doom and gloom
Johanna
----- Original Message -----From: Collette MattinglySent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 4:47 AMSubject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Doom and gloom, was Re: vegetarianismSandra, why must you discourage people from caring?Colette,
I dont think Sandra is trying to tell people not to care. A
lot of people cared enough to cause changes to occur and continue to care.
Personally I grew up next to a river that in the seventies was so polluted, you
could smell it from a mile away. We used to watch the fish floating belly up all
the time. If we even touched the water, my grandmother would "sterilize"
us. Businesses were forced to change their practices and citizens were
taught better habits for the river. Education can be powerful when applied. By
the time my children arrived, the river was clean enough to swim in. A
boating house and two excellent parks were opened. Our earth has a great
capacity to repair and clean itself. If we work towards helping the earth
in this natural process as much as we can, we will have more good
sources for fresh clean water and places for recreation.
Johanna
DiamondAir
> From: "Johanna" <saninocencio1@...>cared enough to cause changes to occur and continue to care. Personally I
> Colette,
> I dont think Sandra is trying to tell people not to care. A lot of people
grew up next to a river that in the seventies was so polluted, you could
smell it from a mile away. We used to watch the fish floating belly up all
the time. If we even touched the water, my grandmother would "sterilize" us.
Businesses were forced to change their practices and citizens were taught
better habits for the river. Education can be powerful when applied. By the
time my children arrived, the river was clean enough to swim in. A boating
house and two excellent parks were opened. Our earth has a great capacity to
repair and clean itself. If we work towards helping the earth in this
natural process as much as we can, we will have more good sources for fresh
clean water and places for recreation. >>>>
I agree with you Johanna. But I also think that the reason some things have
gotten better is because a lot of "doom and gloomers" took the time and
energy to be outspoken. Without the "save the whales" and "treehugger"
types, I think things would be much, much worse than they are. Sandra was
putting down someone who was strongly stating her preferences for leading an
earth-friendly lifestyle by saying that all those terrible things that were
predicted haven't happened. Well, the reason they haven't happened is that
some people have been vocal enough about leading earth-friendly lifestyles
and effecting change! Every single person who changes even one earth-hurting
behavior is helping us towards a healthier earth. The other day in the store
I saw that Western Family (big major US brand) makes organic apple juice
now, and Gold Medal makes organic flour. That would never happen without all
those people "voting with their dollars" and buying organic. I think it's
awesome to see that soon regular consumers in regular grocery stores will
have organic food to choose from when they shop. But it took all those years
of hippies and food co-ops to get to that point. Instead of scorning those
who sound the alarm, let's say thanks to all who have gone before use and
given us the ability to make the choices we have today!
And also, let's not rest on our laurels. Here in Oregon, the Willamette
River was one of those "success" stories like you mentioned. A previously
filthy river that was cleaned up in the 70's and became beautiful and
swimmable. Well, now it is very polluted again and they are urging us not to
swim in it anymore. So we must be ever vigilant even about the changes we
have wrought. We have an enormous impact on the whole earth. Women in the
few small aboriginal tribes left on earth have environmental pollutants in
their breastmilk. I've personally traveled to remote uninhabited beaches
halfway around the world and seen garbage washing up on the shore. I'm
reminded of that 70's commercial with the crying Indian, that's sometimes
how it feels.
Blue Skies!
-Robin-
Mom to Mackenzie (8/28/96) "My pants are outgrowing me"
and Asa (10/5/99) "Potty pee! Potty pee! Potty pee!"
http://www.geocities.com/the_clevengers Flying Clevenger Family
Lynda
You are so right, Robin!!! And what is doubly sad is that while we are
affecting some changes here, all that we know is bad and harmful is being
sent elsewhere. Go down to Mexico and see what the companies that have left
the U.S. are doing there! We ship our medical wastes on barges and dump
them in other countries, U.S. companies still manufacturer DDT and sell it
in other countries and the list goes on.
We need more folks that try to live in the sunshine while actively working
to keep the darkness away!!!
Lynda
affecting some changes here, all that we know is bad and harmful is being
sent elsewhere. Go down to Mexico and see what the companies that have left
the U.S. are doing there! We ship our medical wastes on barges and dump
them in other countries, U.S. companies still manufacturer DDT and sell it
in other countries and the list goes on.
We need more folks that try to live in the sunshine while actively working
to keep the darkness away!!!
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: "DiamondAir" <diamondair@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 8:29 AM
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: doom and gloom
> > From: "Johanna" <saninocencio1@...>
> > Colette,
> > I dont think Sandra is trying to tell people not to care. A lot of
people
> cared enough to cause changes to occur and continue to care. Personally I
> grew up next to a river that in the seventies was so polluted, you could
> smell it from a mile away. We used to watch the fish floating belly up all
> the time. If we even touched the water, my grandmother would "sterilize"
us.
> Businesses were forced to change their practices and citizens were taught
> better habits for the river. Education can be powerful when applied. By
the
> time my children arrived, the river was clean enough to swim in. A boating
> house and two excellent parks were opened. Our earth has a great capacity
to
> repair and clean itself. If we work towards helping the earth in this
> natural process as much as we can, we will have more good sources for
fresh
> clean water and places for recreation. >>>>
>
>
> I agree with you Johanna. But I also think that the reason some things
have
> gotten better is because a lot of "doom and gloomers" took the time and
> energy to be outspoken. Without the "save the whales" and "treehugger"
> types, I think things would be much, much worse than they are. Sandra was
> putting down someone who was strongly stating her preferences for leading
an
> earth-friendly lifestyle by saying that all those terrible things that
were
> predicted haven't happened. Well, the reason they haven't happened is that
> some people have been vocal enough about leading earth-friendly lifestyles
> and effecting change! Every single person who changes even one
earth-hurting
> behavior is helping us towards a healthier earth. The other day in the
store
> I saw that Western Family (big major US brand) makes organic apple juice
> now, and Gold Medal makes organic flour. That would never happen without
all
> those people "voting with their dollars" and buying organic. I think it's
> awesome to see that soon regular consumers in regular grocery stores will
> have organic food to choose from when they shop. But it took all those
years
> of hippies and food co-ops to get to that point. Instead of scorning those
> who sound the alarm, let's say thanks to all who have gone before use and
> given us the ability to make the choices we have today!
> And also, let's not rest on our laurels. Here in Oregon, the Willamette
> River was one of those "success" stories like you mentioned. A previously
> filthy river that was cleaned up in the 70's and became beautiful and
> swimmable. Well, now it is very polluted again and they are urging us not
to
> swim in it anymore. So we must be ever vigilant even about the changes we
> have wrought. We have an enormous impact on the whole earth. Women in the
> few small aboriginal tribes left on earth have environmental pollutants in
> their breastmilk. I've personally traveled to remote uninhabited beaches
> halfway around the world and seen garbage washing up on the shore. I'm
> reminded of that 70's commercial with the crying Indian, that's sometimes
> how it feels.
>
> Blue Skies!
> -Robin-
> Mom to Mackenzie (8/28/96) "My pants are outgrowing me"
> and Asa (10/5/99) "Potty pee! Potty pee! Potty pee!"
> http://www.geocities.com/the_clevengers Flying Clevenger Family
>
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Addresses:
> Post message: [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: [email protected]
> List owner: [email protected]
> List settings page: http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/5/01 10:04:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
lurine@... writes:
<< We need more folks that try to live in the sunshine while actively working
to keep the darkness away!!!
raging here on the list. Hopefully, everyone will be able to state their
views, hear other people's views, and not storm off the list in anger.
I think one reason so many people are not comforted by assurances that
GMOs, current pesticides, nuclear power plants, etc. are not as safe as many
proclaim them to be is that those same proclamations were made by many
politicians and "experts" in years past about things that were anything but
safe. Every generation arrogantly assumes that it knows so much NOW and
arrogantly imposes its so-called knowledge and destructive practices on other
human beings, those alive at the time as well as those yet to be born.
It is certainly possible to be an upbeat, happy, at peace person while
still speaking out strongly for a safer, more fair way of life for all human
beings. In fact, any happiness that doesn't strive for this seems rather
shallow and unstable.
Lucy in Calif.
lurine@... writes:
<< We need more folks that try to live in the sunshine while actively working
to keep the darkness away!!!
>>SO true, Lynda! I just came online this morning and found this debate
raging here on the list. Hopefully, everyone will be able to state their
views, hear other people's views, and not storm off the list in anger.
I think one reason so many people are not comforted by assurances that
GMOs, current pesticides, nuclear power plants, etc. are not as safe as many
proclaim them to be is that those same proclamations were made by many
politicians and "experts" in years past about things that were anything but
safe. Every generation arrogantly assumes that it knows so much NOW and
arrogantly imposes its so-called knowledge and destructive practices on other
human beings, those alive at the time as well as those yet to be born.
It is certainly possible to be an upbeat, happy, at peace person while
still speaking out strongly for a safer, more fair way of life for all human
beings. In fact, any happiness that doesn't strive for this seems rather
shallow and unstable.
Lucy in Calif.
Wendy Silver
Hi,
I will never buy all of the doom and gloom out there. I think man
can sometimes think himself too powerful, and that he can have a massive effect
on earth. I look at man as ant size as far as the planet goes, if that big. I
see neglected buildings on occasion, and just notice how the earth swallows them
up. The vines, insects, grasses, trees, rain all help turn the building
into dust and naturally cleanse the area. Polluted areas too, once left alone by
man, they heal. Even if something is polluted for a couple of hundred years,
that is very short earth time.
I don't mean it is a good thing to pollute and be wasteful- people should
be considerate and respectful of nature, but for some people that is more of a
challenge.
Wendy
[email protected]
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:04:52 -0400
"Wendy Silver" <wew99@...> wrote:
Australian aborigines shaped the environment of Australia just with fire.
They're also suspected of causing a mass extinction 40,000 years ago when they
came to Australia, and the American Indians are suspected of causing one
11,000 years ago when they came to the Americas. (There's no doubt there was
mass extinctions on those continents; some people prefer to blame climate
change entirely, without reference to human hunters.) And extinct species
don't come back in a couple of hundred years.
The civilization of Easter Island collapsed after they chopped down all the
trees. Small island, yes, but there are 6 billion humans on the planet. Not
ant-size.
And this is stone age technology.
There are a bunch of civilizations which have collapsed due to climate change,
but I don't know cases well enough to list "natural change" or "screwed
themselves". Jared Diamond's next book should be about just this, though:
societies which did themselves in environmentally.
our nest.
-xx- Damien X-)
"Wendy Silver" <wew99@...> wrote:
> I will never buy all of the doom and gloom out there. I think man can som=Okay, switching direction now. This is _too_ complacent. And wrong.
> etimes think himself too powerful, and that he can have a massive effect on=
> earth. I look at man as ant size as far as the planet goes, if that big. I=
Australian aborigines shaped the environment of Australia just with fire.
They're also suspected of causing a mass extinction 40,000 years ago when they
came to Australia, and the American Indians are suspected of causing one
11,000 years ago when they came to the Americas. (There's no doubt there was
mass extinctions on those continents; some people prefer to blame climate
change entirely, without reference to human hunters.) And extinct species
don't come back in a couple of hundred years.
The civilization of Easter Island collapsed after they chopped down all the
trees. Small island, yes, but there are 6 billion humans on the planet. Not
ant-size.
And this is stone age technology.
There are a bunch of civilizations which have collapsed due to climate change,
but I don't know cases well enough to list "natural change" or "screwed
themselves". Jared Diamond's next book should be about just this, though:
societies which did themselves in environmentally.
> I don't mean it is a good thing to pollute and be wasteful- people should b=I don't see it as about respecting nature. I see it as about not fouling
> e considerate and respectful of nature, but for some people that is more of=
our nest.
-xx- Damien X-)
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/5/01 9:54:47 PM, phoenix@... writes:
<< They're also suspected of causing a mass extinction 40,000 years ago when
they
came to Australia, and the American Indians are suspected of causing one
11,000 years ago when they came to the Americas. (There's no doubt there was
mass extinctions on those continents; some people prefer to blame climate
change entirely, without reference to human hunters.) And extinct species
don't come back in a couple of hundred years. >>
But it seems it is natural for species and civilizations to die out on this
planet. It has happened since before humans arrived.
<<The civilization of Easter Island collapsed after they chopped down all the
trees. Small island, yes, but there are 6 billion humans on the planet. Not
ant-size.
<<And this is stone age technology.>>
And so we're not so guilty--we just have fancier tools.
And we have knowledge, but it could be we will be considered in retrospect to
have been are misusing our knowledge as surely as it seems to some people now
that too much wood cutting on an island or a desert area in New Meixco in
prehistoric times was stupid.
<<I don't see it as about respecting nature. I see it as about not fouling
our nest.>>
What would the Easter Island natives have done to amend the problem with what
they knew? Plant trees? Use other building methods or fire methods? (Whale
oil? That saves trees, but talk about political incorrectness applied
retroactively!!) Move to another island BEFORE they cut all the wood there?
We judge other cultures, past and present, too much by our own awarenesses
and sensibilities, and we judge our own too much by that too. We don't
understand as much as we think we do. There are VERY many technological
"advances" with which we have screwed ourselves and continue to do so.
But we will screw ourselves with or without clean air and water if we as a
species, as a culture, as a subculture, as a family, as an individual, live a
life without hope and joy and happiness.
And about ANY scientific theory, we could be laughably and entirely wrong.
Which was dumber, using leaches or saying that all those who used leaches
were unscientific quacks? We encourage interracial marriage (meaning more
generally, inter-group-of-all-kinds marriage. I know, I do too. But it's
starting to seem it causes more cesareans (and maybe other reproductive
problems, I don't know). Still being looked at, but those who suggest it are
scorned as racist.
Sandra
<< They're also suspected of causing a mass extinction 40,000 years ago when
they
came to Australia, and the American Indians are suspected of causing one
11,000 years ago when they came to the Americas. (There's no doubt there was
mass extinctions on those continents; some people prefer to blame climate
change entirely, without reference to human hunters.) And extinct species
don't come back in a couple of hundred years. >>
But it seems it is natural for species and civilizations to die out on this
planet. It has happened since before humans arrived.
<<The civilization of Easter Island collapsed after they chopped down all the
trees. Small island, yes, but there are 6 billion humans on the planet. Not
ant-size.
<<And this is stone age technology.>>
And so we're not so guilty--we just have fancier tools.
And we have knowledge, but it could be we will be considered in retrospect to
have been are misusing our knowledge as surely as it seems to some people now
that too much wood cutting on an island or a desert area in New Meixco in
prehistoric times was stupid.
<<I don't see it as about respecting nature. I see it as about not fouling
our nest.>>
What would the Easter Island natives have done to amend the problem with what
they knew? Plant trees? Use other building methods or fire methods? (Whale
oil? That saves trees, but talk about political incorrectness applied
retroactively!!) Move to another island BEFORE they cut all the wood there?
We judge other cultures, past and present, too much by our own awarenesses
and sensibilities, and we judge our own too much by that too. We don't
understand as much as we think we do. There are VERY many technological
"advances" with which we have screwed ourselves and continue to do so.
But we will screw ourselves with or without clean air and water if we as a
species, as a culture, as a subculture, as a family, as an individual, live a
life without hope and joy and happiness.
And about ANY scientific theory, we could be laughably and entirely wrong.
Which was dumber, using leaches or saying that all those who used leaches
were unscientific quacks? We encourage interracial marriage (meaning more
generally, inter-group-of-all-kinds marriage. I know, I do too. But it's
starting to seem it causes more cesareans (and maybe other reproductive
problems, I don't know). Still being looked at, but those who suggest it are
scorned as racist.
Sandra
Johanna
Exactly. Care and do all you can. I guess I was left with the
feeling of hopelessness from Colette's post. Some people can give up from
caring if they think it's hopeless anyway. If we see that our actions have
a positive impact, that can motivate us to change even more.
Johanna
----- Original Message -----From: DiamondAirSent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 10:29 AMSubject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: doom and gloom> From: "Johanna" <saninocencio1@...>
> Colette,
> I dont think Sandra is trying to tell people not to care. A lot of people
cared enough to cause changes to occur and continue to care. Personally I
grew up next to a river that in the seventies was so polluted, you could
smell it from a mile away. We used to watch the fish floating belly up all
the time. If we even touched the water, my grandmother would "sterilize" us.
Businesses were forced to change their practices and citizens were taught
better habits for the river. Education can be powerful when applied. By the
time my children arrived, the river was clean enough to swim in. A boating
house and two excellent parks were opened. Our earth has a great capacity to
repair and clean itself. If we work towards helping the earth in this
natural process as much as we can, we will have more good sources for fresh
clean water and places for recreation. >>>>
I agree with you Johanna. But I also think that the reason some things have
gotten better is because a lot of "doom and gloomers" took the time and
energy to be outspoken. Without the "save the whales" and "treehugger"
types, I think things would be much, much worse than they are. Sandra was
putting down someone who was strongly stating her preferences for leading an
earth-friendly lifestyle by saying that all those terrible things that were
predicted haven't happened. Well, the reason they haven't happened is that
some people have been vocal enough about leading earth-friendly lifestyles
and effecting change! Every single person who changes even one earth-hurting
behavior is helping us towards a healthier earth. The other day in the store
I saw that Western Family (big major US brand) makes organic apple juice
now, and Gold Medal makes organic flour. That would never happen without all
those people "voting with their dollars" and buying organic. I think it's
awesome to see that soon regular consumers in regular grocery stores will
have organic food to choose from when they shop. But it took all those years
of hippies and food co-ops to get to that point. Instead of scorning those
who sound the alarm, let's say thanks to all who have gone before use and
given us the ability to make the choices we have today!
And also, let's not rest on our laurels. Here in Oregon, the Willamette
River was one of those "success" stories like you mentioned. A previously
filthy river that was cleaned up in the 70's and became beautiful and
swimmable. Well, now it is very polluted again and they are urging us not to
swim in it anymore. So we must be ever vigilant even about the changes we
have wrought. We have an enormous impact on the whole earth. Women in the
few small aboriginal tribes left on earth have environmental pollutants in
their breastmilk. I've personally traveled to remote uninhabited beaches
halfway around the world and seen garbage washing up on the shore. I'm
reminded of that 70's commercial with the crying Indian, that's sometimes
how it feels.
Blue Skies!
-Robin-
Mom to Mackenzie (8/28/96) "My pants are outgrowing me"
and Asa (10/5/99) "Potty pee! Potty pee! Potty pee!"
http://www.geocities.com/the_clevengers Flying Clevenger Family
Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
Addresses:
Post message: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
List owner: [email protected]
List settings page: http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[email protected]
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:37:42 EDT
SandraDodd@... wrote:
90% of all life. Doesn't mean we'd want to risk aerobraking large asteroids
into Earth orbit.
But my point in replying to Wendy wasn't to allocate blame, it was to point
out that humans have affected their environment, and with primitive
technology. Humans have occasionally destroyed their local environment. 6
billion humans with modern tools are not like ants.
(Which is a bad example anyway; _ants_ aren't like 'ants'. Something to get
your kids interested in, perhaps: most of the animal biomass is insects and
worms, and most of the insects are ants. (Although there are more species of
beetle.) I'm fairly sure I've read that ants have major roles in the
ecosystem, and if ants species went extinct things would collapse, at least
for a while.)
So we've had Collette saying humans are like a plague of superbugs, and Wendy
saying we're like ants and the Earth will survive anything we do, and for all
my earlier arguing with Collette and Robin I'm closer to their position. We
certainly have the power to be a plague of superbugs; my argument was simply
against exagerrating problems. It's not as if they need it.
"bad aborigines, you wiped out all those species!" Or even "bad Brazilians,
cutting down all those rainforests!" But it happened, and it's happening, and
if we have a light impact on the Earth it'll be because we work for that, not
because the Earth is big.
People used to not worry about overfishing or overhunting because hey, the
Earth is big, there are lots of animals, we couldn't really hunt enough to
wipe out a whole species, could we? Oops.
It's not as if they were all going for firewood; rollers for all those statues
seems to have been the main consumer.
best guess, right or wrong. And the guesses get better as measurements
improve.
-xx- Damien X-)
SandraDodd@... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/5/01 9:54:47 PM, phoenix@... writes:It's 'natural' for giant rocks to occasionally thwack the planet and wipe out
> << They're also suspected of causing a mass extinction 40,000 years ago when
> they came to Australia, and the American Indians are suspected of causing
> But it seems it is natural for species and civilizations to die out on this
> planet. It has happened since before humans arrived.
90% of all life. Doesn't mean we'd want to risk aerobraking large asteroids
into Earth orbit.
But my point in replying to Wendy wasn't to allocate blame, it was to point
out that humans have affected their environment, and with primitive
technology. Humans have occasionally destroyed their local environment. 6
billion humans with modern tools are not like ants.
(Which is a bad example anyway; _ants_ aren't like 'ants'. Something to get
your kids interested in, perhaps: most of the animal biomass is insects and
worms, and most of the insects are ants. (Although there are more species of
beetle.) I'm fairly sure I've read that ants have major roles in the
ecosystem, and if ants species went extinct things would collapse, at least
for a while.)
So we've had Collette saying humans are like a plague of superbugs, and Wendy
saying we're like ants and the Earth will survive anything we do, and for all
my earlier arguing with Collette and Robin I'm closer to their position. We
certainly have the power to be a plague of superbugs; my argument was simply
against exagerrating problems. It's not as if they need it.
> And so we're not so guilty--we just have fancier tools.Again, this isn't about guilt. Guilt's pointless, here. I'm not here to say
"bad aborigines, you wiped out all those species!" Or even "bad Brazilians,
cutting down all those rainforests!" But it happened, and it's happening, and
if we have a light impact on the Earth it'll be because we work for that, not
because the Earth is big.
People used to not worry about overfishing or overhunting because hey, the
Earth is big, there are lots of animals, we couldn't really hunt enough to
wipe out a whole species, could we? Oops.
> What would the Easter Island natives have done to amend the problem with whatApplying one of the many Polynesian taboos to their trees might have helped.
> they knew? Plant trees? Use other building methods or fire methods? (Whale
It's not as if they were all going for firewood; rollers for all those statues
seems to have been the main consumer.
> And about ANY scientific theory, we could be laughably and entirely wrong.But what are you going to do? Generally the scientific theory is the current
best guess, right or wrong. And the guesses get better as measurements
improve.
-xx- Damien X-)
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/6/01 6:40:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
<< But it's
starting to seem it causes more cesareans (and maybe other reproductive
problems, I don't know). Still being looked at, but those who suggest it
are
scorned as racist. >>
What is this about? I have never even heard of this. IF there is any
kind of statistical suggestion of this, it still would be no reason to take
any position against inter-racial marriage with children. I know many
inter-racial families and their children are fine. A person could use this
reasoning to say that people who both have diabetes in their families
shouldn't have children together, or people who both have had acne,
or....This seems too uncomfortably close to Hitler's master race ideas, where
they forcibly sterilized people with certain disorders because they didn't
want them having "messed up" children.
I'm not saying that a person is a Nazi type just because they point to
these statistics (if they are there) but my first question would be, "And...?
What are we to do with this information?"
Also, the U.S. has a higher cesarean rate than many countries anyway so
I wonder what all the factors would be if these statistics exist. And what
is supposed to be the scientific explanation of the increase in cesareans
among inter-racial parents?
Lucy
SandraDodd@... writes:
<< But it's
starting to seem it causes more cesareans (and maybe other reproductive
problems, I don't know). Still being looked at, but those who suggest it
are
scorned as racist. >>
What is this about? I have never even heard of this. IF there is any
kind of statistical suggestion of this, it still would be no reason to take
any position against inter-racial marriage with children. I know many
inter-racial families and their children are fine. A person could use this
reasoning to say that people who both have diabetes in their families
shouldn't have children together, or people who both have had acne,
or....This seems too uncomfortably close to Hitler's master race ideas, where
they forcibly sterilized people with certain disorders because they didn't
want them having "messed up" children.
I'm not saying that a person is a Nazi type just because they point to
these statistics (if they are there) but my first question would be, "And...?
What are we to do with this information?"
Also, the U.S. has a higher cesarean rate than many countries anyway so
I wonder what all the factors would be if these statistics exist. And what
is supposed to be the scientific explanation of the increase in cesareans
among inter-racial parents?
Lucy
Lynda
Actually, not to be argumentative <g> but American Indians were here long
before 11,000 years ago and all indications now are that the whole land
bridge thing is faulty science.
And, as someone who is using a UC ISP you should have that info readily
available to you as UC was part of the team that carbon dated the body of an
Indian woman in the CA Sierra's at over 12,000 years.
Lynda
before 11,000 years ago and all indications now are that the whole land
bridge thing is faulty science.
And, as someone who is using a UC ISP you should have that info readily
available to you as UC was part of the team that carbon dated the body of an
Indian woman in the CA Sierra's at over 12,000 years.
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: <phoenix@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] doom and gloom
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:04:52 -0400
> "Wendy Silver" <wew99@...> wrote:
>
> > I will never buy all of the doom and gloom out there. I think man can
som=
> > etimes think himself too powerful, and that he can have a massive effect
on=
> > earth. I look at man as ant size as far as the planet goes, if that
big. I=
>
> Okay, switching direction now. This is _too_ complacent. And wrong.
> Australian aborigines shaped the environment of Australia just with fire.
> They're also suspected of causing a mass extinction 40,000 years ago when
they
> came to Australia, and the American Indians are suspected of causing one
> 11,000 years ago when they came to the Americas. (There's no doubt there
was
> mass extinctions on those continents; some people prefer to blame climate
> change entirely, without reference to human hunters.) And extinct species
> don't come back in a couple of hundred years.
>
> The civilization of Easter Island collapsed after they chopped down all
the
> trees. Small island, yes, but there are 6 billion humans on the planet.
Not
> ant-size.
>
> And this is stone age technology.
>
> There are a bunch of civilizations which have collapsed due to climate
change,
> but I don't know cases well enough to list "natural change" or "screwed
> themselves". Jared Diamond's next book should be about just this, though:
> societies which did themselves in environmentally.
>
> > I don't mean it is a good thing to pollute and be wasteful- people
should b=
> > e considerate and respectful of nature, but for some people that is more
of=
>
> I don't see it as about respecting nature. I see it as about not fouling
> our nest.
>
> -xx- Damien X-)
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Addresses:
> Post message: [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: [email protected]
> List owner: [email protected]
> List settings page: http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Lynda
Hitler got his ideas from the U.S. Read My Lips continued the policy of
eugenics. So, I am not surprised that something of this sort is now being
put forward again.
Lynda
eugenics. So, I am not surprised that something of this sort is now being
put forward again.
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: <LASaliger@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] doom and gloom
> In a message dated 4/6/01 6:40:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> SandraDodd@... writes:
>
> << But it's
> starting to seem it causes more cesareans (and maybe other reproductive
> problems, I don't know). Still being looked at, but those who suggest it
> are
> scorned as racist. >>
>
> What is this about? I have never even heard of this. IF there is
any
> kind of statistical suggestion of this, it still would be no reason to
take
> any position against inter-racial marriage with children. I know many
> inter-racial families and their children are fine. A person could use
this
> reasoning to say that people who both have diabetes in their families
> shouldn't have children together, or people who both have had acne,
> or....This seems too uncomfortably close to Hitler's master race ideas,
where
> they forcibly sterilized people with certain disorders because they didn't
> want them having "messed up" children.
> I'm not saying that a person is a Nazi type just because they point
to
> these statistics (if they are there) but my first question would be,
"And...?
> What are we to do with this information?"
> Also, the U.S. has a higher cesarean rate than many countries anyway
so
> I wonder what all the factors would be if these statistics exist. And
what
> is supposed to be the scientific explanation of the increase in cesareans
> among inter-racial parents?
>
> Lucy
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Addresses:
> Post message: [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: [email protected]
> List owner: [email protected]
> List settings page: http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/6/01 11:00:20 AM, LASaliger@... writes:
<< And what
is supposed to be the scientific explanation of the increase in cesareans
among inter-racial parents? >>
Different size babies than that race left to itself would have produced.
That's what I heard, from a midwife. That in cultures wihtout intermarriage
CPD is unheard of.
(I'm saying I've been told this and have heard it is discussed, not that I
know of any statistics or that I'm proposing it as something true--just
another thing that MIGHT turn out in the future to have been an irresponsible
thing done nowadays.)
Sandra
<< And what
is supposed to be the scientific explanation of the increase in cesareans
among inter-racial parents? >>
Different size babies than that race left to itself would have produced.
That's what I heard, from a midwife. That in cultures wihtout intermarriage
CPD is unheard of.
(I'm saying I've been told this and have heard it is discussed, not that I
know of any statistics or that I'm proposing it as something true--just
another thing that MIGHT turn out in the future to have been an irresponsible
thing done nowadays.)
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/6/01 11:24:08 AM, lurine@... writes:
<< Hitler got his ideas from the U.S. Read My Lips continued the policy of
eugenics. So, I am not surprised that something of this sort is now being
put forward again. >>
Whoa!
Overstated.
"Put forward" is beyond what it was.
<< Hitler got his ideas from the U.S. Read My Lips continued the policy of
eugenics. So, I am not surprised that something of this sort is now being
put forward again. >>
Whoa!
Overstated.
"Put forward" is beyond what it was.
[email protected]
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 10:03:09 -0700
"Lynda" <lurine@...> wrote:
March 2001 issue. According to those articles, the evidence that Indians were
here at all before 11,800 years ago is still hotly debated, and "long before",
well, depends on what you mean by 'long'.
There's a layer in the strata called Clovis, from the site it was first found
at. This layer and its distinctive tools are pretty much found throughout the
Americas. The oldest dated artifacts are from 11,800 years Before Present,
corresponding with the Bering land bridge having been blocked by ice between
13,000 and 12,000 years BP. Also corresponding with lots of large animals
going extinct in North America.
There are various other sites with claims of dates before Clovis, the oldest
being Meadowcroft in Pennsylvania, with a claim of 19,000 years BP. None of
these have been embraced by the scientific community, with questions about
either the dates or the human origin of the alleged stone tools. (And with
Pennsylvania, I have to wonder who would have been living there then --
perhaps people swept away from Europe or Africa. No human bones were
mentioned in this article.) All of these sites are scattered in space and
time; Clovis is pervasive, like a plague of superbugs. :)
There is no hint of questioning of the land bridge idea, which makes perfect
sense: glaciers lower the sea level, but block the exposed land, except for a
brief window.
So there were humans everywhere a bit after 12,000 years ago (sorry for being
off 1000 in my first post) and possibly some before then, but we're not sure,
and not sure how they'd have gotten there, and they didn't get far. (Clovis
also refers to a distinct culture, judging by tool shapes.)
-xx- Damien X-)
"Lynda" <lurine@...> wrote:
> Actually, not to be argumentative <g> but American Indians were here long_Science_ had a special section on human migrations just a few weeks ago -- 2
> before 11,000 years ago and all indications now are that the whole land
> bridge thing is faulty science.
March 2001 issue. According to those articles, the evidence that Indians were
here at all before 11,800 years ago is still hotly debated, and "long before",
well, depends on what you mean by 'long'.
There's a layer in the strata called Clovis, from the site it was first found
at. This layer and its distinctive tools are pretty much found throughout the
Americas. The oldest dated artifacts are from 11,800 years Before Present,
corresponding with the Bering land bridge having been blocked by ice between
13,000 and 12,000 years BP. Also corresponding with lots of large animals
going extinct in North America.
There are various other sites with claims of dates before Clovis, the oldest
being Meadowcroft in Pennsylvania, with a claim of 19,000 years BP. None of
these have been embraced by the scientific community, with questions about
either the dates or the human origin of the alleged stone tools. (And with
Pennsylvania, I have to wonder who would have been living there then --
perhaps people swept away from Europe or Africa. No human bones were
mentioned in this article.) All of these sites are scattered in space and
time; Clovis is pervasive, like a plague of superbugs. :)
There is no hint of questioning of the land bridge idea, which makes perfect
sense: glaciers lower the sea level, but block the exposed land, except for a
brief window.
So there were humans everywhere a bit after 12,000 years ago (sorry for being
off 1000 in my first post) and possibly some before then, but we're not sure,
and not sure how they'd have gotten there, and they didn't get far. (Clovis
also refers to a distinct culture, judging by tool shapes.)
> And, as someone who is using a UC ISP you should have that info readilyCaltech is a private university, actually.
> available to you as UC was part of the team that carbon dated the body of an
> Indian woman in the CA Sierra's at over 12,000 years.
-xx- Damien X-)
Valerie Stewart
<< And what
is supposed to be the scientific explanation of the increase in cesareans
among inter-racial parents? >>
Different size babies than that race left to itself would have produced.
That's what I heard, from a midwife. That in cultures wihtout intermarriage
CPD is unheard of.
***Okay, the only cases of "CPD" I've ever heard of were of couples the same
race. (CPD meaning the pelvis is too small for the mother to birth the
baby.) Thing is, CPD is used as a huge excuse to hurry up the delivery. I've
heard of doctors saying "The baby was in there 'funny'" or "You don't want
to be in pain, do you?" (like c-sections...surgery...doesn't hurt?) and even
"We could be here all night" (those pesky babies, taking more than 8 hours
to be born). So they say, it's CPD, it's out of our hands, we have to do
this. And this is generally after a whole bunch of intervention already:
being connected to machines and given drugs.
My midwife, who's assisted with over 2000 babies over the past 25 years
never said anything about inter-racial couples having trouble with birthing.
I'll email and ask her, though. It just doesn't make sense to me. The only
person I know who truly had a pelvis too small to birth vaginally is my sil.
She grew up poor in Europe and had lousy health care. So she didn't develop
as well as she should have. She married within her "race" to a man of normal
proportion. Their babies were healthy and not too large, but there was no
way they could get past her pelvic bone.
The inter-racial couples I know (black/white, Asian/white) had no problem.
If CPD is "unheard of" in cultures without inter-racial marriage perhaps
it's because those countries have better birthing practices?
Valerie in Tacoma
is supposed to be the scientific explanation of the increase in cesareans
among inter-racial parents? >>
Different size babies than that race left to itself would have produced.
That's what I heard, from a midwife. That in cultures wihtout intermarriage
CPD is unheard of.
***Okay, the only cases of "CPD" I've ever heard of were of couples the same
race. (CPD meaning the pelvis is too small for the mother to birth the
baby.) Thing is, CPD is used as a huge excuse to hurry up the delivery. I've
heard of doctors saying "The baby was in there 'funny'" or "You don't want
to be in pain, do you?" (like c-sections...surgery...doesn't hurt?) and even
"We could be here all night" (those pesky babies, taking more than 8 hours
to be born). So they say, it's CPD, it's out of our hands, we have to do
this. And this is generally after a whole bunch of intervention already:
being connected to machines and given drugs.
My midwife, who's assisted with over 2000 babies over the past 25 years
never said anything about inter-racial couples having trouble with birthing.
I'll email and ask her, though. It just doesn't make sense to me. The only
person I know who truly had a pelvis too small to birth vaginally is my sil.
She grew up poor in Europe and had lousy health care. So she didn't develop
as well as she should have. She married within her "race" to a man of normal
proportion. Their babies were healthy and not too large, but there was no
way they could get past her pelvic bone.
The inter-racial couples I know (black/white, Asian/white) had no problem.
If CPD is "unheard of" in cultures without inter-racial marriage perhaps
it's because those countries have better birthing practices?
Valerie in Tacoma
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/6/01 6:14:59 PM Mountain Daylight Time, vlos@...
writes:
writes:
If CPD is "unheard of" in cultures without inter-racial marriage perhaps
it's because those countries have better birthing practices?
True--maybe they just don't have that term, too, and births are either
successful or not.
Guys--I'm just repeating something as an example of something which (you're
proving by your response) sounds CRAZY, but could in a couple of hundred
years be considered "well duh" truth. There ARE things like that, like
leeches. They're in; they're out; they're in.
Some things that seemed sensible medical practice five hundred years ago seem
insane now. I have no doubt whatsoever that there will be things which are
done now (even by the radical, responsible, aware crowd) which will, in
retrospect, be crazed.
Sandra
Helen Hegener
At 4:19 PM -0700 4/6/01, phoenix@... wrote:
informative links:
Yukon Beringia Interpretive Center, Whitehorse, Yukon Territory
http://www.beringia.com/
PBS Arctic Journeys: Bering Land Bridge National Preserve
http://www.pbs.org/beringlandbridge/guide/history.html
The Beringia Interpretive Center in Whitehorse, YT, is a fascinating
place. We visit it on almost every trip to Alaska and always learn
something new!
Helen
>There is no hint of questioning of the land bridge idea, which makes perfectIt's real, all right. It's called Beringia. Here are a couple of
>sense: glaciers lower the sea level, but block the exposed land, except for a
>brief window.
informative links:
Yukon Beringia Interpretive Center, Whitehorse, Yukon Territory
http://www.beringia.com/
PBS Arctic Journeys: Bering Land Bridge National Preserve
http://www.pbs.org/beringlandbridge/guide/history.html
The Beringia Interpretive Center in Whitehorse, YT, is a fascinating
place. We visit it on almost every trip to Alaska and always learn
something new!
Helen
Lynda
You have stated "I was told" and "studies are being done." While you might
not being "putting forward" this theory, obviously someone or many
individuals are "placing a theory/idea in front of a group for review," that
is putting forward.
As to what it is based on, we are back to junk science. In the few
countries where there is little or no interracial marriage (African natives,
Australian Aboriginis, Alaskan Natives), there would be more c-sections if
such medical care was available and the designated population were aware of
its necessity. At this point in time, the maternal death stats could be
dramatically reduced by the advent of c-section availability in those
countries. Most *necessary* c-sections (I say necessary as most in the U.S.
are NOT necessary but merely a convenience) have nothing to do with the size
of the pelvic region or the birth canal. Most necessary c-sections are due
to placenta previa, fetal distress, maternal distress (extremely elevated
blood pressure), poor nutrition of the mother resulting in things such as
toxemia and internal bleeding. Those are not related to size of the fetus.
Lynda
not being "putting forward" this theory, obviously someone or many
individuals are "placing a theory/idea in front of a group for review," that
is putting forward.
As to what it is based on, we are back to junk science. In the few
countries where there is little or no interracial marriage (African natives,
Australian Aboriginis, Alaskan Natives), there would be more c-sections if
such medical care was available and the designated population were aware of
its necessity. At this point in time, the maternal death stats could be
dramatically reduced by the advent of c-section availability in those
countries. Most *necessary* c-sections (I say necessary as most in the U.S.
are NOT necessary but merely a convenience) have nothing to do with the size
of the pelvic region or the birth canal. Most necessary c-sections are due
to placenta previa, fetal distress, maternal distress (extremely elevated
blood pressure), poor nutrition of the mother resulting in things such as
toxemia and internal bleeding. Those are not related to size of the fetus.
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: <SandraDodd@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] doom and gloom
>
> In a message dated 4/6/01 11:24:08 AM, lurine@... writes:
>
> << Hitler got his ideas from the U.S. Read My Lips continued the policy
of
> eugenics. So, I am not surprised that something of this sort is now being
> put forward again. >>
>
> Whoa!
> Overstated.
> "Put forward" is beyond what it was.
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Addresses:
> Post message: [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: [email protected]
> List owner: [email protected]
> List settings page: http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Shannon Brophy
CPD is due to alot of factors-race possibly being one, though I haven't seen
it in practice.
The kind of labor, the position of the baby, the shape of the pelvis, and
the birth attendant's level of patience all have to do with whether the baby
makes the journey throught the birth canal. Plenty of women had CPD for one
baby and have birthed the next vaginally, sometimes a bigger size baby. They
used to predict CPD by looking at xrays (horror) and also have also tried to
predict with ultrasound. Ultrasound predicts weights + or - 1lb. or
sometimes more. A midwife or doctor can feel a pelvis and get a sense of
shape and dimensions beforehand, but basically it doesn't mean alot until
the labor happens. The best pelvimeter is the baby's head during a long
enough experience of active labor.
Shannon
retired hb midwife
it in practice.
The kind of labor, the position of the baby, the shape of the pelvis, and
the birth attendant's level of patience all have to do with whether the baby
makes the journey throught the birth canal. Plenty of women had CPD for one
baby and have birthed the next vaginally, sometimes a bigger size baby. They
used to predict CPD by looking at xrays (horror) and also have also tried to
predict with ultrasound. Ultrasound predicts weights + or - 1lb. or
sometimes more. A midwife or doctor can feel a pelvis and get a sense of
shape and dimensions beforehand, but basically it doesn't mean alot until
the labor happens. The best pelvimeter is the baby's head during a long
enough experience of active labor.
Shannon
retired hb midwife
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/7/01 10:52:34 AM, lurine@... writes:
<< You have stated "I was told" and "studies are being done." >>
I don't believe I ever said studies were being done.
It makes a difference, y'know.
<<
Different size babies than that race left to itself would have produced.
That's what I heard, from a midwife. That in cultures wihtout intermarriage
CPD is unheard of.
<<(I'm saying I've been told this and have heard it is discussed, not that I
know of any statistics or that I'm proposing it as something true--just
another thing that MIGHT turn out in the future to have been an irresponsible
thing done nowadays.)>>
Sandra
<< You have stated "I was told" and "studies are being done." >>
I don't believe I ever said studies were being done.
It makes a difference, y'know.
<<
Different size babies than that race left to itself would have produced.
That's what I heard, from a midwife. That in cultures wihtout intermarriage
CPD is unheard of.
<<(I'm saying I've been told this and have heard it is discussed, not that I
know of any statistics or that I'm proposing it as something true--just
another thing that MIGHT turn out in the future to have been an irresponsible
thing done nowadays.)>>
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/7/01 12:11:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
<< -just
another thing that MIGHT turn out in the future to have been an
irresponsible
thing done nowadays.)>> >>
I have to say that this kind of statement still concerns me even though
I understand that you, Sandra, have said that you aren't saying whether the
cesarean thing is true. What would such a thing possibly mean? Is it even
conceivable that it would be "irresponsible" for people of different racial
backgrounds to have children together? From various replies on here, we have
heard some evidence already to the contrary.
I think it is normal and healthy to heavily question inflamatory
statements and demand evidence for those kinds of claims. Humans have been
far too quick to accept ridiculous theories that brought about great harm on
their fellow human beings (racial and otherwise). If someone casually threw
out some theory about homeschooled kids turning out to commit suicide more
than schooled kids (totally made up here), I would think that you and any of
us would question that pretty strongly. These theories may seem like no big
deal to the people tossing them about (who aren't the group being spoken of)
but history tells us they can cause great horrors.
Lucy
SandraDodd@... writes:
<< -just
another thing that MIGHT turn out in the future to have been an
irresponsible
thing done nowadays.)>> >>
I have to say that this kind of statement still concerns me even though
I understand that you, Sandra, have said that you aren't saying whether the
cesarean thing is true. What would such a thing possibly mean? Is it even
conceivable that it would be "irresponsible" for people of different racial
backgrounds to have children together? From various replies on here, we have
heard some evidence already to the contrary.
I think it is normal and healthy to heavily question inflamatory
statements and demand evidence for those kinds of claims. Humans have been
far too quick to accept ridiculous theories that brought about great harm on
their fellow human beings (racial and otherwise). If someone casually threw
out some theory about homeschooled kids turning out to commit suicide more
than schooled kids (totally made up here), I would think that you and any of
us would question that pretty strongly. These theories may seem like no big
deal to the people tossing them about (who aren't the group being spoken of)
but history tells us they can cause great horrors.
Lucy
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/8/01 11:37:45 PM, LASaliger@... writes:
<< These theories may seem like no big
deal to the people tossing them about (who aren't the group being spoken of)
but history tells us they can cause great horrors. >>
My point is being missed, but it's a weird point.
Yes, I would argue (and did! and do!), but SOME of this stuff is going to be
shown to be dangerously wrong. We don't know what; that's my point.
What is "correct" and "obvious" to people while they live is often dismissed
as baseless fifty or a hundred years later.
My example of leeches--the came, they went, they're back--is prime. People
were wise, in the early leech days, to know how to use them. Then for a few
hundred years that was scoffed at BIGTIME as "How STUPID can people BE!?
They used to use LEECHES!"
Now people are using leeches again, succesfully and scientifically, with full
biochemical explanations and justifications and now they scorn the anti-leech
years for being smug and intolerant and lacking in actual scientific inquiry
but too quick to condemn out of hand.
Dentistry doesn't look at other cultures for comparison.
Just lately pre-natal factors and the idea of caries being a communicable
disease have been discussed by the mainstream. Five years ago when I
mentioned to the kids' dentist that I had read that cavities were contagious,
he gave me the look as though I had said "Do you use leeches?" and said in
that "I'm a doctor and you're not" voice, "I don't know where you would have
read THAT; I've never heard of that.
Huh.
Now because HE read it somewhere, it's true.
The example about cesareans is SO politically incorrect that people here have
jumped on it hard. All the talking and example-giving we go through here
won't matter, if when we've all been dead 20 years it's looked back at as a
legitimate factor. I AM NOT SAYING IT WILL BE. I'm saying it is something
I heard from a professional in the field as a possibility, and it is
something which will NOT be considered or researched because it's too
volatile, but someday it might possibly be considered in a different light.
And if not that one, hundreds of other things we consider now to be safe,
right and good.
There was a time (in recent memory, and NOW for some people) that
Christianity was considered MUCH more important than any native culture or
language or dress. I have heard that when Presbyterian or Anglican
missionaries went to the south Pacific in the 19th century, they had
islanders wearing Victorian clothes and some died of the heat--they were
SUPPOSED to be mostly naked. But because it was a sin, it was "better" for
them to be saved and die and go to heaven than to continue to live naked and
then burn in hell.
That seems insane to some of us, and to some it will probably still seem
justifiable.
Whole languages have been lost. But are languages more important than the
prevailing culture? Languages have been being lost since before there was
much knowledge of what language is, how it works, where it comes from, and
what you can tell from a language. So scholars bemoan the loss of a clue in
their history-of-the-world puzzle, but the people who would have spoken that
language are all dead anyway.
Except for some of the Indian languages. Is restoring a language (Inuit or
Navajo) by teaching it in school ANYTHING like natural transmission? It's a
shadow of a hint, only. But it's kind of like captive breeding. Some people
base their lives on it. Some think it's a waste of time and produces
unnaturally-gotten infants of a species with no "culture" to return to and
learn from.
History will interpret what we're doing differently than we do ourselves, and
some of our best ideas will be discredited, and some of our lamest might be
"future truth."
Sandra
<< These theories may seem like no big
deal to the people tossing them about (who aren't the group being spoken of)
but history tells us they can cause great horrors. >>
My point is being missed, but it's a weird point.
Yes, I would argue (and did! and do!), but SOME of this stuff is going to be
shown to be dangerously wrong. We don't know what; that's my point.
What is "correct" and "obvious" to people while they live is often dismissed
as baseless fifty or a hundred years later.
My example of leeches--the came, they went, they're back--is prime. People
were wise, in the early leech days, to know how to use them. Then for a few
hundred years that was scoffed at BIGTIME as "How STUPID can people BE!?
They used to use LEECHES!"
Now people are using leeches again, succesfully and scientifically, with full
biochemical explanations and justifications and now they scorn the anti-leech
years for being smug and intolerant and lacking in actual scientific inquiry
but too quick to condemn out of hand.
Dentistry doesn't look at other cultures for comparison.
Just lately pre-natal factors and the idea of caries being a communicable
disease have been discussed by the mainstream. Five years ago when I
mentioned to the kids' dentist that I had read that cavities were contagious,
he gave me the look as though I had said "Do you use leeches?" and said in
that "I'm a doctor and you're not" voice, "I don't know where you would have
read THAT; I've never heard of that.
Huh.
Now because HE read it somewhere, it's true.
The example about cesareans is SO politically incorrect that people here have
jumped on it hard. All the talking and example-giving we go through here
won't matter, if when we've all been dead 20 years it's looked back at as a
legitimate factor. I AM NOT SAYING IT WILL BE. I'm saying it is something
I heard from a professional in the field as a possibility, and it is
something which will NOT be considered or researched because it's too
volatile, but someday it might possibly be considered in a different light.
And if not that one, hundreds of other things we consider now to be safe,
right and good.
There was a time (in recent memory, and NOW for some people) that
Christianity was considered MUCH more important than any native culture or
language or dress. I have heard that when Presbyterian or Anglican
missionaries went to the south Pacific in the 19th century, they had
islanders wearing Victorian clothes and some died of the heat--they were
SUPPOSED to be mostly naked. But because it was a sin, it was "better" for
them to be saved and die and go to heaven than to continue to live naked and
then burn in hell.
That seems insane to some of us, and to some it will probably still seem
justifiable.
Whole languages have been lost. But are languages more important than the
prevailing culture? Languages have been being lost since before there was
much knowledge of what language is, how it works, where it comes from, and
what you can tell from a language. So scholars bemoan the loss of a clue in
their history-of-the-world puzzle, but the people who would have spoken that
language are all dead anyway.
Except for some of the Indian languages. Is restoring a language (Inuit or
Navajo) by teaching it in school ANYTHING like natural transmission? It's a
shadow of a hint, only. But it's kind of like captive breeding. Some people
base their lives on it. Some think it's a waste of time and produces
unnaturally-gotten infants of a species with no "culture" to return to and
learn from.
History will interpret what we're doing differently than we do ourselves, and
some of our best ideas will be discredited, and some of our lamest might be
"future truth."
Sandra
Lynda
Soooo, serious question time. Why would you throw out something as part of
a discussion that you know is little more than a rumor (and yes I know the
definition: "talk not based on definite knowledge; mere gossip; heresay; an
unconfirmed report") and that you know is inflammatory? You had to know it
wouldn't further your point of view. Why not use your complete leech
argument, something based in fact that clearly shows all points you were
trying to make?
Lynda
a discussion that you know is little more than a rumor (and yes I know the
definition: "talk not based on definite knowledge; mere gossip; heresay; an
unconfirmed report") and that you know is inflammatory? You had to know it
wouldn't further your point of view. Why not use your complete leech
argument, something based in fact that clearly shows all points you were
trying to make?
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: <SandraDodd@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 5:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] doom and gloom
>
> In a message dated 4/8/01 11:37:45 PM, LASaliger@... writes:
>
> << These theories may seem like no big
> deal to the people tossing them about (who aren't the group being spoken
of)
> but history tells us they can cause great horrors. >>
>
> My point is being missed, but it's a weird point.
>
> Yes, I would argue (and did! and do!), but SOME of this stuff is going to
be
> shown to be dangerously wrong. We don't know what; that's my point.
>
> What is "correct" and "obvious" to people while they live is often
dismissed
> as baseless fifty or a hundred years later.
>
> My example of leeches--the came, they went, they're back--is prime.
People
> were wise, in the early leech days, to know how to use them. Then for a
few
> hundred years that was scoffed at BIGTIME as "How STUPID can people BE!?
> They used to use LEECHES!"
>
> Now people are using leeches again, succesfully and scientifically, with
full
> biochemical explanations and justifications and now they scorn the
anti-leech
> years for being smug and intolerant and lacking in actual scientific
inquiry
> but too quick to condemn out of hand.
>
> Dentistry doesn't look at other cultures for comparison.
> Just lately pre-natal factors and the idea of caries being a communicable
> disease have been discussed by the mainstream. Five years ago when I
> mentioned to the kids' dentist that I had read that cavities were
contagious,
> he gave me the look as though I had said "Do you use leeches?" and said in
> that "I'm a doctor and you're not" voice, "I don't know where you would
have
> read THAT; I've never heard of that.
>
> Huh.
>
> Now because HE read it somewhere, it's true.
>
> The example about cesareans is SO politically incorrect that people here
have
> jumped on it hard. All the talking and example-giving we go through here
> won't matter, if when we've all been dead 20 years it's looked back at as
a
> legitimate factor. I AM NOT SAYING IT WILL BE. I'm saying it is
something
> I heard from a professional in the field as a possibility, and it is
> something which will NOT be considered or researched because it's too
> volatile, but someday it might possibly be considered in a different
light.
> And if not that one, hundreds of other things we consider now to be safe,
> right and good.
>
> There was a time (in recent memory, and NOW for some people) that
> Christianity was considered MUCH more important than any native culture or
> language or dress. I have heard that when Presbyterian or Anglican
> missionaries went to the south Pacific in the 19th century, they had
> islanders wearing Victorian clothes and some died of the heat--they were
> SUPPOSED to be mostly naked. But because it was a sin, it was "better"
for
> them to be saved and die and go to heaven than to continue to live naked
and
> then burn in hell.
>
> That seems insane to some of us, and to some it will probably still seem
> justifiable.
>
> Whole languages have been lost. But are languages more important than the
> prevailing culture? Languages have been being lost since before there was
> much knowledge of what language is, how it works, where it comes from, and
> what you can tell from a language. So scholars bemoan the loss of a clue
in
> their history-of-the-world puzzle, but the people who would have spoken
that
> language are all dead anyway.
>
> Except for some of the Indian languages. Is restoring a language (Inuit
or
> Navajo) by teaching it in school ANYTHING like natural transmission?
It's a
> shadow of a hint, only. But it's kind of like captive breeding. Some
people
> base their lives on it. Some think it's a waste of time and produces
> unnaturally-gotten infants of a species with no "culture" to return to and
> learn from.
>
> History will interpret what we're doing differently than we do ourselves,
and
> some of our best ideas will be discredited, and some of our lamest might
be
> "future truth."
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Addresses:
> Post message: [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: [email protected]
> List owner: [email protected]
> List settings page: http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/9/01 10:13:57 AM, lurine@... writes:
<< Why would you throw out something as part of
a discussion that you know is little more than a rumor (and yes I know the
definition: "talk not based on definite knowledge; mere gossip; heresay; an
unconfirmed report") and that you know is inflammatory? You had to know it
wouldn't further your point of view. >>
What do you mean it wouldn't further my point of view?
Sandra
<< Why would you throw out something as part of
a discussion that you know is little more than a rumor (and yes I know the
definition: "talk not based on definite knowledge; mere gossip; heresay; an
unconfirmed report") and that you know is inflammatory? You had to know it
wouldn't further your point of view. >>
What do you mean it wouldn't further my point of view?
Sandra
Lynda
It (he said/she said without research/gossip/heresay) did not "further" as
in "promote/aid/advance/foster/help" your point of
view/idea/opinion/belief/conviction.
Lynda
in "promote/aid/advance/foster/help" your point of
view/idea/opinion/belief/conviction.
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: <SandraDodd@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] doom and gloom
>
> In a message dated 4/9/01 10:13:57 AM, lurine@... writes:
>
> << Why would you throw out something as part of
> a discussion that you know is little more than a rumor (and yes I know the
> definition: "talk not based on definite knowledge; mere gossip; heresay;
an
> unconfirmed report") and that you know is inflammatory? You had to know
it
> wouldn't further your point of view. >>
>
> What do you mean it wouldn't further my point of view?
>
> Sandra
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> To unsubscribe, set preferences, or read archives:
> http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
> Another great list sponsored by Home Education Magazine!
> http://www.home-ed-magazine.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/10/01 11:21:14 PM, lurine@... writes:
<< It (he said/she said without research/gossip/heresay) did not "further" as
in "promote/aid/advance/foster/help" your point of
view/idea/opinion/belief/conviction. >>
I believe you misunderstood the point I was trying to make, but still you
helped me make it.
Some things happen, are believed, are done or totally banned for reasons that
seem good to people in a place or time, and then are totally UNDONE or
required, or people will lose jobs, promotions, acceptance by the academic
community or Society for even suggesting such a thing MIGHT be true, and then
years later after they're dead people in retrospect say "What do you know.
That wasn't bullshit after all. There was no need to
excommunicate/burn-at-the-stake/run out of town/deny a college
degree/disbar/bar, etc. that person after all. And how could the people in
those days have been so ignorant?"
We look back and we know Galileo was an alright guy.
In his time he was NOT considered an alright guy.
There are people who were considered alright guys a hundred years ago who
aren't now.
There are people considered nobel-prize-winning heroes now who will, for
reasons as yet unknown to ANY of us, be considered monstrous and lacking in
forethought a hundred or four hundred years from now, and nobody now can see
it.
Had I used a safe, cut-and-dried, started and finished example *only* I
wouldn't have had my point made.
Sandra
<< It (he said/she said without research/gossip/heresay) did not "further" as
in "promote/aid/advance/foster/help" your point of
view/idea/opinion/belief/conviction. >>
I believe you misunderstood the point I was trying to make, but still you
helped me make it.
Some things happen, are believed, are done or totally banned for reasons that
seem good to people in a place or time, and then are totally UNDONE or
required, or people will lose jobs, promotions, acceptance by the academic
community or Society for even suggesting such a thing MIGHT be true, and then
years later after they're dead people in retrospect say "What do you know.
That wasn't bullshit after all. There was no need to
excommunicate/burn-at-the-stake/run out of town/deny a college
degree/disbar/bar, etc. that person after all. And how could the people in
those days have been so ignorant?"
We look back and we know Galileo was an alright guy.
In his time he was NOT considered an alright guy.
There are people who were considered alright guys a hundred years ago who
aren't now.
There are people considered nobel-prize-winning heroes now who will, for
reasons as yet unknown to ANY of us, be considered monstrous and lacking in
forethought a hundred or four hundred years from now, and nobody now can see
it.
Had I used a safe, cut-and-dried, started and finished example *only* I
wouldn't have had my point made.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 4/11/01 9:58:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
<< There are people considered nobel-prize-winning heroes now who will, for
reasons as yet unknown to ANY of us, be considered monstrous and lacking in
forethought a hundred or four hundred years from now, and nobody now can see
it. >>
Of course this is true at times and I have talked about this same thing
with others, saying that we should all learn the lesson to not be too
arrogant about the current ways of doing things. However, this can be taken
to an extreme which prevents people from having convictions on anything.
What if some expert 200 years from now claims homeschooling was horrible?
There are some things that are true, period, not just based on the times a
person is living in. Hitler and his followers are not going to be found good
and intelligent in the future, except by those who are as screwed up and evil
as they were.
And, going back to the environmental issues that led into this, no, we
don't know the effects of everything we're doing or all the solutions. But
that is precisely the problem with the current uses of umpteen chemicals,
radioactive wastes generated by nuclear power plants, etc. If we don't know
completely what we're doing, isn't it rather stupid and arrogant to just
assume that somebody sometime in the future will come up with a solution or
that it probably won't cause much damage? And I don't think this is an issue
of judging our current generation too harshly. We don't have to condemn
someone to say that what he/she's doing is stupid and needs to be stopped,
especially things that affect everyone alive today and in the future.
Also, this is not at all in the same league as the c-section theory you
brought up. There are many respected scientists who are very concerned about
pollution issues and have solid evidence of the problems caused. That is not
the case with the theory you told us about.
Lucy in Calif.
SandraDodd@... writes:
<< There are people considered nobel-prize-winning heroes now who will, for
reasons as yet unknown to ANY of us, be considered monstrous and lacking in
forethought a hundred or four hundred years from now, and nobody now can see
it. >>
Of course this is true at times and I have talked about this same thing
with others, saying that we should all learn the lesson to not be too
arrogant about the current ways of doing things. However, this can be taken
to an extreme which prevents people from having convictions on anything.
What if some expert 200 years from now claims homeschooling was horrible?
There are some things that are true, period, not just based on the times a
person is living in. Hitler and his followers are not going to be found good
and intelligent in the future, except by those who are as screwed up and evil
as they were.
And, going back to the environmental issues that led into this, no, we
don't know the effects of everything we're doing or all the solutions. But
that is precisely the problem with the current uses of umpteen chemicals,
radioactive wastes generated by nuclear power plants, etc. If we don't know
completely what we're doing, isn't it rather stupid and arrogant to just
assume that somebody sometime in the future will come up with a solution or
that it probably won't cause much damage? And I don't think this is an issue
of judging our current generation too harshly. We don't have to condemn
someone to say that what he/she's doing is stupid and needs to be stopped,
especially things that affect everyone alive today and in the future.
Also, this is not at all in the same league as the c-section theory you
brought up. There are many respected scientists who are very concerned about
pollution issues and have solid evidence of the problems caused. That is not
the case with the theory you told us about.
Lucy in Calif.
Lynda
Well, would seem you aren't getting the point as your slightly racist remark
didn't not help make any point. Nor did it have any bearing on the topic at
hand. To be blunt, none of the genocide/eugenics type
theories/gossip/innuendos/beliefs has yet to be proven scientifically or
otherwise as they were practiced to throughout history.
As to leaches, facts are that they were used in one manner but have since
been found to be somewhat helpful in another. So the one does not prove the
other. And, most folks, for some reason read about the use of maggots and
somehow end up thinking it is the leeches that have been given a new status
by scientists. Blood letting be it by leech or knife or needle has not been
proven to have been good medicine.
Nor have you actually answered the question that I asked but then folks
generally don't.
Lynda
didn't not help make any point. Nor did it have any bearing on the topic at
hand. To be blunt, none of the genocide/eugenics type
theories/gossip/innuendos/beliefs has yet to be proven scientifically or
otherwise as they were practiced to throughout history.
As to leaches, facts are that they were used in one manner but have since
been found to be somewhat helpful in another. So the one does not prove the
other. And, most folks, for some reason read about the use of maggots and
somehow end up thinking it is the leeches that have been given a new status
by scientists. Blood letting be it by leech or knife or needle has not been
proven to have been good medicine.
Nor have you actually answered the question that I asked but then folks
generally don't.
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: <SandraDodd@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] doom and gloom
>
> In a message dated 4/10/01 11:21:14 PM, lurine@... writes:
>
> << It (he said/she said without research/gossip/heresay) did not "further"
as
> in "promote/aid/advance/foster/help" your point of
> view/idea/opinion/belief/conviction. >>
>
> I believe you misunderstood the point I was trying to make, but still you
> helped me make it.
>
> Some things happen, are believed, are done or totally banned for reasons
that
> seem good to people in a place or time, and then are totally UNDONE or
> required, or people will lose jobs, promotions, acceptance by the academic
> community or Society for even suggesting such a thing MIGHT be true, and
then
> years later after they're dead people in retrospect say "What do you know.
> That wasn't bullshit after all. There was no need to
> excommunicate/burn-at-the-stake/run out of town/deny a college
> degree/disbar/bar, etc. that person after all. And how could the people
in
> those days have been so ignorant?"
>
> We look back and we know Galileo was an alright guy.
>
> In his time he was NOT considered an alright guy.
>
> There are people who were considered alright guys a hundred years ago who
> aren't now.
>
> There are people considered nobel-prize-winning heroes now who will, for
> reasons as yet unknown to ANY of us, be considered monstrous and lacking
in
> forethought a hundred or four hundred years from now, and nobody now can
see
> it.
>
> Had I used a safe, cut-and-dried, started and finished example *only* I
> wouldn't have had my point made.
>
> Sandra
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> To unsubscribe, set preferences, or read archives:
> http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
> Another great list sponsored by Home Education Magazine!
> http://www.home-ed-magazine.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Elizabeth Hill
>Some things happen, are believed, are done or totally banned for reasonsthat
>seem good to people in a place or time, and then are totally UNDONE orSometimes it seems that despite their claims to be teaching Truth, many
>required, or people will lose jobs, promotions, acceptance by the academic
>community or Society for even suggesting such a thing MIGHT be true, and
>then
>years later after they're dead people in retrospect say "What do you know.
>That wasn't bullshit after all.
college departments are actually teaching "Religion" or at least their
codified beliefs about Truth. The way dissent is handled in these
institutions is a bit alarming.
Betsy