Yes, from the point of western culture that is true to a point. The Spartans 
took the male children from the family at age seven and impressed them into 
military service.  But that was the exception and not the rule.  To the 
Romans, the Greeks, the Mesopotamians and the Chinese and more, the family 
unit was fundamental to society and continues to be.

One of the socio-political problems that America is faced with today is the 
breakdown of the family unit, and children having only one parent or no 
dependable parent to look up to.  Sociological studies tend to support that 
healthy children come from healthy homes and unhealthy children come from 
unhealthy homes.  (Healthy meaning harmonious, mutually supporting and 
loving.)  Now I agree that one cannot make a universal statement because 
there are exceptions.  There are examples of people coming from a ghetto and 
achieving great success. But the trend has been more stable societies have 
more stable families.

I do not wish to direct this toward any individual.  I am referring to 
concepts only not personalities.  The Cultural Revolution in China created 
great social dislocations and interrupted family life dramatically.  The Red 
Guards created chaos, and there is no indication that the ends justified the 
means. The state took over the education and the focus was on re-education 
according to the political views of the state.   The cult of Mao collapsed 
and Deng Xiao Ping took a different approach and made improvements that are 
visible today.

There are many lessons in history that suggest that education controlled by 
the state does not lead to either social harmony or productivity.  Despite 
what Hegel had to say, one of the reasons why we study history is to 
explain, and to the limited extent that it is possible, predict human 
behavior.  Is it reasonable that such questions be put to history as well as 
philosophy?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gerhard Fiedler" <lists@connectionbrazil.com>
To: <piclist@mit.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: [OT] Who is to blame: Was: Using vouchers to improve 
thequalityofschools(was:Educationreform)


> Cedric Chang wrote:
>
>>>>> Parents should not "own" children.  Nor ( most definitely ) should the
>>>>> state.
>
>>> The Nazis and the fascists did it.  The communists did it.  It was
>>> originally the position that Karl Marx took and published in The
>>> Manifesto of The Communist Party, in 1848. Hillary Clinton suggests as
>>> much in her book It Takes a Village.  The intention was to grow the
>>> children in the state ideology.
>
>> My suggestion is totally different from what was planned by the Nazis,
>> Hillary, Marx, John Dewey, Bismark, or Horace Mann. Conflating my
>> comment with the above idiots is misleading and unfair.
>
> I thought so too, and I was surprised, as usually Rich doesn't seem to do
> such things. Bringing an idea next to something "communist" is in the US a
> simple cheap shot that more often than not ends any useful exchange of
> ideas. (There is a solid history of such behavior...) Besides, the fact
> that Marx had the same position doesn't say anything about an idea. He
> probably thought that breathing was good for your health... you'd stop
> breathing because of that? :)
>
> The idea of the children not "belonging" to the parents, to the family, 
> but
> rather having a bigger circle of "upbringing resources" is not so recent 
> as
> fascists or Marx. It probably pre-dates most of the Christian
> (totalitarian) roots our culture is based on. Children belonging to, being
> some form of property of, their parents may feel natural to some or most,
> but there's nothing inherent natural in the type of family structure that
> Western culture is based on. And it brings forth enough aberrations that
> questioning it from time to time just seems healthy.
>
> The idea of family is one of the roots of Monarchism, FWIW. And the idea
> that no group of people can work as well as an individual is not
> necessarily always a positive one (protecting the rights of the
> individual), but also sometimes a negative one (standing in the way of
> allowing our race to develop the necessary traits to make communities
> work).
>
> Gerhard
>
> -- 
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist