This generation of kids...

[Fletch]

No that is indoctrination---aka college these days.

Colleges don't qualify because students have independence and they are intended, theoretically anyway, to educate independent thinkers in a free society. I argue (for strawman purposes) that that is not a social good, or at least not for everybody.

 

[jamespowers]

Colleges don't qualify because students have independence and they are intended, theoretically anyway, to educate independent thinkers in a free society. I argue (for strawman purposes) that that is not a social good, or at least not for everybody.

Been there done that. There are definitely some classes best categorized as indoctrination. A free thinker would be one who knows how to postulate and form an argument from compiling sources and drawing your own conclusions. When they tell you what the outcome should be then that is indoctrination.[huh]
I have huge problems with the educational establishment here---like you can't tell.

 

[MisterGrey]

I'd recommend that anyone who subscribes to the "good old days" pick up the books "New York Noir" and "Death Scenes." They are each photo compilations of vintage crime scene photos from the 1920s to the early 1960s. You'll find virtually every sort of modern delinquency brutally brought to life fifty years ago, in chilling black and white.

As for gunning one another down... at the dawn of prohibition such now legendary names as Lucky Luciano and Dutch Schultz were in their late teens or early twenties. These were some of the bloodiest non-war-criminals of the 20th century, produced by a "harder" generation. At the age when today's troubled youths are gunning one another down or getting pregnant or getting high, they were orchestrating the murders of dozens of men while running criminal enterprises that crossed paths with the US government, dabbling in whores, and ultimately flooding neighborhoods across the country with the very same drugs that are today responsible for abuse epidemics.

I've only been alive for 25 years and cannot judge the state of the world fifty years ago. If I had to make an assessment based upon history books, news reels, old paper and magazine articles, and the pop culture of that era, I would say that in many ways there has been a cultural devolution. At the same time I'm tempted, like others in this thread, to look back on previous generations who disparaged the up-and-coming generation and simply see an age old tradition of the old bashing the young because, gosh darn it, they just aren't good enough. And while those older than me in this thread are free to bemoan the current state of the world and the youth in it, I'm equally free to disparage many of the 35+ men and women I've known in my life who taught me how not to be a good person through their own miserable action or inaction. I've known my fair share of lousy people in my age bracket. Heck, a good deal of the guys I went to high school with I can keep track of through the department of corrections. Many of them were a lot of drug addled, violent, irresponsible, lazy thugs, and they're now doing hard time for acting upon those character traits. But I can also say that behind those character traits were disinterested parents and apathetic school teachers who went into a tizzy and did nothing but look for someone to point the finger at, so long as they didn't have to get their hands dirty and do something about it. How do you disparage the young in that situation, when their behavior is directly influenced and enforced by an elder generation? By the very same generation calling the younger one lazy and spoiled and lacking in discipline? Shouldn't the older generation, then, be disparaging itself? Or is it too much for a group to acknowledge its own failures, and must shirk responsibility for them by decrying the symptom but not the cause?

 

[MikeBravo]

It worked for the Spartans.

Yes, it worked for them for a while. In the end they were so elitist that their slaves outnumbered them and eventually turned around and slaughtered them all. Not that there were many left, maybe a few hundred "true" Spartans

 

[jamespowers]

I'd recommend that anyone who subscribes to the "good old days" pick up the books "New York Noir" and "Death Scenes." They are each photo compilations of vintage crime scene photos from the 1920s to the early 1960s. You'll find virtually every sort of modern delinquency brutally brought to life fifty years ago, in chilling black and white.

As for gunning one another down... at the dawn of prohibition such now legendary names as Lucky Luciano and Dutch Schultz were in their late teens or early twenties. These were some of the bloodiest non-war-criminals of the 20th century, produced by a "harder" generation. At the age when today's troubled youths are gunning one another down or getting pregnant or getting high, they were orchestrating the murders of dozens of men while running criminal enterprises that crossed paths with the US government, dabbling in whores, and ultimately flooding neighborhoods across the country with the very same drugs that are today responsible for abuse epidemics.

I've only been alive for 25 years and cannot judge the state of the world fifty years ago. If I had to make an assessment based upon history books, news reels, old paper and magazine articles, and the pop culture of that era, I would say that in many ways there has been a cultural devolution. At the same time I'm tempted, like others in this thread, to look back on previous generations who disparaged the up-and-coming generation and simply see an age old tradition of the old bashing the young because, gosh darn it, they just aren't good enough. And while those older than me in this thread are free to bemoan the current state of the world and the youth in it, I'm equally free to disparage many of the 35+ men and women I've known in my life who taught me how not to be a good person through their own miserable action or inaction. I've known my fair share of lousy people in my age bracket. Heck, a good deal of the guys I went to high school with I can keep track of through the department of corrections. Many of them were a lot of drug addled, violent, irresponsible, lazy thugs, and they're now doing hard time for acting upon those character traits. But I can also say that behind those character traits were disinterested parents and apathetic school teachers who went into a tizzy and did nothing but look for someone to point the finger at, so long as they didn't have to get their hands dirty and do something about it. How do you disparage the young in that situation, when their behavior is directly influenced and enforced by an elder generation? By the very same generation calling the younger one lazy and spoiled and lacking in discipline? Shouldn't the older generation, then, be disparaging itself? Or is it too much for a group to acknowledge its own failures, and must shirk responsibility for them by decrying the symptom but not the cause?

You are mixing apples and oranges here. We were talking about juvenile delinquents not grown men in the mob doing hits on other mob members and different feuding families. However, even with mob activity during the depression, we find that the statistics show that the crime rate now is higher than it was then----we are talking robberies, murders and rapes. Mobsters normally killed each other and seldomly bystanders. Even the mobsters then had a code of behavior. The drug problem then was miniscule compared to today's drug use.
Then you move on to excuse making for the youth of today. Don't you think there were disinterested teachers and parents throughout history? The younger generation blaming the older generation is ridiculous. They did not force them to commit crimes. They made bad choices and have to pay for them. That is it. There are no excuses. Plenty of people grow up in adverse conditions and still succeed. If someone not caring makes criminals then the jails should be overflowing as there is always someone who doesn't care and wants to just mail it in.
I suggest we start rereading Horatio Alger.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I get the idea from many complainers that the problem with youngsters is simply too much free choice. What do you think of the idea that all young people should spend time in what are called total institutions - where they are completely subject to authority and must act in prescribed ways, as a group? Would this "educate"?

Isn't that what twelve years of primary and secondary education are supposed to accomplish?

I don't think too much choice is the problem at all. Kids should be allowed and encouraged to make their own choices -- but they should also be made to understand that every choice they'll ever make in their life comes with consequences. And a little instruction in humility wouldn't hurt either.

I'm all for the idea of two years' compulsory national service, no exemptions. I don't mean the military, necessarily -- there's a lot of good that could be accomplished by bringing back the CCC. Kids should be required to spend some time working side by side with people of very different classes and backgrounds than themselves. With as much talk as there is about "diversity" today, I think it's safe to say there are millions of middle-and-upper-middle-class kids today who've never actually had a conversation with a working class person. A society that's that insular is a long long way from being able to congratulate itself on how "diverse" it is.

 

[JimWagner]

Isn't that what twelve years of primary and secondary education are supposed to accomplish?

I'm all for the idea of two years' compulsory national service, no exemptions. I don't mean the military, necessarily -- there's a lot of good that could be accomplished by bringing back the CCC. Kids should be required to spend some time working side by side with people of very different classes and backgrounds than themselves.

While there is much to be said for a little real world experience I guess I would have to disagree on compulsory service. I can say from my direct experiences in the military that there is a world of difference between a volunteer and a draftee. Anyone who is in a service, military or otherwise, against their will just fights the system, generally is uncooperative if not downright passive aggressive. There are exceptions of course, but overall that is what I have seen. As has been pointed out in at least one other thread, most ex-military people would rather just not deal with draftees. It is completely demoralizing.

If someone is doing some kind of service of their own free will then they will probably benefit from the experience. Otherwise, not so much.

 

[MisterGrey]

You are mixing apples and oranges here. We were talking about juvenile delinquents not grown men in the mob doing hits on other mob members and different feuding families.

Guys like Dutch Schultz started those mafia careers in their teens-- he was 17-18 when prohibition started. A "juvenile delinquent" who, like many other of his generation, went on to become an even worse criminal as an adult.

Then you move on to excuse making for the youth of today. Don't you think there were disinterested teachers and parents throughout history? The younger generation blaming the older generation is ridiculous.

Why is it any more ridiculous than the older generation blaming the younger?

They did not force them to commit crimes. They made bad choices and have to pay for them. That is it. There are no excuses. Plenty of people grow up in adverse conditions and still succeed. If someone not caring makes criminals then the jails should be overflowing as there is always someone who doesn't care and wants to just mail it in.

Yes, you're right, individuals' choices to commit crimes are their own choices. However, if there truly is some pandemic of unruly behavior amongst today's generation, did they simply develop as lawless, careless, irresponsible layabout thugs in a vacuum while their parents and teachers stood by helpless? No. If the older generation is so displeased with the younger, it would be well to remind that older generation that they were the ones who raised the younger generation. It truly does take a village to raise a child, and when the members of that village are absent, apathetic, or actively reinforce negative behavior in youth, the village is in no position to stand around harrumphing when the youth grows up to be less than satisfactory.

 

[MisterGrey]

I'm all for the idea of two years' compulsory national service, no exemptions. I don't mean the military, necessarily -- there's a lot of good that could be accomplished by bringing back the CCC.

This is something I think might actually be a good idea, though I think even a year would be beneficial. I dropped out of my Senior year of high school and went to work as an intern for my city's police department. I dropped out because my school district's budget had been radically slashed: Teachers had been fired to cut costs, programs (such as creative writing) were eliminated to divert those teachers into the now-empty positions left by the terminated teachers, and what programs did survive had to scrape by on whatever was thrown at them. The art department, for example, would have had a $25 budget per semester my senior year, with students having to supply anything they used in class. The first three years, I was used to bringing in my own pens, pencils, scissors, etc., but it was now coming down to the students having to buy their own paint, paper, etc; even my junior year, the only reason we got to work with clay was because our teacher went to other school districts and got them to donate their left-over supplies. The only core class I had left to complete was an English course; other than that, it was six electives to basically pad out my day. I weighed the pros and cons and ultimately decided it wasn't worth it. I got my GED six months before my classmates would graduate and went to work for the police. I ended up staying there for a year and ultimately received a Presidential award for civilian service. Seven years later and a semester away from a B.S., it's still one of the best choices I've made; the life experience I got working for the police was more valuable than six hours of elective courses, and in many ways even more valuable than some of the time I've spent in college.

 

[Foofoogal]

http://monster-island.org/tinashumor/humor/school.html
1915 Rules for teachers. I do not think in any way at all that a teacher would be bad for long and get away with it.
I think it is near impossible to have the younger generation understand the rules or what was expected. Civility was
expected in polite society.

With that I personally do understand or believe your take on it to an extent:
-------------------------------I would like to spank some of the older generation as well:


If the older generation is so displeased with the younger, it would be well to remind that older generation that they were the ones who raised the younger generation. It truly does take a village to raise a child, and when the members of that village are absent, apathetic, or actively reinforce negative behavior in youth, the village is in no position to stand around harrumphing when the youth grows up to be less than satisfactory.

 

[dwebber18]

I've read through about half of this thread and thought I would weigh in on the later school days, and kids not being able to perform in their earlier classes and things like that. The high school I graduated from I went to for my junior and senior year. They had a rotating block schedule I hadn't seen anywhere else and haven't seen anyone else mention. This is roughly how it goes. We had 7 hours of class and I think 45 minutes for lunch. Monday we went 1st period through 7th, Tuesday it was 2nd period through 1st. Wednesday we went 3-6 in block of 1.5 or 2 hours with early day getting out 1 hour early. Thursday was 7-2 again in blocks with an extra hour for chapel as I went to a private Christian school, then Friday it was 5-4. That rotating schedule meant you didn't have the same class first every day or the same class last or right after lunch. It was good because if you were tired one day, you would be awake the next instead of being tired for the same class every day in the morning or right after lunch. If I remember correctly we went from 7:15-3:45 each day and then I played baseball which was from 4-6. After practice it was home for dinner and then homework. Only after my work was done could I watch TV or play video games or whatever, then I was in bed around 10 each night. I think being active growing up playing multiple sports and such allowed me to get to bed a little earlier than most and sleep better at night resulting in being more ready for school the next day. I was always given as much freedom as my parents believed I could handle and that I earned, I never had to work during school because I played sports, but my grades were currency with my parents. If I didn't make good grades I wouldn't get to go out on weekends, or they would take my keys. I never felt the need to rebel or anything because I never had anything to rebel against, my parents were strict enough to keep me in the right direction, but they gave me enough freedom to live my life and make my own decisions(consequences and all). With that paired with private school college prep education I was forced to perform and have discipline in all the areas in my life. This has made me a 25 year old man who provides for his wife while she is in school, with a career and clear direction in my life. In all my employee reviews I am always regarded as reliable and able to work with little supervision. I believe this is because my parents did a good job of instilling a work ethic in me in such a way that I want to do good and be disciplined. My parents never cradled me and kept me from all harm especially in regards to my choices, but they always supported me and helped me when I needed it and gave me enough freedom to direct my own steps. I know there are many different paths to having good kids, and there is only so much you can do, but personally I believe this is one of the better paths to take.

 

[Fletch]

While there is much to be said for a little real world experience I guess I would have to disagree on compulsory service. I can say from my direct experiences in the military that there is a world of difference between a volunteer and a draftee. Anyone who is in a service, military or otherwise, against their will just fights the system, generally is uncooperative if not downright passive aggressive.

I agree totally. But from my reading and occasional speaking to vets, I got the impression that there was very little room for a draftee to be passive aggressive - his whole unit would be punished any time one individual acted up. This was true especially in WW2, when trainees had basically no rights as citizens.

If the older generation is so displeased with the younger, it would be well to remind that older generation that they were the ones who raised the younger generation. It truly does take a village to raise a child, and when the members of that village are absent, apathetic, or actively reinforce negative behavior in youth, the village is in no position to stand around harrumphing when the youth grows up to be less than satisfactory.

There's a load of convenient scapegoats: the educational establishment, the "therapeutic culture," the "self-esteem movement," all of which can be whatever the harrumph-er says they are. The underlying assumption is always that concern for the rights or welfare of the individual has gotten out of hand, thanks to those godless educated professionals, and must be countered with cracker-barrel wisdom and knuckle-whacking discipline that makes no allowances for anything or anyone. This, supposedly, strengthens society, but what kind of society will it become?

About that word discipline: it is one of the most misused words in English. It comes from the Latin for learning, or being teachable. We more often use it to mean domination and regimentation - qualities we hate to apply to ourselves but crave to exercise over others. Any time someone praises discipline, they should have to qualify it in a positive way. dwebber, you come close, but you don't tell us how it helped your learning and your growth, other than that it was "forced" on you.

 

[LizzieMaine]

A disciplined society that understands the importance of sacrifice? A society capable of, say, pulling together to win a world war instead of sitting around whining like infants that its gas and coffee are rationed, and they have no right to buy a new car or a new radio or a new set of tires, and taxes are too high and how DARE they insist we put ten percent of our income into war bonds.

An Aristotlean society? "Even supposing the chief good to be eventually the aim for the individual as for the state, that of the state is evidently of greater and more fundamental importance both to attain and to preserve. The securing of one individual's good is cause for rejoicing, but to secure the good of a nation or of a city-state is nobler and more divine."

Or even a Spockian society where "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?"

 

[Fletch]

All deep and noble ideals. And all capable of perversion to terrible ends.

The voices I hear calling for them today are mostly not voices we ought to trust. They are too often moved by myth, fear, ignorance and cynical opinion-making.

Speaking of which: everybody make sure and vote today!

 

[LizzieMaine]

All deep and noble ideas. And all capable of perversion to terrible ends.

Name any deep and noble idea that *isn't* capable of being perverted to terrible ends.

The voices I hear calling for them today are mostly not voices we ought to trust. They are too often moved by myth, fear, ignorance and cynical opinion-making.

Ah, polarization. You're either We or They, and there's no room at all for reason, no room at all for finding truths on both sides the room, no allowance for citing a point from any given group without being expected and required to represent the full range of whatever it is that group is promoting on its cable TV channel. Yet another reason why civilization is heading down the pipe.

Think of it this way: a truth told by an idiot is still a truth. Or, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[Fletch]

Well...too often moved by less than noble ends is not the same as always.

Still you're right tho. Even if the air of discourse is polluted, holding our breath till we turn blue solves nothing. We must all somehow gasp and splutter on.

 

[JimWagner]

I agree totally. But from my reading and occasional speaking to vets, I got the impression that there was very little room for a draftee to be passive aggressive - his whole unit would be punished any time one individual acted up. This was true especially in WW2, when trainees had basically no rights as citizens.

That really only happens in boot camp (or the movies), not day to day military life for the average military specialty.

 

[dwebber18]

That really only happens in boot camp (or the movies), not day to day military life for the average military specialty.

Not that I've been in the military, but growing up playing sports through the college level, this was a fact of life. If one of your team mates messed up and got in trouble around campus the whole team was corrected. If one member didn't show up or showed up late to an early morning practice we would spend the rest of the practice running, and when the player in error was located he was made to do the whole practice by himself at 4am, while we were made to sit in the stands and supervise. Might have been harsh but it instilled a real team mentality and we no longer accepted anything less than 100% from anyone else and ourselves. And yes, discipline may have been forced upon me growing up, but it was forced because how many children want to learn, be taught, or really be directed in the right ways to live? However, it was not forced in such an overt way by my parents as it was by a sports coach. The way they did it was much more subversive and worked in a way that made me believe it was my choice to live straight and make good choices.

 

[Undertow]

First, to address the name-calling business...if you want to come across as a professional, you act like a professional. Although you may be on a first name basis with your butcher, that doesn't mean you're on a first name basis with your bank manager. However, should he suggest you call him Mike, instead of Michael, or Mr. Smith, then by all means buddy up! It's not that you CAN'T call him Mike, it's that you want to leave the impression that you're a man/woman of business, and that you expect the same in turn. I believe Mr. Carnegie had a point in How to Make Friends and Influence People by advising a person to become familiar with their business contacts - but only AFTER you've established a professional relationship.
*******************

Regarding the discussion between Fletch, Lizzie and others...I'm very much on the fence with both of you and I enjoy reading through your responses. On one hand, I side with Fletch in that I very much dislike the establishment. I've always worked just on the outside, the fringes, never right, but never wrong enough to get caught. I don't appreciate others input unless I solicit their advice, and I don't like marching to someone else's beat unless I feel it's necessary. I often fear that the Establishment, be it conservative, liberal, nationalist, etc. will one day find my actions too exorbitant and WHACK, off with my head.

On the other hand, I side with Lizzie that there is a great need for discipline - and not in the strictest mean sense, but in a loving sense. Truly, there's nothing more disheartening and frightening than trying to walk the Chaos Path. When there is rule, order and law, one can always fall back on one's proper upbringing to establish a lifetime of salient interactions. Those who are taught well are more able to interact well. Those who work well are more able to provide for themselves and others. Those who are tempered in the fires of adolescene and youth stand strong in the face of adversity. Yet, those who rely too heavily on someone else, or something else, to perform their duties (life, love, etc) will eventually crumble under pressure.

So as you've said Fletch, there needs to be a book put out, or an essay, that answers the WHY without a resounding, "Because, that's how it is." Even though the "That's how it is" is usually true, the youth today don't take well to that kind of presentation.

 

[Pompidou]

Discipline is important, but it needs to be a different sort of discipline. The common perception of discipline often runs opposed to any concept of individuality. I think what we need to instill in people is some sort of self discipline, where people do what they think is best, and not necessarily what they're told. Like Fletch and Undertow say, "Just because" is a pretty lousy answer. In my case, if I believe I'm right, and rest assured, I pretty much always do, I won't change without a really convincing argument. It got me in trouble at work now and then - doing what needed to be done without asking if I should. People should never rely on anyone/anything, and that includes relying on bosses. I know many people so well disciplined/indoctrinated to wait for orders and only follow orders, that they're useless in any other capacity. I suppose I'm one of the "You're not the boss of me" movement's staunchest supporters, at least as far as rejecting false bosses is concerned.