BF2S Forums At what age is it Ok for kids to learn about Politics in school?

FEOS wrote:

Politics shouldn't be taught in school.

Civics, on the other hand, is taught at various points in school here in the US. The difference between the two being: politics is opinion, civics is the facts about how the government works.

QFT

I don't pay my taxes so my kids can be indoctrinated by some other person's point of view.  It's university where they teach politics and you're paying upwards of 15K per year to hear some nut professor's rant.

Pug wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Don't teach anything then.

I'm not quite sure why you are arguing absolutism here.

Like someone said earlier - Civics yes, politics no.  We already cover both in school anyway.  But civics is the only one that is required.

Imagine you are the teacher.  Topic: History Israel.  Your goal: be unbiased.

Do you think that Israel schools and Islamic schools give an unbiased version of the above?


Fundamentally is that a good education for our kids?

There's nothing unbiased.  Even teachers have their points of view, and guess what they teach kids according to them.

Slightly off topic, i had my first proper politics lesson today..in a German lesson, in German.

Was entertaining trying to voice my opinions on the Conservative party, when i couldn't say many of the key words.

Think i'll read more into Politics now.

To all the people inferring that teaching politics = indoctrinating people / discriminating against people based on political belief...

The 'teaching' of politics can be done from a neutral standpoint. Much the same as your Religious Education teacher at school teaches you about Judaism or Islam, whilst s/he is a Christian- you aren't inherently instructed to be anti-Semitic, nor are you encouraged to hate Muslims. Being taught the fundamental ideology and basis of certain political trains of thought-- for example (UK based)- the basis behind the Labour, Conservative and Liberal parties. You don't have to preach or try and 'win votes' when you teach these, you can do it from an entirely passive and uninvolved standpoint. That demands nothing more than already-expected professionalism and impartiality from the teacher. Any teacher that punishes students or emphasizes on one train of thought being 'right', should be dismissed. This doesn't just go for Politics, it stands for all areas of education. You don't expect your Science teacher to entirely denounce religion, just as you don't expect your religious teacher to tell you there is only one 'rightful' theology.

As I have already said, I think people should be actively taught about politics when they are ready to vote. Not mandatory (as it is unfair to 'force' people to be in education at age 18), but optionally there should always be the courses and resources available for someone that is so inclined. People need information and some idea of who they're voting for in order for a democracy to truly be successful and fulfilling. As for the point saying that 'politics should not be taught, civics should'- I do half agree. Civics and the mechanics of the political system should be common knowledge to everyone. Every citizen should know the steps to vote, how to vote, where to vote, and how representatives / Presidents / Prime Ministers make it into power. But I do slightly disagree, and think that the politics themselves should at least be explained and laid out.

sergeriver wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Politics shouldn't be taught in school.

Civics, on the other hand, is taught at various points in school here in the US. The difference between the two being: politics is opinion, civics is the facts about how the government works.

Bingo

History is opìnion too and it's taught.

To a degree yes, but it's more factual than pure politics.

sergeriver wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Politics shouldn't be taught in school.

Civics, on the other hand, is taught at various points in school here in the US. The difference between the two being: politics is opinion, civics is the facts about how the government works.

Bingo

History is opìnion too and it's taught.

Julius Caesar was a early Roman leader - fact.

There was a 'Revolutionary War' in the U.S. - fact.

Interpretation of History can be opinionated, but still based on factual evidence - just like interpretation of Civics can be opinionated (American-style government is inefficient - opinion).

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-12-13 15:19:20)

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Bingo

History is opìnion too and it's taught.

Julius Caesar was a early Roman leader - fact.

There was a 'Revolutionary War' in the U.S. - fact.

Interpretation of History can be opinionated, but still based on factual evidence - just like interpretation of Civics can be opinionated (American-style government is inefficient - opinion).

Pearl Harbor is a fact. 

A teacher saying "the US knew about Pearl Harbor" is interpretation.

You must deal with bias in school.  Everyone is biased.

They don't need to learn about politics at all--they can have conversations with their parents and such, and friends, on their own time, or take classes in government, there's no need for children unless they're seriously interested to "have to" learn about politics, that's just stupid.

Especially if they learn it when they're young, by some teacher who likely has a skewed view, and just wants to raise young <<insert political party here>>.

This politicalization of society is pointless and asinine, children should learn about politics by discussions with their families and friends, not by some teacher who will just lecture them on his own views.


I see that my views have already been spoken, but I will say this:

Government classes, Advanced Placement courses on History (my AP ART Hist has a particularly avid political lecture involved--wonder what that has to do with Art History) will provide "class digressions" that detail politics, that's it, there's no need to go in depth on skewed views.



So Sergie, your poll and idea is plain stupid.

Last edited by The_Mac (2007-12-13 15:33:51)

The_Mac wrote:

They don't need to learn about politics at all--they can have conversations with their parents and such, and friends, on their own time, or take classes in government, there's no need for children unless they're seriously interested to "have to" learn about politics, that's just stupid.

Especially if they learn it when they're young, by some teacher who likely has a skewed view, and just wants to raise young <<insert political party here>>.

This politicalization of society is pointless and asinine, children should learn about politics by discussions with their families and friends, not by some teacher who will just lecture them on his own views.


I see that my views have already been spoken, but I will say this:

Government classes, Advanced Placement courses on History (my AP ART Hist has a particularly avid political lecture involved--wonder what that has to do with Art History) will provide "class digressions" that detail politics, that's it, there's no need to go in depth on skewed views.



So Sergie, your poll and idea is plain stupid.

My poll may be stupid, but your idea of letting the parents teach their children is worse.  If you take the opinions of many people in here then you'll come to the conclusion, or not, who knows, that if an ignorant parent teaches his kid about politics, then the kid will be ignorant too.

David.P wrote:

chittydog wrote:

The red/blue propaganda shit shouldn't even be taught to adults. For a good example why not, see how it's warped David's young mind.

Why use me as an example chitty? What are you so weak you must take on me? I'm not an idiot i just act one so well people cant tell the difference.


Back on topic. Do you know what kind of hell i had to go through in the last 5 years? Do you honestly think i suddenly woke up one day and said "Aha! I'll be a conservative! Because they hate hippies" (Well close to that but not overnight) I dont think 2 dimensionally my mind is more complex then that. Before 2002 i did'nt give a fuck about politics nor did i know what a liberal point of view was. Until i actually experienced the wrath of it!
I only side with the conservative point of view because it was against those who approved my torment in the placements i was in.

Edit: It's a long story if you want i'll tell you.

Sorry you had to choose a side just because the other side did bad things to you.  You better choose people not sides.  There are good and bad people on both.  I hope you're doing better though.

sergeriver wrote:

How would you teach it?  There's no history without opinion, as there's no politics without opinion.  I tell you this, go invent the time machine and I'll agree that history shouldn't be taught with opinion.

lol - I asked you the same question earlier.

your argument is weak.  I'm not going through why again...use a time machine and check out earlier in this thread.

DrunkFace wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Politics shouldn't be taught in school.

Civics, on the other hand, is taught at various points in school here in the US. The difference between the two being: politics is opinion, civics is the facts about how the government works.

QFT, I voted for before 10, because reading the OP that's what he means.

sergeriver wrote:

I'm not talking about partisan propaganda, just politics, the voting process, the different sides of a political spectrum, how laws are conceived, constitutional rights and other sutff.

You can teach how the government system works, you can even teach what each political party stands for and is responsible for doing. What you can't do is say which one is better or who is right.

Win

lavadisk wrote:

I'm in advanced placement European history and I love it more than any other history themed class I've been in.

AP Euro History almost single-handedly led me to dropping out of high school.  Well, that and the drugs