What are things that everyone ought to understand, but many don't?

it's pretty obvious, those old white guys weren't thinking of women or people of colour.

That should come as no surprise to anyone with even an elementary knowledge of human history. After all, it's more than just a wee bit unrealistic to expect the Founding Fathers to think like modern politicians or to prioritize equality for women and people of color. The exclusion of those groups wasn’t some uniquely American failing; it reflected the norms of the time across most of the world.

In the late 18th century, practically no society treated women or people of color as political equals. Patriarchal systems were deeply ingrained everywhere, and the same went for racial hierarchies. Even the most forward-thinking people of that era still operated within those structures. The Founding Fathers weren’t ahead of their time in that regard, but they weren’t particularly behind it either.

They focused on what they saw as the big revolutionary ideas of their day—overthrowing monarchies and creating a government based on representation and individual rights. Sure, their definition of "individual" was painfully narrow, but that was the reality of their world. They laid a foundation that later generations could (and did) build on, but they weren’t going to suddenly leap centuries ahead of their time.

So while it’s easy to critique them from where you stand now, it doesn’t really make sense to expect them to have had a modern perspective.
 

Sounds like you believe a single mother can adequately provide for her children without government assistance if she just budgets her money. If the young and the poor understood finances there could be a revolution. On the other hand, all the people demanding higher wages make me nervous. If employers must pay more for labor the price of the product will increase and that is inflationary. It is a spiral that could cause our economy to collapse.

Frankly, I thank my stars that I am not young and with children. It must be very frightening for the low-wage workers who support our economy by being affordable labor when they will never earn enough to become homeowners and may not even be able to afford medical care.
The question was "What are things that everyone ought to understand, but many don't?" and I simply answered "How to live within your means and stick to a budget. All schools should teach basic, personal finance"
Your presumption that I "believe a single mother can adequately provide for her children without government assistance if she just budgets money" is assuming you know me and what I believe which could not be further from the truth. No matter your income you must live within your means, you really have no choice. Living within your means simply means managing your individualized finances and personal expenses in a way that aligns with your income and available resources, regardless of how much you make.
It is something we all must learn. My reply means I believe we should teach our children how to do this.
 
Last edited:
Of course we take it personally when someone who claims my 'affection' for facts in their criticism of America, but gets so many of them wrong. To keep beating the dead horse about American Slavery and some of our founding fathers being slave owners is just a feeble attempt at virtue signalling, and is tiresome. NO county is without sin in their past, or in the present time. Slavery here. Treatment of First Nation peoples in Canada, treatment of Indigenous Australians, etc. If you wanna point out our dirty laundry, be prepared to discuss your own, in painful detail. That's only fair.


as indeed poster was quite prepared and open about doing - she in no way suggested her own country did not have a poor record of treating indiginous people and I would not for one minute suggest that about my country either.
Perfectly happy t o have a conversation about that if anyone is interested - I would not take that personally nor nitpick any minor details (dates out by 5 years, for example) not affecting the point of the post.
 

as indeed poster was quite prepared and open about doing - she in no way suggested her own country did not have a poor record of treating indiginous people and I would not for one minute suggest that about my country either.
Perfectly happy t o have a conversation about that if anyone is interested - I would not take that personally nor nitpick any minor details (dates out by 5 years, for example) not affecting the point of the post.
{sigh} for what I hope is the last time, the poster I was referring to claims to have an "affection for facts", yet consistently gets those "facts" wrong in her eagerness to disparage America's Founding Fathers. Doesn't know the difference between our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence, when they were created, disparagingly mischaracterizes the signers of the Declaration as "old", and doesn't do much better when it comes to Canadian issues. Sorry you can't understand that. And for the record, her date was off by 14 years, not 5. You say nitpicking, I say facts matter.
 
As for censorship….limiting what children read should be well thought out. I was an avid reader…read books in first and second grade usually directed at a much older audience such as “Old Yeller” “The Yearling” “To kill a mockingbird”and similar things that were required high school reading for my sister. I pulled books off the bookshelves and consumed. Did no harm. Books like those written by Upton Sinclair and others sometimes had more to relate to as I aged…
 
I'm pretty sure that a lot of the attacks above are just more attempts to inject elitist politics into the discussion in a way that makes it hard to report. Going after popular precursors and traditions seems to be a common theme, typically blaming populists for history's ills and by extension the present.
 
{sigh} for what I hope is the last time, the poster I was referring to claims to have an "affection for facts", yet consistently gets those "facts" wrong in her eagerness to disparage America's Founding Fathers. Doesn't know the difference between our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence, when they were created, disparagingly mischaracterizes the signers of the Declaration as "old", and doesn't do much better when it comes to Canadian issues. Sorry you can't understand that. And for the record, her date was off by 14 years, not 5. You say nitpicking, I say facts matter.

Sigh too.

No, exact details dont matter - the point she was making didnt change whether it was out by 5 or 14 years or the founding fathers were 40 years old or 60 years old or what any document was called

Sorry you can't understand that and sorry you can't read any criticism of anyone or anything American without getting defensive.
 
One thing that I'm afraid some people don't understand is that there are people right here in the U.S. who would be delighted if slavery were made official again. (Some are even coming out and saying it outloud; last person I saw say it was holding a tiki torch IIRC.)

Way back in the 60s I read a novel that also took place in the 60s wherein one of the characters, an elderly white lady who lived in the American South, made the comment that she saw nothing wrong with slavery whatsoever and it should be reinstated. I was shocked and thought, "No way are there people who still think that, no way!" Welp, a few months later, I was at a friend's house, a friend who came from the American South and heard with my own ears her white southern grandmother say the same thing.

So I guess in one way, it's not a total surprise people are still saying it today. R@cism is totally real here, unfortunately.
 
Sigh too.

No, exact details dont matter - the point she was making didnt change whether it was out by 5 or 14 years or the founding fathers were 40 years old or 60 years old or what any document was called

Sorry you can't understand that and sorry you can't read any criticism of anyone or anything American without getting defensive.
lol - I'm not sure she had a point other than "America Bad", and surely I don't see that you have anything to add. Yes, facts matter, especially if you claim to be using them as a basis for an attack, and then get them wrong. Sorry you can't understand that.

And certainly there is plenty to criticize about America (and Canada and your place) today. Thomas Jefferson's status as a slave owner isn't one of them.

I'll let you have the last word on this. I know your type needs it. (y)
 
So I guess in one way, it's not a total surprise people are still saying it today. R@cism is totally real here, unfortunately.

Growing up in San Francisco I've seen at least a hundred racist acts committed, and not one of them was ever committed by an elderly white lady. In fact, almost all of the racist acts I've seen were not committed by whites

 
Growing up in San Francisco I've seen at least a hundred racist acts committed, and not one of them was ever committed by an elderly white lady. In fact, almost all of the racist acts I've seen were not committed by whites

The power dynamics and historical context of systemic racism in the United States mean that racism from the dominant group (historically white) towards marginalized groups has had and continues to have the most significant societal impact.

It's important to approach this topic with a broader understanding of racism that includes its structural and institutional forms, rather than focusing solely on individual acts.
 
The power dynamics and historical context of systemic racism in the United States mean that racism from the dominant group (historically white) towards marginalized groups has had and continues to have the most significant societal impact.

It's important to approach this topic with a broader understanding of racism that includes its structural and institutional forms, rather than focusing solely on individual acts.

I understand your point about systemic racism and its historical context. However, attributing racism primarily to one group and downplaying the responsibility of individuals from other groups for their racist actions undermines the principle of accountability. Racism, in all its forms, is wrong, regardless of the perpetrator's background.

To suggest that certain ethnic groups shouldn't be held accountable for their actions implies they lack agency or understanding, which in itself is a racist assumption. We should hold everyone to the same standard of personal responsibility. The moment we start excusing individual behavior based on group identity, we perpetuate a double standard that erodes the very foundations of fairness and equality.

The reality is that individuals, not abstract power structures, commit racist acts. Addressing racism requires acknowledging it wherever it appears and holding those responsible accountable, no matter who they are.
 
individuals, not abstract power structures, commit racist acts.
There have certainly been power structures, especially in the pre-Civil War U.S. south, but also after (segregation, Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, etc.) that were most definitely racist and some continue today. In an example from 1956 (so after the Civil War) of a whites only drinking fountain, would you say that only the janitor who installed the fountain was racist? Of course not; the school system (and therefore a power structure) was racist by requiring the segregation of drinking fountains:

whites only.jpg
 
There have certainly been power structures, especially in the pre-Civil War U.S. south, but also after (segregation, Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, etc.) that were most definitely racist and some continue today. In an example from 1956 (so after the Civil War) of a whites only drinking fountain, would you say that only the janitor who installed the fountain was racist? Of course not; the school system (and therefore a power structure) was racist by requiring the segregation of drinking fountains:

I agree that systemic racism, particularly in historical and institutional contexts like segregation, Jim Crow laws, and discriminatory policies, played a significant role in perpetuating injustice. These power structures undeniably enforced racist practices, as in the example of segregated drinking fountains you mentioned.

However, my point is not to deny the existence of systemic racism but to highlight that accountability must extend to individuals as well as institutions. While power structures can create an environment where racism thrives, those structures are composed of individuals making choices—whether it's policymakers drafting laws, school boards enacting discriminatory policies, or citizens enforcing and perpetuating these systems.

For example, in the case of the "whites-only" drinking fountain, it's not just the janitor who installed it or the school system as a whole that bears responsibility. It’s also the individuals within that system—administrators, policymakers, and even those who silently accepted such practices—who contributed to the perpetuation of racism. Systemic racism and individual accountability are interconnected; one cannot be effectively addressed without the other.

In modern discussions about racism, we should strive to balance our understanding of systemic issues with the need for personal accountability. When individuals' actions are excused based solely on their group identity, we risk undermining the principle of fairness and justice. Holding both systems and individuals accountable ensures a more comprehensive approach to combating racism in all its forms.
 
lol - I'm not sure she had a point other than "America Bad", and surely I don't see that you have anything to add. Yes, facts matter, especially if you claim to be using them as a basis for an attack, and then get them wrong. Sorry you can't understand that.

And certainly there is plenty to criticize about America (and Canada and your place) today. Thomas Jefferson's status as a slave owner isn't one of them.

I'll let you have the last word on this. I know your type needs it. (y)

My type. :ROFLMAO:

Yes she did have a point, one which you don't understand because you are so defensive of anything American or American heroes. Criticism about something or someone American isn't an attack.

Nitpicking of details doesn't change the point.

Yes there is plenty to criticise about other countries too, including Canada and Australia, neither Debrah or I dispute that so using that as some sort of tit for tat seems pointless.

You are taking this very personally when it wasn't so at all.
 
I agree with some of what you've said here Vida May. But a few points concern me. For example, I don't know how education for technology prepares young people to rely on authority. What does understanding technology have to do with bowing down to authority? Or was that a reference to the 'authority of following the science' as it were? Or maybe in some cases, following 'the facts of a situation'? If it's the latter, surely that shouldn't be a problem. I would hope that in any issues in question, science/facts would be the basis for decisions that anybody makes, whether young or old.
The short answer is yes, 'the authority of science" but it includes all authority because of specialization and the change in how we have prepared the young to think. I don't think that short answer will help anyone understand how much our world and our consciousness have changed so I am providing the long answer.

Before 1917, the purpose of education was to prepare the young for good citizenship and to help everyone understand the principles of democracy. Textbooks focused on literature. The only technologies taught were reading, writing, and arithmetic. Then came WWI and as the quote said in my past post, Germany under the Prussians was organized for war and had advanced military technology and was walking over Europe with very little resistance.

Keep in mind, at this time the US was not concerned about military power. It was protected by oceans and Canada and Mexico didn't present a threat. Coming from the Enlightenment our goal was to use education for creating a better life for humans and that meant preparing the mind, not advancing technology. We had education for well-rounded individual growth and individual authority.

When the US began mobilizing for war, Industry wanted to close the schools claiming they were not getting their money's worth from education because they still had to train their employees. They also argued the war caused a labor shortage and they needed the child labor they had used only a few years earlier before laws keeping children out of the factories during school hours.

Teachers argued an institution good for making good citizens is also good for making patriotic citizens and they did! Schools were very involved in the first and second war efforts. They also argued it was our best, those who understood why democracy must be defended who were the first to sign up for military service and if we did not replace them by educating our young, even if we the war, we would not have the engineers, doctors, etc. that a nation must have.

Please understand, that our national defense depended on patriotism not technology until the military technology of WWII.

We were unprepared for war. Especially unprepared for the First World War which demanded new technologies. We did not graduate young people ready to be typists, engineers, and mechanics and we needed an army with typists, engineers, and mechanics and we needed them immediately!
The quote I posted before mentioned the errant lips- that was the conflict between education based on literature to develop the whole person, or education for technology that better served Industry and the economy. The best thing about shifting to technology was the huge economic benefit! Now parents who kept their children home to work the farm, sent their children to school so they could get better jobs with higher pay. Our middle class grew. We now take the change for granted.

What does this have to do with bowing down to authority? There are different forms of authority. We taught children to be their own authority. That does not work with advancing technology. With technology comes experts. We rely on experts. We do not go through the steps of testing a truth but rely on the authority of those who have done the research. And as you noticed, our young stopped questioning who is telling the truth and who is lying, because their brains are not prepared to ask the questions and making independent decisions.

What we are failing to understand is the change in how we teach children to think.
 
Please don't conflate admirable acts of sheltering homeless people with the abominable behavior of exploiting humans via slavery.

Jefferson's interests and actions toward ending slavery were fleeting, half-hearted and ended when he calculated the steady 4% return on his "investments" via the increase, i.e., birth of new slaves.
The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson
Oh really... my friend and I hate the site of a young person standing alone on a corner with a table full of huge bags of oranges, hoping to sell them. There they stand in the intense heat and cold, and there is no way they are paid minimum wage. What they are doing is the desperation of poverty and that is pretty abominable to me.

Thank you for the information about Jefferson. I think it is the dark side of reality, not the dark side of a man, who did the best a human can do to make a better world, just like you and I. I also gave up advocating for the homeless when I stopped believing I had the power to make change.
 
When I was a little girl (I'm 75) there were ex slaves still living. This makes it very recent.
I read a journalist's interviews of pioneers and some women were resentful of the big fuss made over slavery when their lives, were lives of slavery, only we called them wives, not slaves. I met some of these women and they hated their husbands and were so glad for the freedom they got when their husbands died.

The US was organized on Aristotle's notion that a man should have a wife, a slave, and an ox. There were few jobs for women and if she got one she was paid less than the men because a woman was expected to marry and stay home to care for the family.

My grandmother on my father's side wrote romance stories for romance magazines and one of them was about the fight a husband and wife had because she wanted a job outside of the home. Of course, he won the argument. She obeyed him and gave up her job as a good wife should do. I don't think this is that far in the past. I remember living with those old expectations and I paid a heavy price for that.
 
As for the American Revolution, I looked it up and the Encyclopedia Britannica says that revolution was a rebellion against Great Britain's expectations that newly fledged America would pay them back for their support in fighting to defend them during the French and Indian war via taxes. If you want to characterize it as a fight against authority, yes, the argument is there, but the specifics was that it was a fight about money.

My personal feeling on education is that all of life is an education and that our schools should teach facts while providing a backdrop example of kindness for one another so that our kids learn to get along with others while seeking their best lives.
You are writing of my favorite subject and my answers are too long so I had to break it up.

The subject of education and all the changes is huge! About the American Revolution- we would have to begin with those English Protestants who rebelled against authority! 😧 First they reject the Pope's authority and then the King's authority and when they get to the new land they developed a completely new social order with no authority above them. They teach their children to read so they can read their bible and be their own authority about God's word. Europe did not expect this new social/political order to succeed.

No other social/political order depends on education as much as democracy and if that democracy is to survive the education has to do more than prepare their young to be products for industry. Liberty is out of the question if the masses are not educated to have good moral judgment and to think independently. "Group think" replaced education for independent thinking and the focus on technology does not prepare the masses for democracy. Leaving moral training to the Church as Germany did, is a huge mistake.

The National Defense Education Act will not manifest your notion of a good education for life. However, we can mobilize for war in 4 hours, as opposed to it taking over a year to mobilize for war and soon AI will take over and make all the decisions for us. 😀 Thank God.
 
Cheer up! All those people who smoke and eat donuts will die sooner than average and save you millions of dollars in social security payments.
You are an honest person. To wish illness and death on others is not something most people admit to.
 


Back
Top