President Obama to indoctrinate (I mean speak) to students

Remove all ads!

Last thursday you said:

Now that you've read the actual speech, do you think your initial reaction was warranted?

 

I read the text of the speech and wonder what were the hysterical fulminations over 'socialism' and 'indoctrination' about. Socialism? Most Americans have at best an exceedingly vague idea what that is, much less actual experience with it. That makes it hard to to take that 'concern' serious. What else? 'Indoctrination'? On what, socialism? Give me a break.

I think it's far simpler. They don't want Obama to be heard by their kids. They object not to a presidential speech to pupils or the content of the speech but to Obama himself. They do not want their children to listen to what he has to say, because they don't want to (and do not) listen to what he says. Much less do they want their kids to accept the idea of Obama being president, because they don't accept the idea.

At home they can control discussions and shape the attitudes that they want their children to have. There they can continue to nurture their delusion that Obama is not legitimately president. Direct exposure to the man might threaten that. That is why this was 'indoctrination'.

The high pitched shrieks about socialism, death panels, indoctrination, the birth certificate and his nationality are all just rationalisations for the underlying racism, or at the very least, a vehement right wing tribalism. Obama is not like them, an American - he is 'the other', alien, a foreigner. Only under that rationale utter, baseless nonsense like the birth certificate meme can gain traction. They hate and despise Obama with the same fervour Republicans previously hated and despised Clinton, with the added aggravation that Obama is, as if a Democratic president isn't bad and illegitimate enough, black! They are losing control of the country - of all horrors, to a black, BLACK man!

 

DR: No, I stand by my reaction. I still have no problem with the speech, but the lesson plan was, at best, weak.

Ragusa, while I do in general agree with you, I think you're taking things to a bit of an extreme. There are plenty of people who accept Obama as the legitimate president, but still don't want their children listening to him.

Additionally, I do think, at least on some level, the claims of 'indoctrination' are correct. This was indoctrination, just the good kind. You know, like a kindergarten teacher telling a 5-year-old that sharing is good and hitting is bad. I'll admit the hysterics probably meant it in a bad way, but the fact is that we're all indoctrinated at youth. I think many parents may have a problem with this simply because it is uncensored, non-standardized indoctrination that isn't under their control. School is ok, because it's censored and standardized (though some object even to that). Church is ok, because the parents choose it. This is a threat because it wasn't controlled by them in any way.

 

What 'uncontrolled threats', except from a mainly putative 'socialist agenda', do you expect the president to indoctrinate the pupils with, if left unchecked? Do you really think there's anything based in reality those afraid of indoctrination' had an actual reason to be afraid of?

Having read the speech, where do you find the indoctrination there?

 

Indoctrination is the nature of the speech and target, but, no, I neither find now nor found then any justification to the fears of such parents. Still, paranoia, especially about the safety and wellbeing of one's children, rarely needs justification.

 

So what? There's a lot of things I don't my kids to hear either, but they still hear it. That's life. I take it the next time we have a Republican president, and if he/she wants to address the students, I should keep my kids home? Heck, let's have separate schools as well: One for Dems, and one for Republicans. That way all kids can be "safe" from the other side.

Both my girls liked what he had to say, especially my oldest daughter. She wanted to know what I thought, but I made sure to let her know that the president wanted to say some things to students in particular on the importance of staying in school. Anyway, I'm glad they liked it and that's all I cared about. The rest of all the hype surrounding this is just the usual partisan crap, IMO. It's what the kids thought that mattered.

 

Part of the problem here is you are again misusing a word; in this case it's "indoctrination."

Your example with the kindergarten teacher is NOT an example of indoctrination at all; that's called "guidance." Even if a school is teaching something the parents don't like, it is still not indoctrination, it's education. Indoctrination is categorically distinguished from education because by definition the indoctrinated student is not expected to (or more to the point, allowed to) question or critically examine the doctrine. Thus, there is no "good kind" of indoctrination, and it's oxymoronic to say so. "Good" information does not require indoctrination because there's no reason to think a reasonable mind would not accept the information presented. Indoctrination expects the subject to accept ideas unquestioningly and obediently. This is obviously NOT what is happening with Obama's speech in question, at all.

So not only is "indoctrination" not the appropriate word here, it is needlessly inflammatory and emotionally-appealing (because, as everyone knows, the Nazis and Commies were also indoctrinators, weren't they). Which is why it was used in the first place by the right-wing cynics who started this meme. Your using it and defending its use because you perceive it to be correct "on some level" is merely justifying the use of fallacious logic for partisan gain. It does a great disservice to both your credibility and the conversation as a whole.

 

Chandos:
I never said I agreed with them. In fact, I specifically said I disagreed with them. They're loons.

Just to be clear here, you're talking about in·doc·tri·na·tion, right?

DR, what exactly do you think would happen to that kindergarten student if he or she stopped, thought for a second, and said, "Ms. Apple, I disagree. I don't see any benefit to sharing. It takes away from my pleasure and doesn't give me anything in return. At the same time, hitting seems to be an effective way at driving others away when I want to play. I think I'll keep doing it." Aside from the blank stare at such a coherant thought from such a child, I think discipline and a very serious call home to the parents would be the immediate response.

Likewise, I don't think Obama's speech was designed to engender critical analysis of his points. Nor, it would seem, was the lesson plan. It was assumed it would be accepted, without critical analysis of the points, and only the consequences thereof (i.e. how to be responsable, how to get better grades, etc.) would be seriously considered.

Riiiight. Again, I'm using words the way they're defined! How mendacious of me.

 

I had the sense that we were agreeing, NOG, but I wasn't completely sure. I tried to structure my comment to be more of a general complaint, rather than directing it at you, even though I used your quote. I hope you didn't misunderstand me.

 

It did seem a little aggressive, but yes, we are in agreement.

 

Okay NOG, from your smug definition brandishing:

Since the first definition, while technically sound, is NEVER used in modern American vernacular – and no educator I've ever met in my lifetime has proudly referred to themselves as an indoctrinator – the second is the definition I'm obviously referring to. I think it's also pretty clear which of the two stands out in most people's minds.

It's pretty hard to argue that "Stay in school, work hard, exercise personal responsibility" is a partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle, wouldn't you say? Though Goldwater Republicans seem to think they invented the idea, that concept sounds like the standard message teachers and successful academics have been trying to impress upon students since the beginning of liberal education. Therefore, by definition, even the one you're unnecessarily using, labeling this effort as "indoctrination" is particularly absurd. As I've stated to you before, you can attribute a negative quality to anything or anyone "on some level" or "with a kernel of truth" if you try hard enough.

Unless of course you're seriously arguing that the word "indoctrination" is totally benign in contextual meaning and not a politically and emotionally loaded word in modern usage. Are you?

I don't think the points were designed to engender critical analysis, either. "Stay in school and do well" is an idea made self-evident by the very virtue of the students being in school and being encouraged to graduate as other successful people have done. The speech itself was designed to inspire students to do better in school and remind them why it's important, as the country is now facing astonishing drop-out rates. The lesson plan was designed to get them to think critically about how to accomplish that on their own. To challenge their thinking and goal-setting, not to blindly accept a partisan or ideological message...which is exactly what is implied when you call the effort 'indoctrination.' Whether this effort will actually have a positive effect on grades and drop-out rates is anyone's guess. Mine is the same as yours, in that I don't think it'll do much. But it certainly helps.

And as long as we're whipping out our Websters: no, I don't think you're being mendacious. That would imply that your providing rhetorical cover for intellectually-dishonest arguments is deliberate, and I apologize if you read what I wrote before that as an aggressive accusation of malicious intent. I think a great deal of Republican rhetoric - especially lately - is remarkably disingenuous, consisting of gross logical fallacies, especially the association fallacy (i.e., Obama bought GM, communist governments seek ownership of successful business, therefore Obama's a communist!). While your heart is in the right place, I believe you balk at the idea that people on your side (like Snook) are putting forth bad faith arguments motivated by partisanship. So while you will admit that the partisan argument may go "too far" you still seek out and highlight the "kernels of truth" that you see present, preventing the absurd argument as a whole – i.e., "Obama wants to indoctrinate (I mean talk to) students" – from being rightly dismissed as the crock of sh*t that it is. This therefore lends the fallacious argument undue syllogism, keeping it in our consciousness, where we then spend a week and several thread pages debunking the absurdity while the larger issue - why the Obama administration is REALLY speaking to schools (the economy and the drop-out rate) - is ignored. This is why a solid 2/3 majority of registered Republicans sincerely believe the "Death Panels" bullsh*t, despite it being widely debunked and even though the concept that derives its "kernel of truth" was actually a piece of legislation written and passed last year...wait for it... by Republicans.

I don't have a definition handy for what that tendency makes you, but it'd probably sound mean so I'm not in a hurry to find one. No hard feelings in case there are any.

 

Of course, there's this PoV (Good post though, DR):

 

DR, I specifically went out of my way to say it was good indoctrination. I specifically compared it to teaching basic ethics in school. If that doesn't tell you I'm not using the base vernacular, but rather the more formal definition of the term (which, by the way, I have come across many times), I don't know what will. You said things like:

and

Since #1 is indoctrination, and specifically and obviously the kind I meant, what you were effectively saying (and earlier blatantly saying when you accused me of 'misusing a word') is that that is not a definition of indoctrination. I felt the need to correct you, and cited a reference in support, just to make sure my point wasn't lost. Somehow, it feels like it still was.

Moreover, since your apparent problem with the word 'indoctrinate' was originally that the teaching was not to be questioned, and not with any sectarian basis, I still don't see how you are disagreeing with me.

Here, you even admit that the speech was to instill and encourage moral values (the values of learning and working hard) with the intent that they not be questioned or critically analyzed. That's indoctrination.

Actually, looking back at my posts, it seems my trend is to try to ressurect and defend the original (and still meaningful) definitions of words (like hate and indoctrination) which have become so loaded with vile implication and political harangueing as to be totally useless and little more than curse words in modern polititalk. Mind you, these definitions I'm trying to bring back aren't even that old. I grew up with them, and I'm only 25. It seems to be the degeneration of the modern political diatribe that has caused the problem. I hate it. I really do.


Chandos:
Wtf? Was that Harry Potter gone horribly wrong or something?

 

And again, what I am actually - not effectively - saying is that while technically correct, the number of people who think of #1 as the meaning of indoctrination first and #2 second is infinitesimal, NOG. Aldeth's wife is not a member of her local "indoctrinator's union," for example (and would be highly offended by the suggestion, I'm sure). Hence, you're using it improperly...or at least very esoterically. Sorry.

But that's not even the point. The people like Snook and Glenn Beck who are using this as an opportunity to bash Obama are obviously NOT using definition #1, even if you are. People don't threaten to pull their kids out of school for "teaching the fundementals." A point that still appears to have been lost, despite my response to your reference.

No. Saying something like "Stay in school, work hard, get good grades" is not stated as something not to be questioned because who in their right mind would disagree with it? It is an obvious, indisputable chunk of common sense in our country, like reminding kids that "too much junk food is unhealthy." My problem with the word "indoctrinate" is now and always has been that it is derogatory of the educating body and suggests the unwelcome implanting of an ideological agenda. Please reread what I said above if that isn't clear.

Please, it is not. I said it was to remind students of the widely-accepted and self-evident fact that doing well in school and eventually graduating are good things. It assumes these values are already instilled. If that is indoctrination, then just about anything stated by anyone as a verifiable fact, objective truth or simple piece of good advice could be considered indoctrination. That's a very, very broad brush. And I don't know anyone who confuses Jiminy Cricket with Joseph Goebbels.

I appreciate and applaud you for this, I really do. But if that is your intent, it fails miserably. Stating that a word with definition A also means definition B is irrelevant when the person or argument you're defending clearly references definition A. Which definition you prefer is also irrelevant in this context, despite your benevolent intent.

To illustrate this, let's say someone called you a "faggot."

I could argue till I'm blue in the face that that person is merely trying to resurrect and defend the traditional definition, but I'm pretty sure you'd still think he was calling you something far more offensive than a bundle of sticks and that I was a king-size douche for arguing otherwise. As would, oh, just about the entire country. And then if I stated that due to your twig-like physique, there's "a kernel of truth" to it "on some level," you'd probably flip out and kill me. With a spoon. And you'd be right to.

 

Again, DR, I went out of my way to try to make sure you knew I was talking about something like #1. You somehow missed it entirely.

And I even made a point of distinguishing between the way they used the term and the way I used the term.

Take a good long look at America's schools. It looks like both of those could use a little more indoctrination. If these values were so thoroughly instilled, then there would be no point to the whole exercise. I would remind you of the old saying, "common sense isn't common". Even more, 99% of 'common sense' are actually things that you are indoctrinated with at a very early age.

I do understand that, but the only reason it is derogatory is because you take it to be such. That is what I'm trying to get through to you.

Off-topic, maybe. Irrelevant, no.

There's one huge problem with that, DR. People are not faggots by the traditional definition, and calling people 'a bundle of sticks' isn't an insult, it's a sign of halucinations. Now, if he called the bundle of sticks you were carrying a faggot and you got insulted, there may be something, but then I think we'd all agree he had a point.

 

No, I got that, every time. And what you've missed entirely is that the people whipping up hysteria about 'indoctrination' ARE NOT USING DEFINITION #1, so the fact that you are doesn't really matter and as such, I don't care that you are. If they were, they wouldn't be faux-outraged, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Then we're in agreement that your point is moot? Good.

Then why do you go to church? I'm sure you've read the same bible verses recently as you did when you were a kid. I'm sure you are reminded of the tenets of your faith on a weekly basis. Is this because they were so poorly instilled when you were young that you need a weekly exercise to re-educate you? Or is perhaps the regular reminder of what we're all doing here every Sunday a good thing?

There are many things I was taught as a kid that I could use a refresher on today. There were many things I could have used a refresher on while I was still in school, in fact. Even thoroughly-instilled values lose their potency over time. Refreshing those values does not require - nor is it defined as - indoctrination.

And what I'm trying to get through to you is that the reason I take it as derogatory is because so do the vast majority of people in this country who hear it and use it. You simply have this wrong. I am not choosing definition #2 over #1 just for arguments sake, it is what it is. I am also not choosing to believe that when Glenn Beck calls this indoctrination he IS NOT using YOUR definition, he just isn't - whether you like it or not. If it were NOT derogatory, he wouldn't be using it at all.

Bottom line, NOG, is that the term "indoctrination" was made famous in the modern consciousness from its use by the Nazis and the Communists to not-so-good ends, I'm sure you'll agree. As such, it is definitely a derogatory term in the modern vernacular. People like Beck further attempting to associate Obama with Nazism by calling this "indoctrination" is no accident. It is, quite simply, not a very nice thing to say about someone, despite the existence of a traditional, benign secondary definition. You're going to have to deal with that somehow, I'm sorry. I appreciate that you've heard it used the other way...but I assure you your experience is the exception. I don't know how much more simply I can put it.

Must I post the definition of "context" as well? If it is out of context - specifically, the context of the intent by which it was said - then yes, it is irrelevant, unfortunately. There is a name for the logical fallacy this illustrates, but I can't think of it right now.

Oh, lordy. Not remotely the point.

 

NOG, have I ever told you that you're the gayest gay man I've ever known? You dress well, you're clean cut, and you exercise regularly, after all. You take good care of yourself. We all know that people who have their **** together tend to be far more gay than disorganized people who take poor care of themselves and dress slovenly -- as evidenced by all that clean living, you are clearly among the gayest of the gay.

What? I'm just calling you happy...

 

1.) Actually, I go there to get more. There's a passage in the Bible about moving on from 'baby food' and 'childish things' as one matures as a Christian. I'm looking for steak now, not applesauce.
2.) My whole point is that the current situation evidences that they haven't been learned yet.

You're trying to say that, no matter how it's used, no matter who says it, definition #2 is what you hear. That's your choice. Now, what the person using it means may be derogatory all on it's own, and you should recognize that and react appropriately, but if you feel insulted when I use it the way I have been using it, especially knowing how I'm using it, it's no different than a black person being insulted at being called 'black' or 'african american', or whatever the current PC label is. You're choosing to see it as derogatory when it isn't being used as such.

Basically, what I'm saying is that you're reacting the same way to both situations, and that's not rational. It's indicative of a deep-seated hurt.

Why are you obsessed with the vernacular? In the vernacular, 'black' is a race, not a color. Are you going to stop refering to black paint as 'black', because it's not the vernacular? Language is more than just the current trends and slang.

Why thank you, Drew. That was very nice. Two things, though:

1.) The most slovenly people I know are also some of the happiest. Go figure.
2.) How do you know all that about me? *looks for hidden cameras*

 

*sigh* No, no, no. Are we both speaking English? This isn't hard.

We are talking about the people who are using definition #2. In reference to what they're calling indoctrination, they are certainly using it in the derogatory sense, and in doing so, are being intellectually dishonest, since there's no evidence whatsoever that this effort is in any way comparable to actual indoctrination practices (such as those in North Korea, to pick an obvious, modern example). That means the argument should be dismissed as a load of crap. Then you, NOG, come in and say "but it also means this, so I can see truth to it on some level," even though that clearly isn't what the person meant. When you do this, it creates two problems: 1) the argument is allowed to linger on and be used by the opposition, as there's an 'element of truth to it'; 2) the confusion prevents the derogatory language from being cast aside, leaving the core issue unresolved. You have done this with the "death panels," and Obama's nationality, and Obama's supposed anti-gun crusade, and on and on. You take a 'kernel of truth' and spin it into a larger, harmful, time-wasting narrative, that is often thoroughly debunked (in vain, it seems, since people seem to believe them anyway).

This isn't unique to you, but you do do it. The 9/11 truth movement exists almost entirely because the people involved take a nugget of truth from a slightly-ambiguous piece of data (example: the melting point of steel in the towers vs. the temperature of burning jet fuel), combine their pre-disposition toward mistrust of the Bush administration with an uneducated conclusion about how they believe an event occured, and boom - the "element of truth" keeps a completely absurd line of thought from being dismissed, and it lingers on, and largue groups of people continue to make idiots of themselves. The big difference I see between the two parties is, the 9/11 truthers are derided outcasts to the Democrats; Republicans just tried to get their biggest conspiracy nut the #2 spot in the White House. Anyway, I'm simply trying to make you aware of it; take it for what it's worth.

You must be going to great lengths to be this deliberately obtuse. I'm not choosing a damn thing. "Indoctrination" was, in this case, obviously being used in a derogatory sense, so I'm taking it as derogatory. Period. This is not hard. Your failure to acknowlege this is indicative being a deep-seated pain in the ass.

It's just like my point about the word "faggot" that it seems you didn't even try to catch. Somebody says "you're a faggot!," I'm going to take it that they're calling me a derogatory name for a gay man. In modern usage, that is what it means, even though by its definition it means something else too. They could very well mean to call me a bundle of sticks (some people are actually that bad at hurling insults), but that is not how I, or the vast majority of those who heard it, would take it. I admit, though, that calling someone "a bundle of sticks" is extremely uncommon, so it's much easier in this case to assume it's derogatory. Likewise, if I were in the woods with that same person and he had said "Hey pal, get that faggot for me," I wouldn't assume he wanted me to pick up and carry a drag queen to his current location (though I'd be taken aback for a moment, and probably chuckle immaturely). Do you see now that context matters? Stay with me...

Now, in the case of the word 'indoctrination,' the meaning isn't as clear-cut - so we MUST rely on the intent with which it is being said. To wit: somebody says "Obama's trying to indoctrinate our kids," I guarantee you that fewer than 1% would react with "Oh goody, time to teach the fundamentals!" They would take it as a disparaging remark; a blatant accusation of an attempt to force an ideological agenda on the students. This is made doubly obvious by the fact that Obama is a politician (and the most powerful Democrat), and the people calling this indoctrination - even the person who started this thread - admit to a deep and visceral dislike and mistrust of Obama (and often refer to the teaching of things they don't like as 'indoctrination'). That makes it derogatory. That makes it definition #2. That makes you, in this case, wrong.

Two things.
1) That comparison was nonsensical.
2) Because vernacular is important, NOG. I'm only obsessed with trying to get you to understand the fact that the definition you seem intent on applying to "indoctrination" is the far less common one in modern usage, and therefore will NOT be the concept conjured up in people's minds 99% of the time when it is used. When they want to express the idea of 'teaching' or 'instruction,' they will NOT use the word 'indoctrinate,' they'll use 'teach' or 'instruct' (as these words are more common, more appropriate, and don't suggest totalitarian or malicious intent). Besides which, it's certainly not the definition being used by Obama's critics, and as such, in this case, definition #1 is irrelevant. Sorry.

I think I've wasted enough pixels on this war of semantics, so you're welcome to the last word if you like. And again, no hard feelings.

 

DR:
I took:

To mean that you had a problem with my use of it, which certainly wasn't derogatory. If that wasn't your intent, then it was my mistake. You seemed to take deep offense to my usage of the term, though, so that's how I read it.

As for your acccusations that I spin "kernels of truth" into larger BS, rethink that. I usually do the opposite, taking the larger BS and carving it away to only leave the kernel of truth. I did that here, and I've done that in other places as well. We disagree because you seem avid to toss out the kernel of truth along with all the BS.

As to vernacular, it may be my upbringing and the people I surround myself with, but my usage of 'indoctrination' was in-line with current usage for me. Yes, I see it as the derogatory, perjorative statement that you see it as, but I also see it as a legitimate description of a method of imparting teachings. As for 'teaching' and 'instructing', those both denote a far more open method of teaching with expected critial thinking, while indoctrination does not. Basically, there is a legitimate difference between the two and I used the appropriate term.