Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Professor finds" is a deliberately misleading description of a bunch of anecdotes with no statistical analysis from an English prof who was "quizzing" students on material outside his class. At best he was measuring retention. Hardly an example of anything except Prof Pesta's personal agenda against the common core.
Was that the same Thomas Jefferson who in 1807 disastrously had an act passed to prohibit merchant vessels to depart US ports in trade with England or France? Ouch! He was a farmer-philosopher, not a tradesman-economist. Fortunately, we had Alexander Hamilton for that.
Thomas Jefferson was a great American. His views on many subjects "evolved" constantly and were all over the map. He was said to favor occasional rebellions but I doubt he would have tolerated those from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He believed in strict construction of the Constitution until he was able to buy the U.S. from the Mississippi to the Continental Divide for a bargain price. He was for limited government and commissioned the Lewis and Clark Expedition. He didn't mind showing the Americans one version of the treaty with the Barbary Coast pirates that the pirates didn't sign off on.
What about your school policy regarding transsexuals? Do you support it?
Does your school rightly teach that men are oppressed by the criminal justice system and the family court system?
Does your school falsely teach that 'male privilege' is pervasive even as female privilege is the true pervasive state of our society?
Does your school allow for drug testing of students?
Does your school teach the junk science of Darwinism?
There are hundreds of examples like this; denial is not a river in Egypt.
I agree with your post (except it pertains to Darwinism) and will rep it. I would consider AGW to be a better example of junk science than Darwinism. While Darwin's theories can't totally be proven there are stronger arguments for those than for competing religious views.
I also reposted below earlier material which illustrates your point, albeit it from 40 to close to 50 years ago. Students are now taught an anodyne and boring version of both current society and history. Schools do not teach the value of a coherent social order.
Overall, I agree with the assertion that schools indoctrinate students.
Back in academic year 1966-7, when I was in Fourth Grade, age 10 going on 11, we had two indoctrination moments that were striking. The first was with the description of an "air raid drill." We were told that if there was a real air raid the school would take good care of us but we might never know our parents' whereabouts. Scary stuff for a fourth grader. And one that lined up nicely with the then-current slogan "better Red than dead." The second was when the school budget came up for a vote. The outlook was for a close vote. The kids were told that the budget's defeat would result in an "austerity budget" with no textbooks and possibly no blackboard chalk. And this in an affluent district. In the background was a tense labor negotiation. When I told my parents what we were told (as we were asked to do) my parents, who by the way were not political conservatives. expressed reservations about the teachers requesting taxpayer generosity through 10 year olds.
In seventh grade we were urged to support the first National Moratorium demonstrations held across the United States. Later that year was the first Earth Day - Apr 22, 1970. Of course we were urged to support that as well. In Ninth Grade social studies we were carefully taught that Communist movements were local in nature and that the Soviets and the Chinese had little to do with our misery in Vietnam. Of course they didn't focus on how much the insurgencies hurt the local people.
So I think there is indoctrination. Unfortunately more of it at ages that the students are too young to challenge it and push back.
First of all, those who breathed not a puff of post-WWII air are not qualified to speak authoritatively about post-WWII events. Second of all, having been either famous or infamous in any era is not qualification to speak about the nature of modern national banking systems.
You have permission to fear me if you like.
People who have not breathed a puff of post-WWII air are not qualified to teach unless we are necrophiliacs.
The Constitution was written and adopted as an amendment to the failing Articles of Confederation. As the Preamble plainly states, the purpose was to form a more perfect union, not a new one. Perfection at the time was a long ways off. After but a decade under the Articles, the young nation was broke, embittered, and on the brink of collapse and dissolution. All that the colonies had fought for in the Revolution was about to be lost. The failure of the Annapolis Convention starkly cast the Philadelphia Convention in a role as a last-ditch emergency convocation that would either save or lose the nation. We were fortunate that their work turned out as well as it did.
Or not, as Patrick Henry wisely stated, when asked why he wouldn't attend : "I smelt a rat."
. . .
Patrick Henry was elected to but declined to attend the Constitutional Convention of 1787, where the Articles of Confederation would be revised. When Washington sent him a copy of the Constitution and invited him to support the document, Henry expressed serious reservations: "I have to lament that I cannot bring my mind to accord with the proposed Constitution," he wrote. Later, challenged at public debate as to "why he had not taken a seat in the Convention and lent his aid in making a good Constitution, instead of staying at home and abusing the work of his patriotic compeers," Henry replied, "I smelt a rat."
. . .
If you read the Anti-Federalist Papers (in contrast with the Federalist Papers), you will see that they were correct in predicting the rise of the Federal government and its usurpation of the states. They show a prescience with respect to the growth of power by the federal government.
Here’s an excerpt of titles that illustrate that point.
ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS | The Federalist Papers
#1: General Introduction: A Dangerous Plan of Benefit Only to The "Aristocratick Combination."
#3: New Constitution Creates a National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers of Civil War And Despotism.
#7: Adoption of The Constitution Will Lead to Civil War.
#8: The Power Vested in Congress of Sending Troops For Suppressing Insurrections; Will Always Enable Them to Stifle The First Struggles of Freedom.
#9: A Consolidated Government Is a Tyranny.
#11: Unrestricted Power Over Commerce Should Not Be Given The National Government.
#14: Extent of Territory Under Consolidated Government Too Large
to Preserve Liberty or Protect Property.
#17: Federalist Power Will Ultimately Subvert State Authority.
#29: Objections to National Control of the Militia.
#45: Powers of National Government Dangerous to State Governments;
New York as an Example.
#46: Where Then Is the Restraint?
#60: Will the Constitution Promote the Interests of Favorite Classes?
#74: The President as Military King.
So if someone doesn't know something you personally feel is important they have been brainwashed?
I couldn't careless about history. I barely remember any of the items that were taught because it has no interest to me. I suspect much of what you posted above is of little importance except to that 1 in 100. Just because people don't care to hold onto information that is of little interest to them does not make them indoctrinated.
No one would suggest that you shouldn't be free to be as ignorant as you wish.
However, if you're misled to believe in something that is not a fact, and it happens to be taught in school, it amounts to brainwashing.
For example, few Americans know that private property and real estate are mutually exclusive. That's right. Private property is constitutionally protected, whereas qualified ownership of real estate is subject to ad valorem taxes - and confiscation for failure to pay. Did someone forget to teach that tidbit in school? It's in the law, available in any county courthouse law library.
Or do you know the difference between an inhabitant (with a domicile) versus a resident with a residence?
One is protected, the other is obligated to get permission. (Only "residents" can get licenses, or need to)
My fave - -
"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states... shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states ..."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]
Can you guess who those "free inhabitants" (who are not "free citizens") are?
Here's a hint: citizens are subjects because of mandatory civic duties, whereas American people are sovereigns without subjects unless they consent otherwise.
Last edited by jetgraphics; 11-06-2016 at 01:22 PM..
Your own indoctrination with regard to your view of America as a place meant to be controlled by "the people's will"via our constitutional constructs allows us a view of the commonly held myths re: our history. Governments were formed to protect the interests of those whose wealth gave them a dominant political voice in the first place. Dictatorships--or democracies, have all been convened in the interests of a wealthy minority, the fact that not all are brutal regimes doesn't change the base dynamic of wealth and power.
To answer your question, yes, we are all subjects beholden to the government. [UNTRUE] Our government was never created with the lofty ideals of liberty and equality for all, those phrases were obviously, and demonstrably, the tools by which a cabal of wealthy men were able to raise an army of resistance to the British Crown. The political circus that surrounds the apathy and ignorance that has become the American political scene stems from the fact of our collective political impotence, most people know who makes the rules in America. [INCORRECT]
The law disagrees with your opinion.
Let me direct you to this:
“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves. . .
“... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.”
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
- - - State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)
SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
. . . Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425
Note: not applicable to the republican form of government in which the people directly exercise sovereignty... not subject citizens.
GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people ... directly...
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695
It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997
In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]
Feel free to read law and court decisions for yourself. You'll find a multitude of references that support the claim that American people are sovereigns - whereas citizens are subjects...by consent.
You might inquire of your public servants to explain how and when you gave consent to be governed and transitioned from the republican form to the democratic form, which you appear to have misgivings about.
The problem is, is it relevant to other U.S. history. Take Washington's two presidential terms these set up Monroe Doctrine and the U.S. foreign policy for 130 years prior to World War 1. Washington also set up the cabinet and tried to talk us out of political parties. Jackson was relevant for setting up the eventual paradigm for the Democrats and Republicans. Where is the relevance of teaching about the Federal Reserve and its possible evils especially when we don't have time to talk Perestroika, Desert Storm, and the War on Terror
I think that current events should be taught separately from history. History courses should give a solid foundation about how we as a nation got to where we are. Yes, that's Amero-centric but too bad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
