Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 27 May '14 01:52
    I cannot believe my eyes when I read the article below. In this time and age, where the world has already become a market town, England, of all countries, have a ministry of education that plans to remove Of Mice and Men and To Kill a Mockingbird from school reading lists, in favour of Dickens and Austen:

    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may/26/10-american-writers-english-children-study-gcse-michael-gove

    In another words, let's remove all non English lit. I wonder about Scotish, Welsh and Irish ... Literature has no boundaries, specially in the UK where the sun never set at one tine in history. I hope this will not happen.

    This is frightening, just like the FN in France getting away tip top with 25% majority in the European Parlament.
  2. Standard member vivify
    rain
    27 May '14 02:32
    Isn't this type of "nationalism" common? I'm sure that in China, India and Spain, authors from their region receive top promotion in schools. This isn't a good thing, but if this is the case, it's not fair to single out England.
  3. 27 May '14 03:17
    Originally posted by Tabitha Marshall
    I cannot believe my eyes when I read the article below. In this time and age, where the world has already become a market town, England, of all countries, have a ministry of education that plans to remove Of Mice and Men and To Kill a Mockingbird from school reading lists, in favour of Dickens and Austen:

    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may ...[text shortened]... ng, just like the FN in France getting away tip top with 25% majority in the European Parlament.
    The state in control of education is a frightening thing.

    It used to be that they were in control of the churches as well. Luckily for them, very few in Europe even bother going to church anymore. This just leaves the schools to propagandize.
  4. 27 May '14 05:14
    Originally posted by Tabitha Marshall
    I cannot believe my eyes when I read the article below. In this time and age, where the world has already become a market town, England, of all countries, have a ministry of education that plans to remove Of Mice and Men and To Kill a Mockingbird from school reading lists, in favour of Dickens and Austen:

    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may ...[text shortened]... ng, just like the FN in France getting away tip top with 25% majority in the European Parlament.
    I'd worry about a rise of nationalism, if ethnic statism weren't a bigger deal.
  5. 27 May '14 06:04 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by vivify
    Isn't this type of "nationalism" common? I'm sure that in China, India and Spain, authors from their region receive top promotion in schools. This isn't a good thing, but if this is the case, it's not fair to single out England.
    "I'm sure that in China ... receive top promotion in schools."
    --Vivify

    Vivify likes to attach unwarranted certainty to his stereotypical assumptions.

    Apart perhaps from periods of excessive xenophobia (the Cultural Revolution),
    Chinese students tend to read many non-Chinese authors in Chinese translation.
    When Communism was more fashionable, the Chinese were expected to read
    selections from Marx and Lenin in school. In the 1950s there was significant
    Soviet cultural influence, and some Chinese who grew up then can still recall
    Russian songs (which CCTV today sometimes broadcasts for nostalgia) they learned.
    When they read Charles Dickens's _A Christmas Carol_, the Chinese tended to
    interpret it in terms of class struggle while ignoring the Christian message.

    Zhou Enlai could, in addition to Chinese, read and write English, French, German,
    and Russian. I cannot think of a recent US President who knew as many languages.

    China's government has been attempting to encourage interest in the Chinese
    language abroad (which coincides with more than a few people hoping to learn
    Chinese in order to pursue business opportunities in China). I believe that
    China's government would have no objection--on the contrary, the authorities
    probably would be pleased--to having their schoolchildren read non-Chinese
    authors who write *significant good books in Chinese*. As far as I know,
    however, extremely few non-Chinese authors even attempt to write any books
    in Chinese.

    Did anyone expect that China's government *should* encourage Chinese schoolchildren
    to learn how to read books in a *foreign language before* books in Chinese?

    I have no doubt whatsoever that the average Chinese university student today
    has read much more in English than the average American university student
    has read in Chinese.
  6. 27 May '14 09:01
    Originally posted by Tabitha Marshall
    I cannot believe my eyes when I read the article below. In this time and age, where the world has already become a market town, England, of all countries, have a ministry of education that plans to remove Of Mice and Men and To Kill a Mockingbird from school reading lists, in favour of Dickens and Austen:

    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may ...[text shortened]... ng, just like the FN in France getting away tip top with 25% majority in the European Parlament.
    Its pretty sad, to burden children with Shakespeare is one thing but to make them sit through a Dickens novel is quite absurd. I remember trying to read Barnaby Rudge, it was such an imposing tome that it became a matter not of enjoyment but a war of attrition. When will educators learn that to make learning enjoyable is half the battle?
  7. 27 May '14 11:53
    Originally posted by Tabitha Marshall
    I cannot believe my eyes when I read the article below. In this time and age, where the world has already become a market town, England, of all countries, have a ministry of education that plans to remove Of Mice and Men and To Kill a Mockingbird from school reading lists, in favour of Dickens and Austen:

    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may ...[text shortened]... ng, just like the FN in France getting away tip top with 25% majority in the European Parlament.
    England, when mercantilism was in full force, tended to take a more international view. Now the UK rightfully is afraid of losing its national culture and identity. Hopefully, children will learn to read in K-12, and learn to love the acquisition of knowledge through reading.

    Nationalism is strong, and probably always will be unless the New World Order people have their way. It isn't a bad thing for people to be proud of their nation, and try to improve it.
  8. Standard member vivify
    rain
    27 May '14 12:49 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    "I'm sure that in China ... receive top promotion in schools."
    --Vivify

    Vivify likes to attach unwarranted certainty to his stereotypical assumptions.
    Duchess is an obnoxious twat. Note how the twat accuses me of "unwarranted certainty" even though I start my post with a question, and even use words like "if this is the case" to indicate that I'm clearly uncertain.

    Tabitha, when this obnoxious twat inevitably makes these types of unwarranted attacks on you, don't be bothered. The twat does it to everyone, and has even been laughed off the chess forum for doing exactly that.
  9. 27 May '14 16:56
    Originally posted by normbenign
    It isn't a bad thing for people to be proud of their nation [...]
    Two world wars disagree with that statement.
  10. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    27 May '14 20:02
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Two world wars disagree with that statement.
    Can anyone explain to me how people at the time of WW1 referred to plucky little Belgium as a sad little nation meriting our protection, and the war being all about the defence of small nations against big powers, when it was the foul oppressor of the people of the Belgian Congo and probably close to the very worst of the colonisers of Africa?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_colonial_empire
  11. 27 May '14 20:44 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by vivify
    Duchess is an obnoxious twat. Note how the twat accuses me of "unwarranted certainty" even though I start my post with a question, and even use words like "if this is the case" to indicate that I'm clearly uncertain.

    Tabitha, when this obnoxious twat inevitably makes these types of unwarranted attacks on you, don't be bothered. The twat does it to everyone, and has even been laughed off the chess forum for doing exactly that.
    Vivify (who often seems nearly illiterate) is responsible for his own words.
    If Vivify meant something else, then he should have used different words.

    "I'm *sure*..."
    --Vivify

    Vivify's assertion expresses 'sureness', which is synonymous with 'certainty'.
    And I showed that Vivify's assertion is incorrect, which he does not dispute.
    Would Vivify like to compare his knowledge of Chinese education with mine?

    Again, Vivify shows he's too arrogant and dishonest to concede his errors.
    Instead, Vivify adds to his long record of personal abuses--*many insults
    and flagrant lies*--against me. I suspect that Finnegan, to name one
    longtime writer here, can recall at least some of Vivify's abuses. I recall
    that Finnegan has commented on Vivify going to abusive and dishonest
    lengths to avoid conceding any error in some of their 'discussions'.

    I trust that Tabitha_Marshall, if she has any sense, can make up her own
    mind about me based upon our communications, rather than ignorantly
    accepting the characteristically persistent lies of Vivify.
  12. Standard member vivify
    rain
    27 May '14 20:58 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Vivify (who often seems nearly illiterate) is responsible for his own words.
    If Vivify meant something else, then he should have used different words.

    "I'm *sure*..."
    --Vivify

    Vivify's assertion expresses 'sureness', which is synonymous with 'certainty'.
    And I showed that Vivify's assertion is incorrect, which he does not dispute.
    Would Vivify l ...[text shortened]... t to concede his errors.
    Instead, Vivify adds to his long record of personal abuses against me.
    Yawn.

    You ignored the fact that my post started by asking a question regarding the matter. When people ask questions about something, does that indicate certainty?

    Duchess deliberately cut out the parts of my post that indicated uncertainty (like when I clearly used "if" ) when he/she quoted me; otherwise known as quote-mining. Note where he/she begins and ends my quote in his/her/ response to me. Only disingenuous posters like Duchess use such dishonest tactics.

    If Duchess keeps this up, a repeat of the spectacular embarrassment Duchess went through at the chess forum is likely to happen.
  13. 27 May '14 21:03 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by finnegan to KazetNagorra
    Can anyone explain to me how people at the time of WW1 referred to plucky little Belgium as a sad little nation meriting our protection, and the war being all about the defence of small nations against big powers, when it was the foul oppressor of the people of the Belgian Congo and probably close to the very worst of the colonisers of Africa?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_colonial_empire
    To this day, Westerners tend to have quite different perceptions toward
    the sufferings of perceived Western and non-Western peoples. Western
    lives tend to be valued much more highly than non-Western lives.

    With regard to he British being responsible for a famine in Ireland, there's
    about universal sympathy for the Irish and common condemnation of the
    British among the Western writers here. But with regard to the British being
    responsible for famines (which killed more people) in India, there's general
    indifference toward the Indians and hardly any criticism of the British here.

    Likewise, up until about the time they had to leave Hong Kong (when they
    began making some belated gestures toward 'democracy' ), the British
    discriminated against the overwhelming Chinese majority in Hong Kong much
    more harshly than they did against the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland.
    Yet, to this day as far as I know, British colonial rule in Hong Kong has been
    about universally extolled by white American journalists (who are blind to
    Hong Kong's institutional racism) as a model of democratic benevolence.
    An ethnic Chinese man (who was highly educated and fluent in English)
    once told me that he had resigned in disgust from Hong Kong's civil service
    because he was still being paid significantly less than less educated and
    qualified white Britons for supposedly doing the same work in the same office.
  14. 27 May '14 21:21
    Originally posted by vivify
    Yawn.

    You ignored the fact that my post started by asking a question regarding the matter. When people ask questions about something, does that indicate certainty?

    Duchess deliberately cut out the parts of my post that indicated uncertainty (like when I clearly used "if" ) when he/she quoted me; otherwise known as quote-mining. Note where he/she b ...[text shortened]... at of the spectacular embarrassment Duchess went through at the chess forum is likely to happen.
    Vivify's opening (apparently rhetorical) question is *unrelated* to his
    subsequent 'sure' assertion. Only someone who's as nearly illiterate as
    Vivify would believe otherwise. I lack the time and inclination to give a
    basic lesson in reading comprehension to the determinedly ignorant.

    Here's a comparable example with an opening question:
    "Is it going to rain today? I'm *sure* that 'climate change' is political
    hysteria, not scientific fact."

    The opening question is *unrelated* to the subsequent 'sure' assertion.
    The writer may be *unsure* about whether it will rain today, but the
    writer's *sure* about climate change. Is that clear?

    As I recall, Finnegan once wrote that Vivify never seems to tire of his
    constant preening. Not that long ago in another thread, Vivify did his
    utmost in attempting to assassinate my character, but Sasquatch672
    (among all people) told Vivify that he disagreed with him and disbelieved
    what Vivify had claimed. Vivify quit when it became clear even to him
    that he was drawing no support in that thread.

    Vivify warrants no response beyond absolute disdain.
  15. 27 May '14 21:38 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie to Tabitha_Marshall
    Its pretty sad, to burden children with Shakespeare is one thing but to make them sit through a Dickens novel is quite absurd. I remember trying to read Barnaby Rudge, it was such an imposing tome that it became a matter not of enjoyment but a war of attrition. When will educators learn that to make learning enjoyable is half the battle?
    Although English was not my native language or yet my primary language,
    a teacher recommended that I read Charles Dickens. I can recall enjoying
    reading _David Copperfield_ in one day (largely while waiting to see a doctor).

    A professor of mathematics once asked me: "How can you enjoy playing chess?
    Isn't it too tedious to remember all the rules?" Well, to each, her own.