summary/frustration
[email protected]
I'm sorry things got as crazy as they did here. Someone I was really close
to, a singing and guitar playing buddy, a best friend, died early. He had
grown up without a dad because of alcohol. He left his kids because of
alcohol, and died in another state. Both his parents were alcoholics. My
mom was. We both swore we would never drink. I didn't; he did.
Alcoholism is common in my mom's family. She has two of six siblings who
weren't alcoholics; the rest were. Her dad was, her mom wasn't. My sister
is, I'm not.
Jon had two alcoholic parents, though, and most of his many siblings drank a
lot.
His dad was Navajo. Navajos seem to be passing alcoholism and Fetal Alcohol
Syndrome on at an alarming rate, compared to other groups in the area.
Apaches too, I hear (even worse, I've heard) but I don't know any Apaches.
I've never lived where they did.
Families are BADLY harmed by alcohol. My brother's girlfriend/partner drinks
constantly. Who's taking care of her kids? I don't even know. Five kids.
If it's clear to anyone why so many Navajos are drinking, and if I'm racist
to say genetics are a factor, that's crazy. If it's "simply" the fault of
"white people" (not a term used in New Mexico much), THAT is racist. Do
individuals not have free will? Jon did. He knew before. He knew during.
He knew how to stop. He knew what it was like to be without a dad.
My mom knew. She knew during. She stopped for nine years. She could stop
again but she doesn't want to.
Whose fault is it that so many anglos in New Mexico and Texas are in genetic
alcoholic lines? My dad wasn't an alcoholic. My mom's second husband was
BIGTIME. My half brother didn't have a chance. Does he drink because of
"white people"?
Seems racist to me to suggest that a whole tribe is drinking because of
outside factors, but that their neighbors drink for individual reasons.
When someone is genetically pre-disposed, they just need to not drink, or
they need to go ahead and drink and not blame other people for that decision.
I can't go against what I see with my own eyes and what I know from personal
experience just to make someone vaguely more comfortable or justified in some
other state. I can't pretend all American Indians are one homogenous group
any more than all Europeans are one homogenous group or all Pagans are
worshipping the same Green Man and the same spirits.
Anyone who would be happier if another person would just roll over and say
something they don't believe would end up with false agreement and no more.
I can't be dishonest.
Unschooling works the same way no matter who the kid is. It doesn't matter,
when parents are helping kids learn in their own way at their own pace what
the kid's background, politics, IQ, genetics, ethnicity,
class/caste/height/religion. I wish more people could do it, but I think
those who can and who want to should. I think it leads to a dozen other
facets of life people never consider when they first hear "unschooling." I
don't think it should lead to censorship and shaming.
Other questions (accusations disguised as questions) were whether if a woman
says "sexist" that's proof. No. There are women promoting sexism
themselves. There are women who convince themselves various ways to subject
themselves to men, even if the men are abusive. There are women giving their
daughters dangerous messages. There is one homeschooling curriculum with
different coursework for boys than girls. Then there are men with a keen
sense of fairness who see men and women as equals and remind others to do so
too, when they have a chance. Some men know more about sexism than some
women do.
If someone knows a lot about Texas, for example, because of some personal
interest or fascination, just because I lived in Texas for a few years when I
was little doesn't mean I can say "Well I know more about Texas because I've
lived there." If someone has lived there fifty years, they might know less
about some aspects or factoids or history than someone who has read,
interviewed people, and for whatever reason really cared to learn.
The argument that some jobs should be just for men because men are stronger
than women lost out in the 1970's. If strength is the issue, then go with
strength, not gender. Unless we want to argue that it's okay to say the
weakest man is stronger than the strongest woman, why is it okay to say that
ANY one person who identifies himself as American Indian gets to speak for
all of them, and will be able to veto the experience or opinion of someone
who isn't Indian or is only 1/4 instead of half, or WHATever. Information is
information, and some people don't have all that much. Propaganda is
propaganda, and some people have LOADS of it, and don't care to decide what's
true and what's sensationalism.
Some kinds of propaganda aims at prevention of learning. It says "Here are
the simple answers, just trust them. Don't look at anyone else's answers,
just those I've just given you."
It seemed today that saying "There are other factors" was met with "Then
you're a racist."
I don't think unschooling works very well with anyone's checklist of what not
to read, or what not to allow, or what not to watch.
But I think this discussion started with questions about what to get for kids
for history, didn't it? More than one source, primary sources are good...
and we came to this yucky fight.
I wish it hadn't happened, and I'm sorry if people's feelings were hurt.
Sandra
Sandra
to, a singing and guitar playing buddy, a best friend, died early. He had
grown up without a dad because of alcohol. He left his kids because of
alcohol, and died in another state. Both his parents were alcoholics. My
mom was. We both swore we would never drink. I didn't; he did.
Alcoholism is common in my mom's family. She has two of six siblings who
weren't alcoholics; the rest were. Her dad was, her mom wasn't. My sister
is, I'm not.
Jon had two alcoholic parents, though, and most of his many siblings drank a
lot.
His dad was Navajo. Navajos seem to be passing alcoholism and Fetal Alcohol
Syndrome on at an alarming rate, compared to other groups in the area.
Apaches too, I hear (even worse, I've heard) but I don't know any Apaches.
I've never lived where they did.
Families are BADLY harmed by alcohol. My brother's girlfriend/partner drinks
constantly. Who's taking care of her kids? I don't even know. Five kids.
If it's clear to anyone why so many Navajos are drinking, and if I'm racist
to say genetics are a factor, that's crazy. If it's "simply" the fault of
"white people" (not a term used in New Mexico much), THAT is racist. Do
individuals not have free will? Jon did. He knew before. He knew during.
He knew how to stop. He knew what it was like to be without a dad.
My mom knew. She knew during. She stopped for nine years. She could stop
again but she doesn't want to.
Whose fault is it that so many anglos in New Mexico and Texas are in genetic
alcoholic lines? My dad wasn't an alcoholic. My mom's second husband was
BIGTIME. My half brother didn't have a chance. Does he drink because of
"white people"?
Seems racist to me to suggest that a whole tribe is drinking because of
outside factors, but that their neighbors drink for individual reasons.
When someone is genetically pre-disposed, they just need to not drink, or
they need to go ahead and drink and not blame other people for that decision.
I can't go against what I see with my own eyes and what I know from personal
experience just to make someone vaguely more comfortable or justified in some
other state. I can't pretend all American Indians are one homogenous group
any more than all Europeans are one homogenous group or all Pagans are
worshipping the same Green Man and the same spirits.
Anyone who would be happier if another person would just roll over and say
something they don't believe would end up with false agreement and no more.
I can't be dishonest.
Unschooling works the same way no matter who the kid is. It doesn't matter,
when parents are helping kids learn in their own way at their own pace what
the kid's background, politics, IQ, genetics, ethnicity,
class/caste/height/religion. I wish more people could do it, but I think
those who can and who want to should. I think it leads to a dozen other
facets of life people never consider when they first hear "unschooling." I
don't think it should lead to censorship and shaming.
Other questions (accusations disguised as questions) were whether if a woman
says "sexist" that's proof. No. There are women promoting sexism
themselves. There are women who convince themselves various ways to subject
themselves to men, even if the men are abusive. There are women giving their
daughters dangerous messages. There is one homeschooling curriculum with
different coursework for boys than girls. Then there are men with a keen
sense of fairness who see men and women as equals and remind others to do so
too, when they have a chance. Some men know more about sexism than some
women do.
If someone knows a lot about Texas, for example, because of some personal
interest or fascination, just because I lived in Texas for a few years when I
was little doesn't mean I can say "Well I know more about Texas because I've
lived there." If someone has lived there fifty years, they might know less
about some aspects or factoids or history than someone who has read,
interviewed people, and for whatever reason really cared to learn.
The argument that some jobs should be just for men because men are stronger
than women lost out in the 1970's. If strength is the issue, then go with
strength, not gender. Unless we want to argue that it's okay to say the
weakest man is stronger than the strongest woman, why is it okay to say that
ANY one person who identifies himself as American Indian gets to speak for
all of them, and will be able to veto the experience or opinion of someone
who isn't Indian or is only 1/4 instead of half, or WHATever. Information is
information, and some people don't have all that much. Propaganda is
propaganda, and some people have LOADS of it, and don't care to decide what's
true and what's sensationalism.
Some kinds of propaganda aims at prevention of learning. It says "Here are
the simple answers, just trust them. Don't look at anyone else's answers,
just those I've just given you."
It seemed today that saying "There are other factors" was met with "Then
you're a racist."
I don't think unschooling works very well with anyone's checklist of what not
to read, or what not to allow, or what not to watch.
But I think this discussion started with questions about what to get for kids
for history, didn't it? More than one source, primary sources are good...
and we came to this yucky fight.
I wish it hadn't happened, and I'm sorry if people's feelings were hurt.
Sandra
Sandra
Deborah Lewis
I'm sorry you lost your friend, Sandra.
Deb L
Deb L
[email protected]
In a message dated 5/15/03 10:45:20 PM, ddzimlew@... writes:
<< I'm sorry you lost your friend, Sandra. >>
Thanks.
Both our moms are still living, still drinking, in their 70's. So when they
say drinking will kill you, it means will kill an otherwise able-bodied man
of 35, it seems.
Life doesn't re-wind. At the funeral Jon's son, Tinini, was 14 or 15. I
took him aside and told him his dad had resolved not to drink, but had not
succeeded. I asked him to try his hardest NOT to drink, because if he
started he might not be able to stop. Naturally he looked at me politely,
but like I was a crazy lady, and went back to his friends. I talked to his
mom a couple of months ago. He's drinking some, and he has a baby.
Sandra
<< I'm sorry you lost your friend, Sandra. >>
Thanks.
Both our moms are still living, still drinking, in their 70's. So when they
say drinking will kill you, it means will kill an otherwise able-bodied man
of 35, it seems.
Life doesn't re-wind. At the funeral Jon's son, Tinini, was 14 or 15. I
took him aside and told him his dad had resolved not to drink, but had not
succeeded. I asked him to try his hardest NOT to drink, because if he
started he might not be able to stop. Naturally he looked at me politely,
but like I was a crazy lady, and went back to his friends. I talked to his
mom a couple of months ago. He's drinking some, and he has a baby.
Sandra
coyote's corner
Sandra - I did not disguise accusations as questions. I asked questions about the fats. I didn't even state that you knew the facts or had thought about the facts.
No said that AI's are not "genetically" dispossed to alcoholism.
I asked "If this happened ....would you?"
Perhaps you would not.
As for sexism - I didn't speak of proof - I said If a woman says something is sexist - can a man deny
it?
Now you attack me, my blood, my history, my culture, the basic person that is me.
who isn't Indian or is only 1/4 instead of half, or WHATever.<<<<<"
Gee, that worked FOR whites for years!! Any one AI could agree to whatever - and the US Govt. took that as gospel.
Look back and really read this thread.
Please, well, I was going to ask that you not insult me any further.
But you have.
I am sorry for your friend.
I am sorry for your life with an alcoholic. Truly, I am. It is always hard w/ alcohol in the picture.
None of that changes what you said.
You are very good at diverting the subject. Ex: sexism - well - you go on to state how just because a woman says it's sexism doesn't mean its sexism. Therefore, just because an American Indian says its racism - well, I'm only one and can't speak for all AI's; a group of AI's can't say what is racist because this group isn't speaking for all AI's.
Let's just get on with other things now because Sandra has made these statements.
You have dismissed me, my thoughts, in fact, my life - why? Because I don't have a majority of all AI's - living or dead to agree w/ me?
Did you read the story of SuAn
Don't you think that many of the parents involved would go to their maker swearing they aren't racist?
"I can't be dishonest"
That's how you see it.
I see a racist in denial.
coyote
No said that AI's are not "genetically" dispossed to alcoholism.
I asked "If this happened ....would you?"
Perhaps you would not.
As for sexism - I didn't speak of proof - I said If a woman says something is sexist - can a man deny
it?
Now you attack me, my blood, my history, my culture, the basic person that is me.
>>>>>"ANY one person who identifies himself as American Indian gets to speak forall of them, and will be able to veto the experience or opinion of someone
who isn't Indian or is only 1/4 instead of half, or WHATever.<<<<<"
Gee, that worked FOR whites for years!! Any one AI could agree to whatever - and the US Govt. took that as gospel.
Look back and really read this thread.
Please, well, I was going to ask that you not insult me any further.
But you have.
I am sorry for your friend.
I am sorry for your life with an alcoholic. Truly, I am. It is always hard w/ alcohol in the picture.
None of that changes what you said.
You are very good at diverting the subject. Ex: sexism - well - you go on to state how just because a woman says it's sexism doesn't mean its sexism. Therefore, just because an American Indian says its racism - well, I'm only one and can't speak for all AI's; a group of AI's can't say what is racist because this group isn't speaking for all AI's.
Let's just get on with other things now because Sandra has made these statements.
You have dismissed me, my thoughts, in fact, my life - why? Because I don't have a majority of all AI's - living or dead to agree w/ me?
Did you read the story of SuAn
Don't you think that many of the parents involved would go to their maker swearing they aren't racist?
"I can't be dishonest"
That's how you see it.
I see a racist in denial.
coyote
----- Original Message -----
From: SandraDodd@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 12:11 AM
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] summary/frustration
I'm sorry things got as crazy as they did here. Someone I was really close
to, a singing and guitar playing buddy, a best friend, died early. He had
grown up without a dad because of alcohol. He left his kids because of
alcohol, and died in another state. Both his parents were alcoholics. My
mom was. We both swore we would never drink. I didn't; he did.
Alcoholism is common in my mom's family. She has two of six siblings who
weren't alcoholics; the rest were. Her dad was, her mom wasn't. My sister
is, I'm not.
Jon had two alcoholic parents, though, and most of his many siblings drank a
lot.
His dad was Navajo. Navajos seem to be passing alcoholism and Fetal Alcohol
Syndrome on at an alarming rate, compared to other groups in the area.
Apaches too, I hear (even worse, I've heard) but I don't know any Apaches.
I've never lived where they did.
Families are BADLY harmed by alcohol. My brother's girlfriend/partner drinks
constantly. Who's taking care of her kids? I don't even know. Five kids.
If it's clear to anyone why so many Navajos are drinking, and if I'm racist
to say genetics are a factor, that's crazy. If it's "simply" the fault of
"white people" (not a term used in New Mexico much), THAT is racist. Do
individuals not have free will? Jon did. He knew before. He knew during.
He knew how to stop. He knew what it was like to be without a dad.
My mom knew. She knew during. She stopped for nine years. She could stop
again but she doesn't want to.
Whose fault is it that so many anglos in New Mexico and Texas are in genetic
alcoholic lines? My dad wasn't an alcoholic. My mom's second husband was
BIGTIME. My half brother didn't have a chance. Does he drink because of
"white people"?
Seems racist to me to suggest that a whole tribe is drinking because of
outside factors, but that their neighbors drink for individual reasons.
When someone is genetically pre-disposed, they just need to not drink, or
they need to go ahead and drink and not blame other people for that decision.
I can't go against what I see with my own eyes and what I know from personal
experience just to make someone vaguely more comfortable or justified in some
other state. I can't pretend all American Indians are one homogenous group
any more than all Europeans are one homogenous group or all Pagans are
worshipping the same Green Man and the same spirits.
Anyone who would be happier if another person would just roll over and say
something they don't believe would end up with false agreement and no more.
I can't be dishonest.
Unschooling works the same way no matter who the kid is. It doesn't matter,
when parents are helping kids learn in their own way at their own pace what
the kid's background, politics, IQ, genetics, ethnicity,
class/caste/height/religion. I wish more people could do it, but I think
those who can and who want to should. I think it leads to a dozen other
facets of life people never consider when they first hear "unschooling." I
don't think it should lead to censorship and shaming.
Other questions (accusations disguised as questions) were whether if a woman
says "sexist" that's proof. No. There are women promoting sexism
themselves. There are women who convince themselves various ways to subject
themselves to men, even if the men are abusive. There are women giving their
daughters dangerous messages. There is one homeschooling curriculum with
different coursework for boys than girls. Then there are men with a keen
sense of fairness who see men and women as equals and remind others to do so
too, when they have a chance. Some men know more about sexism than some
women do.
If someone knows a lot about Texas, for example, because of some personal
interest or fascination, just because I lived in Texas for a few years when I
was little doesn't mean I can say "Well I know more about Texas because I've
lived there." If someone has lived there fifty years, they might know less
about some aspects or factoids or history than someone who has read,
interviewed people, and for whatever reason really cared to learn.
The argument that some jobs should be just for men because men are stronger
than women lost out in the 1970's. If strength is the issue, then go with
strength, not gender. Unless we want to argue that it's okay to say the
weakest man is stronger than the strongest woman, why is it okay to say that
ANY one person who identifies himself as American Indian gets to speak for
all of them, and will be able to veto the experience or opinion of someone
who isn't Indian or is only 1/4 instead of half, or WHATever. Information is
information, and some people don't have all that much. Propaganda is
propaganda, and some people have LOADS of it, and don't care to decide what's
true and what's sensationalism.
Some kinds of propaganda aims at prevention of learning. It says "Here are
the simple answers, just trust them. Don't look at anyone else's answers,
just those I've just given you."
It seemed today that saying "There are other factors" was met with "Then
you're a racist."
I don't think unschooling works very well with anyone's checklist of what not
to read, or what not to allow, or what not to watch.
But I think this discussion started with questions about what to get for kids
for history, didn't it? More than one source, primary sources are good...
and we came to this yucky fight.
I wish it hadn't happened, and I'm sorry if people's feelings were hurt.
Sandra
Sandra
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 5/16/03 4:38:35 AM, jana@... writes:
<< Did you read the story of SuAn>>
Yes.
<<Don't you think that many of the parents involved would go to their maker
swearing they aren't racist? >>
I have no idea what other individuals will or will not do or think.
I do know I've spent my life NOT choosing friends on the basis of color or
religion, have pressed others around me to shut up if they were telling
hateful jokes or making any slurs, that my kids are appalled when they see
stupidity, and I know that people are individuals. Few individuals have nor
should any have the responsibility to make or break the reputation of their
"race." Judging an entire group of people to be bad OR TO BE GOOD as a group
is racism by definition.
I don't think this list is racist. I don't think that saying let kids read
books and decide is racist. I don't think providing a list of books with
information on why certain characters have been objected to *by the
reviewers* is a bad thing in any way.
I think the suggestion that beause something is on a list of things that
someone or a group or a church or "a race" objected to then an unschooling
family won't ever read them is very, very bad.
Reviews are written by individual people. They can give their reasons, and
others can read that and consider whether they want to bypass the book, or
read it and understand more deeply those objections.
Telling other people what to read isn't censorship unless you make it
physically difficult for them to get to the books, and that didn't happen.
Telling someone that unless they agree with you that a book is racist that
THEY are racist is a little more pressure than seems good or right.
Sandra
<< Did you read the story of SuAn>>
Yes.
<<Don't you think that many of the parents involved would go to their maker
swearing they aren't racist? >>
I have no idea what other individuals will or will not do or think.
I do know I've spent my life NOT choosing friends on the basis of color or
religion, have pressed others around me to shut up if they were telling
hateful jokes or making any slurs, that my kids are appalled when they see
stupidity, and I know that people are individuals. Few individuals have nor
should any have the responsibility to make or break the reputation of their
"race." Judging an entire group of people to be bad OR TO BE GOOD as a group
is racism by definition.
I don't think this list is racist. I don't think that saying let kids read
books and decide is racist. I don't think providing a list of books with
information on why certain characters have been objected to *by the
reviewers* is a bad thing in any way.
I think the suggestion that beause something is on a list of things that
someone or a group or a church or "a race" objected to then an unschooling
family won't ever read them is very, very bad.
Reviews are written by individual people. They can give their reasons, and
others can read that and consider whether they want to bypass the book, or
read it and understand more deeply those objections.
Telling other people what to read isn't censorship unless you make it
physically difficult for them to get to the books, and that didn't happen.
Telling someone that unless they agree with you that a book is racist that
THEY are racist is a little more pressure than seems good or right.
Sandra