27th June 2003, 5:02 AM
The government should not have a role in teaching children about sex.
So I'd imagine that you don't like the government to teach children about cigarettes, drugs, etc?
Schools should teach history from a Western European perspective.
I don't know where you got your education, but I felt my history lessons were quite balanced. It is pretty objective to say that Western Europeans treated the rest of the world with a tint of supremacy. But when kids in the class started to make quality judgements on Western Europeans (Oh, they're evil), the teacher would usually explain that history has many viewpoints, and being self-centered is characteristic of practically every civilization. Western Europeans simply had the power to spread their ideals, assuming that their ideals were objectively good for all. If we assume this, as they did, the Western Europeans were doing a wonderful thing for the world. But it is more informative to examine how that assumption allowed them to make mistakes in regions like Africa and the Middle East.
Possibly my most interesting history lesson made me question the legendary status of the forefathers of the United States of America. From the British perspective, our forefathers were terrorists. We killed the authority police force, we killed tax collectors, we destroyed property, and we revolted. To us, they were freedom fighters, fighting a principled fight. They were the creators of this great nation. They were our forefathers. This lesson was meant not to destroy our fantasy image of George Washington, Sam Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, but see that history contains no charicatures, only humans. The difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is a matter of perspective. If you agree with that, then you can see that there are many similarities between Anglo-saxons and Arabs. It is a shame that the United States government does not see it this way.
Possibly the most important thing I have learned to do with history is to remove quality judgements from it (although it is difficult in some cases). There are no good guys. There are no bad guys. There are simply people, ideas, triumphs, mistakes, etc. Everyone is simply doing their best to do what they think is best. Is that always the best for all? Of course not. If everyone could always do what is best for all, we wouldn't be human.
In general, I am against forcing one's ideals on other people, but there is a marked difference between what the United States does to immigrants and what Western European nations did to the World: immigrants choose to come to America. Africa, India, China, the Americas, etc. did not choose to be ruled by Western Europeans.
My system of morals, guided by this view of history, is centered on one principle: do onto others as you would do onto yourself. That is possibly the most objective form of moral that I have found in my short life.
Society agrees upon things that you can and cannot do
I agree. Do these change? Of course. Are these occasionally contradictory? Yes. The idea is that, over time, these contradictions will be sorted out. Example: slavery. Does everyone have to agree with the societal values? Of course not. If it were that way, slavery would never have never come to an end.
So I'd imagine that you don't like the government to teach children about cigarettes, drugs, etc?
Schools should teach history from a Western European perspective.
I don't know where you got your education, but I felt my history lessons were quite balanced. It is pretty objective to say that Western Europeans treated the rest of the world with a tint of supremacy. But when kids in the class started to make quality judgements on Western Europeans (Oh, they're evil), the teacher would usually explain that history has many viewpoints, and being self-centered is characteristic of practically every civilization. Western Europeans simply had the power to spread their ideals, assuming that their ideals were objectively good for all. If we assume this, as they did, the Western Europeans were doing a wonderful thing for the world. But it is more informative to examine how that assumption allowed them to make mistakes in regions like Africa and the Middle East.
Possibly my most interesting history lesson made me question the legendary status of the forefathers of the United States of America. From the British perspective, our forefathers were terrorists. We killed the authority police force, we killed tax collectors, we destroyed property, and we revolted. To us, they were freedom fighters, fighting a principled fight. They were the creators of this great nation. They were our forefathers. This lesson was meant not to destroy our fantasy image of George Washington, Sam Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, but see that history contains no charicatures, only humans. The difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is a matter of perspective. If you agree with that, then you can see that there are many similarities between Anglo-saxons and Arabs. It is a shame that the United States government does not see it this way.
Possibly the most important thing I have learned to do with history is to remove quality judgements from it (although it is difficult in some cases). There are no good guys. There are no bad guys. There are simply people, ideas, triumphs, mistakes, etc. Everyone is simply doing their best to do what they think is best. Is that always the best for all? Of course not. If everyone could always do what is best for all, we wouldn't be human.
In general, I am against forcing one's ideals on other people, but there is a marked difference between what the United States does to immigrants and what Western European nations did to the World: immigrants choose to come to America. Africa, India, China, the Americas, etc. did not choose to be ruled by Western Europeans.
My system of morals, guided by this view of history, is centered on one principle: do onto others as you would do onto yourself. That is possibly the most objective form of moral that I have found in my short life.
Society agrees upon things that you can and cannot do
I agree. Do these change? Of course. Are these occasionally contradictory? Yes. The idea is that, over time, these contradictions will be sorted out. Example: slavery. Does everyone have to agree with the societal values? Of course not. If it were that way, slavery would never have never come to an end.