stress and frustration
[email protected]
In a message dated 5/15/01 3:43:54 PM, tanyab2@... writes:
<< Stress causes bad
effects to your brain chemistry. >>
Not just brain--other systems too.
But the belief about stress is common among many. I'm sure it was a
justification put on opressive child-rearing practices by some of the more
compassionate among them. My mother-in-law is elderly (80's) and was a nurse
and raised three kids. She was appalled by our kindnesses to our kids. She
said we HAD to frustrate them, it was part of growing up. I told her there
were natural frustrations and natural consequences and I wasn't going to
trump any up.
I know all her kids. My husband's two brothers were just here for three
days. I have heard stories from all of them about the growing-up years.
They lied to their parents, they were sneaky, one ran away, their mother was
cold...
My kids are nicer and more thoughtful and considerate than hers were then (if
their stories are accurate, and their stories are told in best-light, too) or
are now. They handle stress better than I do.
If the stress/frustration theory is correct, shouldn't we hold our kids at
knifepoint from time to time and threaten their lives so if they're ever
attacked in an alley they won't pee their pants. Should we break their
fingers so if they ever get a broken arm or leg they'll be prepared for the
pain?
Analogies all make it look as dumb as it is. But the cliches of traditional
European child-rearing "science" make it look inarguable because there are
religious practices and state and county social work principles and school
systems based on that very idea, that you have to learn to live with people
you don't like, and you have to learn to accept teachers you can't stand,
etc., because you have to prepare for "the real world."
I believe it's wrong. If I believed it was right, my kids would be in school.
Sandra
<< Stress causes bad
effects to your brain chemistry. >>
Not just brain--other systems too.
But the belief about stress is common among many. I'm sure it was a
justification put on opressive child-rearing practices by some of the more
compassionate among them. My mother-in-law is elderly (80's) and was a nurse
and raised three kids. She was appalled by our kindnesses to our kids. She
said we HAD to frustrate them, it was part of growing up. I told her there
were natural frustrations and natural consequences and I wasn't going to
trump any up.
I know all her kids. My husband's two brothers were just here for three
days. I have heard stories from all of them about the growing-up years.
They lied to their parents, they were sneaky, one ran away, their mother was
cold...
My kids are nicer and more thoughtful and considerate than hers were then (if
their stories are accurate, and their stories are told in best-light, too) or
are now. They handle stress better than I do.
If the stress/frustration theory is correct, shouldn't we hold our kids at
knifepoint from time to time and threaten their lives so if they're ever
attacked in an alley they won't pee their pants. Should we break their
fingers so if they ever get a broken arm or leg they'll be prepared for the
pain?
Analogies all make it look as dumb as it is. But the cliches of traditional
European child-rearing "science" make it look inarguable because there are
religious practices and state and county social work principles and school
systems based on that very idea, that you have to learn to live with people
you don't like, and you have to learn to accept teachers you can't stand,
etc., because you have to prepare for "the real world."
I believe it's wrong. If I believed it was right, my kids would be in school.
Sandra
Betsy Hill
>Analogies all make it look as dumb as it is. But the cliches oftraditional
>European child-rearing "science" make it look inarguable because there arepeople
>religious practices and state and county social work principles and school
>systems based on that very idea, that you have to learn to live with
>you don't like, and you have to learn to accept teachers you can't stand,Isn't much of this based on Prussian ideas about how to efficiently raise
>etc., because you have to prepare for "the real world."
>
>I believe it's wrong.
soldiers for the state? Free will and creativity being considered bad
things in the trenches?
Betsy
Lynda
Our (the U.S.) ps system is based on the Prussian model. The Prussian model
came about to train good little unquestioning soldiers.
Lynda
came about to train good little unquestioning soldiers.
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: "Betsy Hill" <ecsamhill@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] stress and frustration
> >Analogies all make it look as dumb as it is. But the cliches of
> traditional
> >European child-rearing "science" make it look inarguable because there
are
>
> >religious practices and state and county social work principles and
school
>
> >systems based on that very idea, that you have to learn to live with
> people
> >you don't like, and you have to learn to accept teachers you can't stand,
> >etc., because you have to prepare for "the real world."
> >
> >I believe it's wrong.
>
> Isn't much of this based on Prussian ideas about how to efficiently raise
> soldiers for the state? Free will and creativity being considered bad
> things in the trenches?
>
> Betsy
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
Betsy Hill
>Our (the U.S.) ps system is based on the Prussian model. The Prussianmodel
>came about to train good little unquestioning soldiers.Hi, Lynda --
Do you think Native Americans parents one and two generations ago would
have been less likely to accept the Prussian model, and European American
parents more likely to embrace it? Both of my maternal grandparents had
German last names, so I think the Prussian tradition comes down a bit in my
family. Fortunately my mom was kind of a pre-hippie type, educated at
Berkeley, and caught the counter-culture wave early. She breastfed me in
1959 when rates of breastfeeding were abysmally low.
Maybe the key thing I don't like about Prussian ideas are the ideas that
human systems of interaction can be managed as if they were machinery.
Ick.
Betsy
[email protected]
In a message dated 5/19/01 12:00:39 PM, lurine@... writes:
<< Our (the U.S.) ps system is based on the Prussian model. The Prussian
model
came about to train good little unquestioning soldiers. >>
Lots of childrearing belief and practice in this country is based on English
and German medical and psychological belief, but at the time schools were
starting up in the Western U.S. Germany wasn't an influencing factor in the
way the one-room rural schoolhouses with local school boards were set up.
East Coast schools (and the urban schools Gatto writes about) are only a
small part of the history of education in the U.S.
Sandra
<< Our (the U.S.) ps system is based on the Prussian model. The Prussian
model
came about to train good little unquestioning soldiers. >>
Lots of childrearing belief and practice in this country is based on English
and German medical and psychological belief, but at the time schools were
starting up in the Western U.S. Germany wasn't an influencing factor in the
way the one-room rural schoolhouses with local school boards were set up.
East Coast schools (and the urban schools Gatto writes about) are only a
small part of the history of education in the U.S.
Sandra
Vicki A. Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: <SandraDodd@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 7:03 AM
> East Coast schools (and the urban schools Gatto writes about) are only a
> small part of the history of education in the U.S.
>
> Sandra
Thank you, thank you. I have been unsuccessful in formulating a simple
response to the "history" that has gained the acceptance of many urban
legends (and has about the same factual basis).
Vicki
Lynda
The term that Hilliary made so icky to some, "it takes a village" is the
basis for American Indian learning up until the advent of the U.S.
government passing laws stating that Indians were not humans and had no
rights given to humans. This was used to remove all Indian children from
their homes and ship them off to boarding schools where the worst of the
worse parts of the Prussian model were practiced. They were all given
Buster Brown haircuts (boys and girls) and dressed in white uniforms. They
were denied their language and religion and punished for practicing either.
They were also punished for getting their uniforms dirty. How exactly they
were suppose to play, be children and still keep white uniforms white is
beyond me!
Those children that were not shipped off to boarding schools were forced to
attend church run schools on the reservations. Same haircuts and uniforms
were required. The treatment was brutal because it was "o.k." to beat and
torture Indian children because they weren't "human."
Which does not exactly answer your question but gives you a foundation for
the answer.
The American Indians did not embrace the concept but they were given no
choice. There are currently several lawsuits going on where "survivors" are
sueing the church schools for the physical and mental abuse they received
under their "care." However, some of those that were raised in the system
have embraced the system. And there is a lot of propaganda out there now
(good ol' government push) telling them that the only way their children
will get out of the live cycle of poverty and alcoholism is to push them
through ps and get that diploma.
The Europeans were use to a more controlled life style. They (most) had
been under some sort of control since written history and even before
that--rulers, churches, etc. I don't think there was much of a transition
from one type of control to another type of control. It was something they
simply didn't question.
IMHO, that is why homeschooling, in particular, and generally, any freedom
of choice style (LLL, unschooling, midwives, homebirths, simplified living,
alternative life styles) are so hard for the average person to accept. The
ps system, here and elsewhere in the world, is geared to train people to not
question certain basic facts (these may be different depending on the
country/religion/school). To do so is considered abnormal and those that do
so are considered rebellious, different and a threat. And most folks want
to fit in, be part of something, belong to something whether they realise it
or not. Ye ol' herd instinct, doncha know.
You even see it in unschooling <g> with *the* definition, joining
unschooling support groups, *doing* unschooling the *right* way, etc.
Lynda, who is probably CAM as usual %-}
basis for American Indian learning up until the advent of the U.S.
government passing laws stating that Indians were not humans and had no
rights given to humans. This was used to remove all Indian children from
their homes and ship them off to boarding schools where the worst of the
worse parts of the Prussian model were practiced. They were all given
Buster Brown haircuts (boys and girls) and dressed in white uniforms. They
were denied their language and religion and punished for practicing either.
They were also punished for getting their uniforms dirty. How exactly they
were suppose to play, be children and still keep white uniforms white is
beyond me!
Those children that were not shipped off to boarding schools were forced to
attend church run schools on the reservations. Same haircuts and uniforms
were required. The treatment was brutal because it was "o.k." to beat and
torture Indian children because they weren't "human."
Which does not exactly answer your question but gives you a foundation for
the answer.
The American Indians did not embrace the concept but they were given no
choice. There are currently several lawsuits going on where "survivors" are
sueing the church schools for the physical and mental abuse they received
under their "care." However, some of those that were raised in the system
have embraced the system. And there is a lot of propaganda out there now
(good ol' government push) telling them that the only way their children
will get out of the live cycle of poverty and alcoholism is to push them
through ps and get that diploma.
The Europeans were use to a more controlled life style. They (most) had
been under some sort of control since written history and even before
that--rulers, churches, etc. I don't think there was much of a transition
from one type of control to another type of control. It was something they
simply didn't question.
IMHO, that is why homeschooling, in particular, and generally, any freedom
of choice style (LLL, unschooling, midwives, homebirths, simplified living,
alternative life styles) are so hard for the average person to accept. The
ps system, here and elsewhere in the world, is geared to train people to not
question certain basic facts (these may be different depending on the
country/religion/school). To do so is considered abnormal and those that do
so are considered rebellious, different and a threat. And most folks want
to fit in, be part of something, belong to something whether they realise it
or not. Ye ol' herd instinct, doncha know.
You even see it in unschooling <g> with *the* definition, joining
unschooling support groups, *doing* unschooling the *right* way, etc.
Lynda, who is probably CAM as usual %-}
----- Original Message -----
From: "Betsy Hill" <ecsamhill@...>
> Hi, Lynda --
>
> Do you think Native Americans parents one and two generations ago would
> have been less likely to accept the Prussian model, and European American
> parents more likely to embrace it? Both of my maternal grandparents had
> German last names, so I think the Prussian tradition comes down a bit in
my
> family. Fortunately my mom was kind of a pre-hippie type, educated at
> Berkeley, and caught the counter-culture wave early. She breastfed me in
> 1959 when rates of breastfeeding were abysmally low.
>
> Maybe the key thing I don't like about Prussian ideas are the ideas that
> human systems of interaction can be managed as if they were machinery.
> Ick.
>
> Betsy
[email protected]
In a message dated 5/20/01 9:42:00 PM, lurine@... writes:
<< The term that Hilliary made so icky to some, "it takes a village" is the
basis for American Indian learning up until the advent of the U.S.
government passing laws stating that Indians were not humans and had no
rights given to humans. >>
I didn't think it was an American Indian quote.
I thought it was African. Can anyone confirm or deny?
<<This was used to remove all Indian children from
their homes and ship them off to boarding schools where the worst of the
worse parts of the Prussian model were practiced. >>
This is not so. "It takes a village" was not ANY justification for taking
kids to boarding schools.
<<They were all given
Buster Brown haircuts (boys and girls) and dressed in white uniforms. >>
Perhaps in one school you know of. To make a claim like all Indian boarding
schools wore white uniforms is simply to supply misinformation. And to claim
that they cut the hair of all the girls is false. Boys, most likely.
I live where there were still Indian schools very lately (still might be St.
Katherines' in Santa Fe, but if so, haircutting even for boys is long, long
gone), and what you've written is not applicable.
<< They
were denied their language and religion and punished for practicing either.>>
That is true, but that's was also true in public schools of children speaking
LOTS of languages even until lately, and probably even today in some places.
<<Those children that were not shipped off to boarding schools were forced to
attend church run schools on the reservations. Same haircuts and uniforms
were required. The treatment was brutal because it was "o.k." to beat and
torture Indian children because they weren't "human.">>
Where are you getting this information?
Last time I asked for resources you said you had classified sources and then
denied saying it.
Please, please--tell what is true or don't tell anything.
<<Which does not exactly answer your question but gives you a foundation for
the answer....>>
Answers should be founded in documentable truth when possible, and direct
account when possible. Sources and quotes, please.
I'm not questioning the evils of Indian schools. I'm questioning your
assertion of details as thought there was one overall model of boarding
school, or one overall group of Indians.
Sandra
<< The term that Hilliary made so icky to some, "it takes a village" is the
basis for American Indian learning up until the advent of the U.S.
government passing laws stating that Indians were not humans and had no
rights given to humans. >>
I didn't think it was an American Indian quote.
I thought it was African. Can anyone confirm or deny?
<<This was used to remove all Indian children from
their homes and ship them off to boarding schools where the worst of the
worse parts of the Prussian model were practiced. >>
This is not so. "It takes a village" was not ANY justification for taking
kids to boarding schools.
<<They were all given
Buster Brown haircuts (boys and girls) and dressed in white uniforms. >>
Perhaps in one school you know of. To make a claim like all Indian boarding
schools wore white uniforms is simply to supply misinformation. And to claim
that they cut the hair of all the girls is false. Boys, most likely.
I live where there were still Indian schools very lately (still might be St.
Katherines' in Santa Fe, but if so, haircutting even for boys is long, long
gone), and what you've written is not applicable.
<< They
were denied their language and religion and punished for practicing either.>>
That is true, but that's was also true in public schools of children speaking
LOTS of languages even until lately, and probably even today in some places.
<<Those children that were not shipped off to boarding schools were forced to
attend church run schools on the reservations. Same haircuts and uniforms
were required. The treatment was brutal because it was "o.k." to beat and
torture Indian children because they weren't "human.">>
Where are you getting this information?
Last time I asked for resources you said you had classified sources and then
denied saying it.
Please, please--tell what is true or don't tell anything.
<<Which does not exactly answer your question but gives you a foundation for
the answer....>>
Answers should be founded in documentable truth when possible, and direct
account when possible. Sources and quotes, please.
I'm not questioning the evils of Indian schools. I'm questioning your
assertion of details as thought there was one overall model of boarding
school, or one overall group of Indians.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 5/21/2001 10:04:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
lovemary
If you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself, and then
make a change.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
> I thought it was African. Can anyone confirm or deny?it is african . . . i have the book
>
>
lovemary
If you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself, and then
make a change.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Betsy Hill
>This is not so. "It takes a village" was not ANY justification for takingYeah, sounds like the wrong context to me.
>kids to boarding schools.
I think more what was said or implied is "we aren't going to let your
village raise your children." (Yech!) It's impossible to consider school
a benevolent institution after knowing anything about how it was used
against Native American children/families.
It bugs me that the concept "it takes a village (or a community)" gets
twisted to mean "it takes an institution of people getting government
salaries." That's quite a stretch. It's almost as surreal and wrong as
the Vietnam war saying "we destroyed the village to save it."
Betsy
[email protected]
> Answers should be founded in documentable truth when possible, anddirect
> account when possible. Sources and quotes, please.http://www.theage.com.au/news/20000824/A23057-2000Aug23.html
[email protected]
> > Answers should be founded in documentable truth when possible,and
> directhttp://www.twofrog.com/rezsch.html
> > account when possible. Sources and quotes, please.
[email protected]
-=-From the late 19th century until 1970, the Roman Catholic, Anglican,
United and Presbyterian churches ran boarding schools for Canadian Indian
children. The churches were fulfilling a government policy of teaching
Indians English and assimilating them into Canadian society.-=-
What I'm asking for is documentation on the claims made in the post about
haircuts and white uniforms. I'm not questioning the existence of Indian
Schools.
Sandra
United and Presbyterian churches ran boarding schools for Canadian Indian
children. The churches were fulfilling a government policy of teaching
Indians English and assimilating them into Canadian society.-=-
What I'm asking for is documentation on the claims made in the post about
haircuts and white uniforms. I'm not questioning the existence of Indian
Schools.
Sandra
Helen Hegener
At 10:02 AM -0400 5/21/01, SandraDodd@... wrote:
references handy. I'll watch for it though.
Why did I miss Lynda's original post? Is anyone else seeing missing
posts, replied to but they didn't get the originals? Yahoo is really
starting to make me nervous... Or maybe I'm just not tracking very
well here...
Helen
>In a message dated 5/20/01 9:42:00 PM, lurine@... writes:I thought the origin was African also, but I don't have any
>
><< The term that Hilliary made so icky to some, "it takes a village" is the
>basis for American Indian learning up until the advent of the U.S.
>government passing laws stating that Indians were not humans and had no
>rights given to humans. >>
>
>I didn't think it was an American Indian quote.
>
>I thought it was African. Can anyone confirm or deny?
references handy. I'll watch for it though.
Why did I miss Lynda's original post? Is anyone else seeing missing
posts, replied to but they didn't get the originals? Yahoo is really
starting to make me nervous... Or maybe I'm just not tracking very
well here...
Helen
Kim Baker
> Why did I miss Lynda's original post? Is anyoneYou are not alone! I am also missing posts, and
> else seeing missing
> posts, replied to but they didn't get the
> originals? Yahoo is really
> starting to make me nervous... Or maybe I'm
> just not tracking very
> well here...
>
> Helen
I am receiving replies before the original post.
Some I get and some I don't, I am not sure what
the problem is, but there definitely seems to be
one! :-)
=====
Kim - Missouri MOM of Dylan(11) Jacob(10) Noah(21 mos)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Lynda
Everytime they update things or AOL updates or we don't hold our hands over
the keyboards just right <g> posts start coming hit and miss. It did appear
on the list but here it is again with the post it answered following:
Lynda
The term that Hilliary made so icky to some, "it takes a village" is the
basis for American Indian learning up until the advent of the U.S.
government passing laws stating that Indians were not humans and had no
rights given to humans. This was used to remove all Indian children from
their homes and ship them off to boarding schools where the worst of the
worse parts of the Prussian model were practiced. They were all given
Buster Brown haircuts (boys and girls) and dressed in white uniforms. They
were denied their language and religion and punished for practicing either.
They were also punished for getting their uniforms dirty. How exactly they
were suppose to play, be children and still keep white uniforms white is
beyond me!
Those children that were not shipped off to boarding schools were forced to
attend church run schools on the reservations. Same haircuts and uniforms
were required. The treatment was brutal because it was "o.k." to beat and
torture Indian children because they weren't "human."
Which does not exactly answer your question but gives you a foundation for
the answer.
The American Indians did not embrace the concept but they were given no
choice. There are currently several lawsuits going on where "survivors" are
sueing the church schools for the physical and mental abuse they received
under their "care." However, some of those that were raised in the system
have embraced the system. And there is a lot of propaganda out there now
(good ol' government push) telling them that the only way their children
will get out of the live cycle of poverty and alcoholism is to push them
through ps and get that diploma.
The Europeans were use to a more controlled life style. They (most) had
been under some sort of control since written history and even before
that--rulers, churches, etc. I don't think there was much of a transition
from one type of control to another type of control. It was something they
simply didn't question.
IMHO, that is why homeschooling, in particular, and generally, any freedom
of choice style (LLL, unschooling, midwives, homebirths, simplified living,
alternative life styles) are so hard for the average person to accept. The
ps system, here and elsewhere in the world, is geared to train people to not
question certain basic facts (these may be different depending on the
country/religion/school). To do so is considered abnormal and those that do
so are considered rebellious, different and a threat. And most folks want
to fit in, be part of something, belong to something whether they realise it
or not. Ye ol' herd instinct, doncha know.
You even see it in unschooling <g> with *the* definition, joining
unschooling support groups, *doing* unschooling the *right* way, etc.
Lynda, who is probably CAM as usual %-}
the keyboards just right <g> posts start coming hit and miss. It did appear
on the list but here it is again with the post it answered following:
Lynda
The term that Hilliary made so icky to some, "it takes a village" is the
basis for American Indian learning up until the advent of the U.S.
government passing laws stating that Indians were not humans and had no
rights given to humans. This was used to remove all Indian children from
their homes and ship them off to boarding schools where the worst of the
worse parts of the Prussian model were practiced. They were all given
Buster Brown haircuts (boys and girls) and dressed in white uniforms. They
were denied their language and religion and punished for practicing either.
They were also punished for getting their uniforms dirty. How exactly they
were suppose to play, be children and still keep white uniforms white is
beyond me!
Those children that were not shipped off to boarding schools were forced to
attend church run schools on the reservations. Same haircuts and uniforms
were required. The treatment was brutal because it was "o.k." to beat and
torture Indian children because they weren't "human."
Which does not exactly answer your question but gives you a foundation for
the answer.
The American Indians did not embrace the concept but they were given no
choice. There are currently several lawsuits going on where "survivors" are
sueing the church schools for the physical and mental abuse they received
under their "care." However, some of those that were raised in the system
have embraced the system. And there is a lot of propaganda out there now
(good ol' government push) telling them that the only way their children
will get out of the live cycle of poverty and alcoholism is to push them
through ps and get that diploma.
The Europeans were use to a more controlled life style. They (most) had
been under some sort of control since written history and even before
that--rulers, churches, etc. I don't think there was much of a transition
from one type of control to another type of control. It was something they
simply didn't question.
IMHO, that is why homeschooling, in particular, and generally, any freedom
of choice style (LLL, unschooling, midwives, homebirths, simplified living,
alternative life styles) are so hard for the average person to accept. The
ps system, here and elsewhere in the world, is geared to train people to not
question certain basic facts (these may be different depending on the
country/religion/school). To do so is considered abnormal and those that do
so are considered rebellious, different and a threat. And most folks want
to fit in, be part of something, belong to something whether they realise it
or not. Ye ol' herd instinct, doncha know.
You even see it in unschooling <g> with *the* definition, joining
unschooling support groups, *doing* unschooling the *right* way, etc.
Lynda, who is probably CAM as usual %-}
----- Original Message -----
From: "Betsy Hill" <ecsamhill@...>
> Hi, Lynda --
>
> Do you think Native Americans parents one and two generations ago would
> have been less likely to accept the Prussian model, and European American
> parents more likely to embrace it? Both of my maternal grandparents had
> German last names, so I think the Prussian tradition comes down a bit in
my
> family. Fortunately my mom was kind of a pre-hippie type, educated at
> Berkeley, and caught the counter-culture wave early. She breastfed me in
> 1959 when rates of breastfeeding were abysmally low.
>
> Maybe the key thing I don't like about Prussian ideas are the ideas that
> human systems of interaction can be managed as if they were machinery.
> Ick.
>
> Betsy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Helen Hegener" <HEM-Editor@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] stress and frustration
> At 10:02 AM -0400 5/21/01, SandraDodd@... wrote:
> >In a message dated 5/20/01 9:42:00 PM, lurine@... writes:
> >
> ><< The term that Hilliary made so icky to some, "it takes a village" is
the
> >basis for American Indian learning up until the advent of the U.S.
> >government passing laws stating that Indians were not humans and had no
> >rights given to humans. >>
> >
> >I didn't think it was an American Indian quote.
> >
> >I thought it was African. Can anyone confirm or deny?
>
> I thought the origin was African also, but I don't have any
> references handy. I'll watch for it though.
>
> Why did I miss Lynda's original post? Is anyone else seeing missing
> posts, replied to but they didn't get the originals? Yahoo is really
> starting to make me nervous... Or maybe I'm just not tracking very
> well here...
>
> Helen
>
>
> 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/
>
>
Helen Hegener
At 9:50 AM -0700 5/22/01, Lynda wrote:
applied to American Indian teachings, and I've spent time with them
off and on throughout my life. Many of our friends and our children's
friends are American Indian (or Native American, as some seem to
prefer), so I'll ask around and see what they think.
Helen
>Everytime they update things or AOL updates or we don't hold our hands overSo it's not my imagination. <g>
>the keyboards just right <g> posts start coming hit and miss.
> It did appearThanks for reposting that, Lynda.
>on the list but here it is again with the post it answered following:
>The term that Hilliary made so icky to some, "it takes a village" is theWell... I won't argue with your premise, but I'd never heard the term
>basis for American Indian learning up until the advent of the U.S.
>government passing laws stating that Indians were not humans and had no
>rights given to humans.
applied to American Indian teachings, and I've spent time with them
off and on throughout my life. Many of our friends and our children's
friends are American Indian (or Native American, as some seem to
prefer), so I'll ask around and see what they think.
>The Europeans were use to a more controlled life style. They (most) hadWell said, Lynda. I definitely agree with your analysis here.
>been under some sort of control since written history and even before
>that--rulers, churches, etc. I don't think there was much of a transition
>from one type of control to another type of control. It was something they
>simply didn't question.
>
>IMHO, that is why homeschooling, in particular, and generally, any freedom
>of choice style (LLL, unschooling, midwives, homebirths, simplified living,
>alternative life styles) are so hard for the average person to accept. The
>ps system, here and elsewhere in the world, is geared to train people to not
>question certain basic facts (these may be different depending on the
>country/religion/school). To do so is considered abnormal and those that do
>so are considered rebellious, different and a threat. And most folks want
>to fit in, be part of something, belong to something whether they realise it
>or not. Ye ol' herd instinct, doncha know.
>You even see it in unschooling <g> with *the* definition, joiningAh, don't get me started. My CTS is already starting to act up again. <g>
>unschooling support groups, *doing* unschooling the *right* way, etc.
Helen
Lynda
It wasn't that they used that phrase but more that it is pharse understood
today and works as a modern day explanation of how things were. Children
didn't "belong" to individual parents. Something that we hear so much
now--"Those are MY children" "I will raise them the way I want" etc., etc.
etc. More like children are chattel than small people that are a gift put
into our care to raise with love and consideration.
Children learned from all elders in a tribe. Children learned from whomever
was doing whatever it was that they needed/wanted to learn. The "village"
raised the child. There were no orphans or even a word for "orphan" in most
tribes.
Better explanation???
Lynda, who retains the title of CAM!!!
today and works as a modern day explanation of how things were. Children
didn't "belong" to individual parents. Something that we hear so much
now--"Those are MY children" "I will raise them the way I want" etc., etc.
etc. More like children are chattel than small people that are a gift put
into our care to raise with love and consideration.
Children learned from all elders in a tribe. Children learned from whomever
was doing whatever it was that they needed/wanted to learn. The "village"
raised the child. There were no orphans or even a word for "orphan" in most
tribes.
Better explanation???
Lynda, who retains the title of CAM!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Helen Hegener" <HEM-Editor@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 10:48 AM
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Lynda's repost
> At 9:50 AM -0700 5/22/01, Lynda wrote:
> >Everytime they update things or AOL updates or we don't hold our hands
over
> >the keyboards just right <g> posts start coming hit and miss.
>
> So it's not my imagination. <g>
>
> > It did appear
> >on the list but here it is again with the post it answered following:
>
> Thanks for reposting that, Lynda.
>
> >The term that Hilliary made so icky to some, "it takes a village" is the
> >basis for American Indian learning up until the advent of the U.S.
> >government passing laws stating that Indians were not humans and had no
> >rights given to humans.
>
> Well... I won't argue with your premise, but I'd never heard the term
> applied to American Indian teachings, and I've spent time with them
> off and on throughout my life. Many of our friends and our children's
> friends are American Indian (or Native American, as some seem to
> prefer), so I'll ask around and see what they think.
>
> >The Europeans were use to a more controlled life style. They (most) had
> >been under some sort of control since written history and even before
> >that--rulers, churches, etc. I don't think there was much of a
transition
> >from one type of control to another type of control. It was something
they
> >simply didn't question.
> >
> >IMHO, that is why homeschooling, in particular, and generally, any
freedom
> >of choice style (LLL, unschooling, midwives, homebirths, simplified
living,
> >alternative life styles) are so hard for the average person to accept.
The
> >ps system, here and elsewhere in the world, is geared to train people to
not
> >question certain basic facts (these may be different depending on the
> >country/religion/school). To do so is considered abnormal and those that
do
> >so are considered rebellious, different and a threat. And most folks
want
> >to fit in, be part of something, belong to something whether they realise
it
> >or not. Ye ol' herd instinct, doncha know.
>
> Well said, Lynda. I definitely agree with your analysis here.
>
> >You even see it in unschooling <g> with *the* definition, joining
> >unschooling support groups, *doing* unschooling the *right* way, etc.
>
> Ah, don't get me started. My CTS is already starting to act up again. <g>
>
> Helen
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
Betsy Hill
>Everytime they update things or AOL updates or we don't hold our handsover
>the keyboards just right <g> posts start coming hit and miss. It didappear
>on the list but here it is again with the post it answered following:Hi, Lynda --
>
>Lynda
>
>The term that Hilliary made so icky to some, "it takes a village" is the
>basis for American Indian learning up until the advent of the U.S.
>government passing laws stating that Indians were not humans and had no
>rights given to humans.
Thanks for resending this. I managed to miss it the first time and yet see
responses to it. (Baffling.)
And I am straightened out in my mind about WHEN you said villages were
raising children. (Before U.S. government schooling was imposed.)
Betsy
Lynda
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I was beginning to think my communication
skills were suffering from the worst case of mommy brain ever. Which, of
course, I am but I didn't think it was that bad.
Lynda
skills were suffering from the worst case of mommy brain ever. Which, of
course, I am but I didn't think it was that bad.
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: "Betsy Hill" <ecsamhill@...>
> Hi, Lynda --
>
> Thanks for resending this. I managed to miss it the first time and yet
see
> responses to it. (Baffling.)
>
> And I am straightened out in my mind about WHEN you said villages were
> raising children. (Before U.S. government schooling was imposed.)
>
> Betsy
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
Pam Hartley
----------
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Digest Number 1261
Date: Wed, May 23, 2001, 9:28 AM
But that's what teachers say about bullies in school. "Just ignore them and
they'll stop."
On the other hand perhaps there is no way to stop a bully whatsoever, and
those afflicted with being picked on have to just endure it like a disease
and not complain to others around them. Suffer with dignity and all...
Is it ever appropriate to ask bullies to stop?
-------
Appropriate? Heck yes. Successful? Sigh. Not usually, in my experience.
Usually, they have to BE stopped.
I don't know what the list rules are in such matters (and I can't go read
archives or list guidelines or anything - Yahoo and I are having
relationship problems and it won't speak to me).
My husband's family was here for Mother's Day. My sister in law was talking
about her step-daughter (who wasn't here, was at her Mom's house that
weekend) and saying that Jenny was worried about going to junior high
school, because many of the kids there were not nice. My sil made some
off-hand remark that Jenny needed to adjust as this was "the real world".
Well, you probably will guess I couldn't let THAT go by. <g> I said, "You
know, I live in the real world and in my real world I don't spend much time
legitimately worried about people beating me up." And because my sil is not
a moron <g> it morphed into a rather interesting conversation about peer
pressure, etc. etc.
Here on this list, in my opinion and observation, Lynda is using words to
beat Sandra up. I find most of Lynda's posts that target Sandra as
incomprehensible as a bully's fists. I have no power to stop her. I will,
since I think it's a fair request, also ask her to stop. I hope I'm wrong in
my estimation of my request's potential for success.
And, in case the asking is a failure, I will also ask someone to snip
anything relevant from the list guidelines about targeting posters, removal
from lists, etc. And I will also ask the list moderator to consider the
effect (and cause) of this on the list in general.
I, too, would like to talk about unschooling, but not at the cost of
ignoring muggings on our virtual playground.
Pam Hartley
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Digest Number 1261
Date: Wed, May 23, 2001, 9:28 AM
But that's what teachers say about bullies in school. "Just ignore them and
they'll stop."
On the other hand perhaps there is no way to stop a bully whatsoever, and
those afflicted with being picked on have to just endure it like a disease
and not complain to others around them. Suffer with dignity and all...
Is it ever appropriate to ask bullies to stop?
-------
Appropriate? Heck yes. Successful? Sigh. Not usually, in my experience.
Usually, they have to BE stopped.
I don't know what the list rules are in such matters (and I can't go read
archives or list guidelines or anything - Yahoo and I are having
relationship problems and it won't speak to me).
My husband's family was here for Mother's Day. My sister in law was talking
about her step-daughter (who wasn't here, was at her Mom's house that
weekend) and saying that Jenny was worried about going to junior high
school, because many of the kids there were not nice. My sil made some
off-hand remark that Jenny needed to adjust as this was "the real world".
Well, you probably will guess I couldn't let THAT go by. <g> I said, "You
know, I live in the real world and in my real world I don't spend much time
legitimately worried about people beating me up." And because my sil is not
a moron <g> it morphed into a rather interesting conversation about peer
pressure, etc. etc.
Here on this list, in my opinion and observation, Lynda is using words to
beat Sandra up. I find most of Lynda's posts that target Sandra as
incomprehensible as a bully's fists. I have no power to stop her. I will,
since I think it's a fair request, also ask her to stop. I hope I'm wrong in
my estimation of my request's potential for success.
And, in case the asking is a failure, I will also ask someone to snip
anything relevant from the list guidelines about targeting posters, removal
from lists, etc. And I will also ask the list moderator to consider the
effect (and cause) of this on the list in general.
I, too, would like to talk about unschooling, but not at the cost of
ignoring muggings on our virtual playground.
Pam Hartley
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Kim Baker
--- Pam Hartley <pamhartley@...>
wrote:
100% thank you for being so articulate (cuz I am
not) :-)
Kim Dylan 11 Jacob 10 Noah 22 mos
Kim - Missouri MOM of Dylan(11) Jacob(10) Noah(21 mos)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
wrote:
>Pam, this so very well said!!!! I agree with you
>
> ----------
100% thank you for being so articulate (cuz I am
not) :-)
Kim Dylan 11 Jacob 10 Noah 22 mos
> Here on this list, in my opinion and=====
> observation, Lynda is using words to
> beat Sandra up. I find most of Lynda's posts
> that target Sandra as
> incomprehensible as a bully's fists. I have no
> power to stop her. I will,
> since I think it's a fair request, also ask her
> to stop. I hope I'm wrong in
> my estimation of my request's potential for
> success.
>
> And, in case the asking is a failure, I will
> also ask someone to snip
> anything relevant from the list guidelines
> about targeting posters, removal
> from lists, etc. And I will also ask the list
> moderator to consider the
> effect (and cause) of this on the list in
> general.
>
> I, too, would like to talk about unschooling,
> but not at the cost of
> ignoring muggings on our virtual playground.
>
> Pam Hartley
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
> 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/
>
>
Kim - Missouri MOM of Dylan(11) Jacob(10) Noah(21 mos)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/