
think it would have been possible to understand the title of the book.



Aries,P. (I don't have the date). Centuries of childhood: A social
history of family life. (translated from the French by Robert Baldick).
This book is an absolute classic, hard to get anymore, but one of the best
researched books on the history of children you will ever find.


It "may be" one of the best researched. Heavy emphasis on the term "may
be". We cant know if it was or was not, nor do we know of the original
author's agenda, political leanings, and intentions in the book.

I said "may be" because I don't deal in absolutes. However, I was
introduced to this book by an educational anthropoligist who is
respected and known thoughout the world. I really felt that his
credentials were better than mine.

Not to
mention that it was translated, which brings another complete individual
into the equation, along with his agenda, political leanings, and
intentions.

This individual that introduced this book to me read and spoke many
languages fluently, including ancient languages. He read the book in
it's original language and felt the translation was accurate.


deMause, L. (1974). The history of childhood. Harper Torchbooks.

The idea of kindness in teaching and parenting, and the idea of children's
innate goodness has been around for centuries. This is what I hoped to
illustrate in my post.

LaVonne


Given my own experience, I have absolutely no question about the innate
goodness of children. Its when they make contact with adults that they
start to get screwed up. From birth onward. From the second they enter
this world they are subjected to the attitudes, agendas, political leanings,
and intentions of the adults they come into contact with. There is no other
explanation. Otherwise how could a 4 year old molest other children?
That's right, molest, sexually. It has to be a learned behavior. As are
racism, bullying, oppositional behavior, swearing, and all the other things
that we see in our nations youth today that 75 years ago rarely existed.

I do agree with most of the paragraph above. However, I'm questioning
seveal statements. You say that "racism, bullying, oppositional
behavior, swearing, and all the other things that we see in our nations
youth today that 75 years ago rarely existed."

Talk to anyone black, and ask them if racism rarely existed 75 years
ago, in 1931. For heaven sakes, Ron -- in 1931 black children in the US
were in segregated schools. Black adults were not permitted to vote.
Read and learn something about the civil rights movement in this country.

You may not have the educational background that I have, but we are both
parents. Please do not say stupid things like this without support.

My children are African-American and female. Seventy five years ago
they couldn't vote or even drink out of a drinking fountain designated
for "whites." And it wasn't all that long ago that my little girls
could have been sold at a public auction like cattle.

Rosa Parks is their hero. And she should be. If you actually think that
life was better for children 20,000 years ago, or 200 years ago, or 75
years ago, you are misinformed. Look at the history of welfare train in
our country, and the prevalence of selling children because a parent
couldn't afford to care for them.

Like you, I am a parent. But please, don't sell out children short.
Seventy-five years ago my children could not use a public drinking
fountain. Seventy-five years ago my children had to sit in the back of
a bus. And you actually believe that 75 years ago racism barely existed?

LaVonne


Ron



Ron wrote:


"Carlson LaVonne" wrote in message
...


There are individuals on alt.parenting.spanking that claim the idea of
not hitting children in the name of discipline is a new and radical idea
by current dishonest and rabid cultists.

Plato (427-347 B.C.) believed that early childhood was a time of
plasticity and innate goodness.


Nothing in that about Plato being a non-CP parent.



Comenius (1592-1670) railed against harsh discipline, and believed that
children learn best in an environment free of fear. He advocated
teaching with kindness and love.


In the 14th and 15th centuries harsh punishment was a whipping (with an
actual horse whip), blindings, brandings, and other things that in this
day would be considered torture.



Pestalozzi (1746-1827) believed that children should be disciplined
through their desire to please rather than through fear. He warned
against using punishment to teach, fearing that children would develop an
aversion to learning.


History proved him wrong.



Froebel (1782-1852) believed children learned best by being observed and
gently guided, rather than by being punished.


Belief, unsupported by fact. Might as well believe in the tooth fairy.



While many individuals in Europe during the Middle Ages and in Colonial
America did not follow this advice, it is clear throughout history that
the idea of teaching and parenting without fear, pain, and punishment is
not an idea put forth by a few radical individuals in the 20th and 21st
centuries.


Many? How about the "vast majority" didn't didn't follow this advice?
At least that would be accurate. Historically spanking was attached to
religious belief's by such terms as "Spare the rod and spoil the child",
and since the vast majority of people prior to the industrial revolution
held strong religious convictions of one type or another they followed
their religious teachings. By comparison, your theories are "put forth
by a few radical individuals in the 20th and 21st centuries".

Ron



If anyone wants to trace the views of childhood throughout history to
present day, Roopnarine, J. & Johnson, J. (2005). Approaches to early
childhood education (4th edition). Merril Prentice Hall: New Jersey.

There are several other excellent resources, all well researched, that I
can provide if anyone is interested.

LaVonne

LaVonne wrote
My children are African-American and female. Seventy five years ago
they couldn't vote or even drink out of a drinking fountain designated
for "whites." And it wasn't all that long ago that my little girls
could have been sold at a public auction like cattle.

LaVonne: I am assuming "your children" were adopted.
Your political naivety just doesn't smack of the black experience.

You seem more like an extreme ultraliberal who adopted two black
babies because of the "liberal brownie points" they can claim.

While I have been more directly accusing you of academic naivety,
the usual failing of academia, the "ivory tower" syndrome, etc..

You wrote a "history" so warped and twisted by YOUR AGENDA
that you really are more of a CON ARTIST than an oracle of knowledge.

It was POLEMICS, political rhetoric cast as ""education"".

Ron quite successfully refuted about EVERY item.

Greegor wrote:
LaVonne wrote
My children are African-American and female. Seventy five years ago
they couldn't vote or even drink out of a drinking fountain designated
for "whites." And it wasn't all that long ago that my little girls
could have been sold at a public auction like cattle.

LaVonne: I am assuming "your children" were adopted.
Your political naivety just doesn't smack of the black experience.

What is it about her politics that leads you to believe she would not be
aware of the Black Experience. She may BE black for all you know.

And even if White, white parents that adopt make it, usually, very much
their business to dig into studying the Black Experience.

I suspect she knows considerably more than you do.

You seem more like an extreme ultraliberal who adopted two black
babies because of the "liberal brownie points" they can claim.

You haven't any morals or ethics at all, do you, Greg?

While I have been more directly accusing you of academic naivety,
the usual failing of academia, the "ivory tower" syndrome, etc..

Oh you accuse and insinuate lots of things Greg, but are so lacking in
character that that's about all you do, post after post after post.

You wrote a "history" so warped and twisted by YOUR AGENDA
that you really are more of a CON ARTIST than an oracle of knowledge.

What "'history'" was that, Greg?

It was POLEMICS, political rhetoric cast as ""education"".

Whatever are you referring to? Something in aborted attributions?

Ron quite successfully refuted about EVERY item.

While you'd love two people with viewpoints that differ only in view to
fight so that YOU can feel better about your little puny sick little
self, my take is that both of these folks can debate
honestly...identifying opinion and what they believe to be facts and
allow the other to sort things out.

Now if you have something YOU would like to take a stand on and make a
claim about, speak right up, boy.

And Ron and I do not agree on all issues related to spanking.

Yet because we essentially DO agree on the majority of child rearing
issues, and especially those pertaining to special needs children,
neither of us see any need to put on a show for you or other cretins
like you.

If you think you are making points with Ron, why not just tell him you
agree with him and see how welcoming he is of your opinion?

Chicken****, aren't you, Greg.

You are so foul a creature that only the most needy and morally bankrupt
propagandists will even bother to use you, Greg.

One of the more obvious lacks in this particular forum,
alt.parenting.spanking is reasoned respectful debate.

One of the reasons it's missing is that when two people that want to
debate yet know there's a good chance they will have to respectfully
agree to disagree, some ****assed little punk like YOU wants to stick
their slimy maw in and start a fight.

Doan is a perfect example of the sickness you share with him.

Notice that neither of you have had the least success with old timers
like Ron, LaVonne or myself.

The only people you can sucker are a few newbies and not all of the.
beccafromlalaland being one neither you nor Doan could subvert.

The others were already spanker debaters that do not have Ron's
experience or can bring his clearer thinking, honesty, and positive
intent to the table.

And I say this despite believing that on some items he is
incorrect...wrong. My belief is not enough to disrespect him.

I can't think of any reason to call him a ****assed lying monkeyboy and
butt buddy to Doan though, since he is dead honest and will not lie to
make a point, nor is he sick, like you.

So, now, what IS your point, ****ass?

Kane


0:-




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Greg wrote to LaVonne
You seem more like an extreme ultraliberal who adopted two black
babies because of the "liberal brownie points" they can claim.

Kane wrote
You haven't any morals or ethics at all, do you, Greg?

Don't you mean Political Correctness?

Greegor wrote:
Greg wrote to LaVonne
You seem more like an extreme ultraliberal who adopted two black
babies because of the "liberal brownie points" they can claim.

Kane wrote
You haven't any morals or ethics at all, do you, Greg?

Don't you mean Political Correctness?

No. Are you reading impaired as well as morally and ethically impaired?

Or do you believe that that's what morals and ethics are, simply
"Political Correctness?" [sic]

I've known a lot of white people that have adopted black and other
minority or mixed race babies. Their own kin.

I don't recall them trying to be politically correct.

And I presume people adopt babies because they want a baby to love.
Political correctness would wear thin after about the tenth diaper, and
most people are intelligent enough to know that.

Seem Greg doesn't. I wonder why?

And you?



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Greg wrote to LaVonne
You seem more like an extreme ultraliberal who adopted two black
babies because of the "liberal brownie points" they can claim.

Kane wrote
You haven't any morals or ethics at all, do you, Greg?

Greg wrote
Don't you mean Political Correctness?

Kane wrote
No. Are you reading impaired as well as morally and ethically impaired?
Or do you believe that that's what morals and ethics are, simply
"Political Correctness?" [sic]
I've known a lot of white people that have adopted black and other
minority or mixed race babies. Their own kin.
I don't recall them trying to be politically correct.

DID THEY post on the WWW about them, like LaVonne did?
And if they did, would it be an untouchable "sacred cow" subject?
Asking for more about LaVonne's advertized black babies
is an issue of Political Correctness isn't it?

LaVonne:

YOU brought up these black babies to prove a point.

But you're white as SNOW, right? (1)

You have no blood relationship to them, right? (2)

You adopted them you already said.

DO you believe you were abused as a child? (3)

Doctor LaVonne Carlson:
DO YOU really think these are unfair or
inappropriate questions given your presentations
about spanking and Child Protective Services?

Do you seriously think that honest answers
to these questions are not appropriate to
judging the MOTIVATIONS and conflicts
of interest you may have regarding issues
you expound about?

Don't you think that while your professional
credentials can be swung around to support
your positions, wouldn't some of these
background facts be of even MORE weight
in regard to your opinion and expertise?

Greegor wrote:
Greg wrote to LaVonne
You seem more like an extreme ultraliberal who adopted two black
babies because of the "liberal brownie points" they can claim.

Kane wrote
You haven't any morals or ethics at all, do you, Greg?

Greg wrote
Don't you mean Political Correctness?

Kane wrote
No. Are you reading impaired as well as morally and ethically impaired?
Or do you believe that that's what morals and ethics are, simply
"Political Correctness?" [sic]
I've known a lot of white people that have adopted black and other
minority or mixed race babies. Their own kin.
I don't recall them trying to be politically correct.

DID THEY post on the WWW about them, like LaVonne did?

If it's in context with the discussion, why not?

And if they did, would it be an untouchable "sacred cow" subject?

Not to me, and apparently not to LaVonne. She mentioned them in context
of considering the law and how it changes.

Asking for more about LaVonne's advertized black babies
is an issue of Political Correctness isn't it?

Well, I didn't ask for more, and Ron didn't ask for more. Did you?

LaVonne:

YOU brought up these black babies to prove a point.

I think she did. It looked like she did. And it seemed to prove a point
to me. And you?

You don't want to accept the point so instead we get this?

But you're white as SNOW, right? (1)

What would that have to do with anything? She seems very invested
parentally in her children. That would make them good examples of how
laws change...her point.

You have no blood relationship to them, right? (2)

Now who is asking for more information about her children, Greg?

You adopted them you already said.

Then your question was answered, unless she happens to have made a
kinship adoption. Still, what relevance is there to your questions?

Why would you want to know these things other than to be seeking yet
another way to harass and make and even bigger ass of yourself?


DO you believe you were abused as a child? (3)

So from one subject to another, for no plausible reason. Except of
course you likely wishing to harass.

Doctor LaVonne Carlson:
DO YOU really think these are unfair or
inappropriate questions given your presentations
about spanking and Child Protective Services?

Sure they are. What have your questions to do with her comments on
spanking and CPS?

Do you seriously think that honest answers
to these questions are not appropriate to
judging the MOTIVATIONS and conflicts
of interest you may have regarding issues
you expound about?

I seriously think you are losing your mind if you think those are
appropriate questions.

Why would her daughters and adopting them have anything to do with her
motives here and if they did in what way would that be condemnation of
her position?

I'd think it would make her MORE unbiased and objective because she MUST
be. She had a task to perform.

Don't you think that while your professional
credentials can be swung around to support
your positions, wouldn't some of these
background facts be of even MORE weight
in regard to your opinion and expertise?

Other than pointing out her work and making clear that her credentials
would put her in the position she claims she has there is not relevance.

Since when is it evil or mistaken or wrong to be motivated?

Do you wish to apply these same measures to YOU?

I'd be happy to oblige, if you insist?

You, Greg, hide your professional "credentials" or other information
that would reveal your motives.

Why is it that with someone that isn't ashamed of or doesn't otherwise
feel a need to hide their's, we are supposed to presume YOU are the
honest one, and they are suspect?

You dig yourself these huge holes and seem not to care, Greg. I can't
help but wonder if you are so out of touch that you cannot see how you
appear when you do this.

And you team with others that have a very similar problem. Gross
impropriety, compounded with blatant public lying, evasion, innuendo,
and what appears to be studied ignorance, are your similarities.

And you can't see this, right?


0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Greegor wrote:
LaVonne wrote

My children are African-American and female. Seventy five years ago
they couldn't vote or even drink out of a drinking fountain designated
for "whites." And it wasn't all that long ago that my little girls
could have been sold at a public auction like cattle.


LaVonne: I am assuming "your children" were adopted.
Your political naivety just doesn't smack of the black experience.

You can assume whatever you want, Greegor. You know what is said about
"assuming."
I posted the information that I did to illustrate the error or the
poster's statement that "racism barely existed 75 years ago." Racism
was rampant 75 years ago. And while racism still exists, laws can no
longer determine, based on race, where children attend school, who can
drink in public fountains, where individuals may sit on the bus, who may
eat in certain restaurants, or who may use a public bathroom. Guess you
couldn't stick with the content of the thread.

You seem more like an extreme ultraliberal who adopted two black
babies because of the "liberal brownie points" they can claim.

Once again, you can make whatever assumptions you want. Remember what
is said about "assuming."

While I have been more directly accusing you of academic naivety,
the usual failing of academia, the "ivory tower" syndrome, etc..

You are much more interested in personal harassement, diversion, and
distortion.

You wrote a "history" so warped and twisted by YOUR AGENDA
that you really are more of a CON ARTIST than an oracle of knowledge.

I didn't write a "history." What I posted came directly from the
references which were cited, should you care to locate the books and
read them.

It was POLEMICS, political rhetoric cast as ""education"".

Not so.

Ron quite successfully refuted about EVERY item.

The only way to successfully refute is to read the sources cited, and
post errors based on other sources that prove my references were
incorrect. So far, no one has done that. I'd welcome it though. The
more references I am aware of, the more I can read and learn.

So, if my sources were incorrect, please refute the references by
posting alternative, quality, published, references.

LaVonne

Please note here that Ron has said NOTHING about racisim.

Not one dam thing. So please, attribute this to the proper persons.

Ron

"Greegor" wrote in message
ups.com...
LaVonne wrote
My children are African-American and female. Seventy five years ago
they couldn't vote or even drink out of a drinking fountain designated
for "whites." And it wasn't all that long ago that my little girls
could have been sold at a public auction like cattle.

LaVonne: I am assuming "your children" were adopted.
Your political naivety just doesn't smack of the black experience.

You seem more like an extreme ultraliberal who adopted two black
babies because of the "liberal brownie points" they can claim.

While I have been more directly accusing you of academic naivety,
the usual failing of academia, the "ivory tower" syndrome, etc..

You wrote a "history" so warped and twisted by YOUR AGENDA
that you really are more of a CON ARTIST than an oracle of knowledge.

It was POLEMICS, political rhetoric cast as ""education"".

Ron quite successfully refuted about EVERY item.