- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 12,331
- Reaction score
- 1,941
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Yes, this proves why each state need be in charge if its own educational mission. Two reasonable people can disagree about a proper future path. One could be right, the other less right, both could be right or both wrong. We dont know the future, the unintended consequences of any possible action or inaction, the externalities positive, negative and overlapping. I like the idea of 50 separate innovative, competitive and cooperating incubators of democracy. People feel more satisfied when controlling more of their own destinies.
We need more avenues and venues for allowing people to learn and excel not just in academics but more hands on hand work. To eighth grade perhaps learning the basics solidly, and am just thinking maybe a mix of academics and hands on industrial arts home econish courses for a ninth grade year before three years of one or the other, it being a student /parent choice.
No additional year needed in my book. Kids are already being delayed growing up, getting started in life late as it is. So we agree to disagree. At the same Iime I would disagree that your state must be forced to abide by whzt I and my state, who might hold a majority with other states and want our principles adopted, mandated nationally.
The folks in each state should choose what they think best for their own children, the national state does not have superior rights than do the states nor parents in this regard, not constitutionally.
You sorta side stepped the specific example minimum standard issue by the tangent into which subects should engage in producing minimum standards.
Many of us who argue the causes of the Civil War understand the importance of slavery. But, like everything else, its bit more nuanced than that. Much of the contention between the two sections of then America, including slavery, is properly placed under the banner of states rights. And though a born yankee ( Motown, Detroit ) after study of the South's position, while being against slavery, and a proud and partiotic US citizen, I can see the argument they had regarding secession as plausible for that time.
There were a ton of factors besides states rights and slavery, including dwindling relative population in the South resulting in less representation and loss of political power, Northern industrial manufacturing and shipping interests competing with, often dominating southern agriculture, European immigration, tariffs...
Which is why statuary of Civil Warriors, aside from often being very period piece art relics should be retained, at least put it to a vote locally. These represent more than the racist caricatures to which theyve been reduced...
You study history, besides a few, Rommel and his Germans come to mind, by far our most challenging opponents, the most incisive and decisive generals, individual and group bravery and sheer fortitude on the field of battle... have been these very brave fellow Americans, 90% of whom didnt own slaves but fought for pride, heritage, freedom ...their sovereign states as they understood it, the right of their states to withdraw from a voluntary confederation later federalized wherein they, these states felt the agreement, the constitution as originally agreed upon had been breached. We can all now agree slavery is a sin, obvious to us. To them, that was how it had always been, but again, it was 10% who owned and it was legal... Had never been otherwise.
The South, just like everybody else, doesnt like maintaining a reneged upon agreement nor being told what they must do. Check their, each, the secession declarations of the individual states of their independence from the Union.
Slavery is hardly mentioned. But thats another thread
eace
