Updated: How the UN is Taking Over Your Schools
In this article about Communist idols in the Richmond Review: “Has art gone too far?”, a student admitted:
“Communism in both China and Russia both caused massive famines, and were highly repressive against opposition,” he said.
“What I am concerned about is that in our public school system… we are taught that America is free, capitalist [and] good, and that Russia is slavery, totalitarianism, communism [and] evil,” he said.
Ingrid Chen, 18, echoed similar concerns.
“I was taught that communism was bad until I took history in the International Baccalaureate program at Richmond High,” she said.
Originally posted at the Richmond Review… Has art gone too far? Published on April 05, 2010 2:00 PM and updated: April 22, 2010 12:09 PM is no longer at the link so we reproduce it here:
Several youth wondered what the 55-foot tall steel statue was doing in Richmond.
Dharra Budicha’s first response was “why is there a Mao lady on the head of Lenin, and what is it doing in Richmond?”
Budicha is referring to the statue of Miss Mao Trying to Poise Herself at the Top of Lenin’s Head that appeared in city centre just before Christmas, portraying two of history’s best-known communists, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong.
Letter-writers accused the city of championing communism and wasting taxpayer money, but youth had a mixed response to the statue, which is in Richmond as part of the Vancouver Biennale, a bi-annual celebration that brings up-and-coming artists’ works to the city.
Colin Chau, a third year political science student minoring in international relations at UBC, appreciates the statue portraying a feminine Mao atop a massive bust of Lenin, as a mockery of the two communists.
The statue is a statement of “how communism was employed by two countries in very different ways, with both countries ending up accusing each other of not staying true to pure Marxism,” he said.
If anything, the statue serves as a good history lesson, said Chau.
The spirit of the Marx’s Communist Manifesto was never adopted and instead, “the Communist Manifesto [was] taken for convenience of rhetoric and perverted for private means and private ends,” said Chau.
He does not deny the suffering caused by Lenin and Mao.
“Communism in both China and Russia both caused massive famines, and were highly repressive against opposition,” he said.
“What I am concerned about is that in our public school system…we are taught that America is free, capitalist [and] good, and that Russia is slavery, totalitarianism, communism [and] evil,” he said.
Ingrid Chen, 18, echoed similar concerns.
“I was taught that communism was bad until I took history in the international baccalaureate program at Richmond High,” she said.
Although like many youth, she did not know why the statue was in Richmond, she was able to offer an interpretation.
“I don’t think it’s promoting communism itself, just celebrating a historical figure,” she said.
However, Budicha is one of many strong opposers.
“I definitely do not think the statue should be here in Richmond,” she said.
The Grade 12 student who has just covered Mao and Lenin in her History 12 class at R.A. McMath Secondary said “I know that this statue is a work of art, but if the art has the potential of offending people, then it should never be built right in the middle of a city.”
She added that “for many, [Mao and Lenin] represent communism, countless and brutal murders, and unfair ruling.”
The Gao Brothers, who created the statue and are based in China, said in an email that the intention of their artwork was to commemorate the “great human misery and suffering communism caused.”
“We are delighted to see that our artwork let the people in Richmond recall the great human misery and suffering communism caused. We love all the people paying attention to the statue no matter what they think of [it],” said the Gao Brothers.
Despite public concerns that our money went to support this statue, Chau is adamant that public art is valuable to society.
“Using public artwork to stimulate political discussion is even more valuable because I do not think there is enough of that outside of scholarly institutions,” he said.
He added that “public funds should be used to support art, and the arts sector is always constantly underfunded.”
Other structures that have received less attention have been erected in Richmond, including Wind Waves by Yvonne Domenge at Garry Point Park, Dennis Oppenheim’s Arriving Home at YVR.
Budicha believes these two statues are “pretty cool.”
“At least they don’t have the potential to offend anybody,” she added. “I think it’s nice that art is coming to Richmond,” she said.
But regarding the statue of Mao and Lenin, “I just don’t understand the point of this statue…I feel it has no place in Richmond,” she said.
—by Alice Hou, Youth Reporter
—
Related: Values Clarification and Conscience
NEW MORAL CODE EXCLUDES RIGHT AND WRONG
Schools face problems with non-judgmentalism
Condensed from an article by John Leo
In 20 years of college teaching, professor Robert Simon has never met a student who denied that the Holocaust happened. What he sees quite often, though, is worse; students who acknowledge the fact of the Holocaust but can’t bring themselves to say that killing millions of people is wrong. Mr. Simon says that 10-20% of his students feel this way. Usually they deplore what the Nazis did, but their disapproval is expressed as a matter of taste or personal preference, not moral judgment. “Of course I dislike Nazis,” one student told him, “but who is to say they are morally wrong?”
Overdosing on non judgmentalism is a growing problem in the schools. Two disturbing articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education say that some students are unwilling to oppose large moral horrors, including human sacrifice, ethnic cleansing and slavery, because they think it seems obvious that no one has the right to criticize the moral views of another group or culture. One of the articles is by Mr. Simon, who teaches philosophy at Hamilton College in Clinton, NY. The other is by Kay Haugaard, a free-lance writer who teaches creative writing at Pasadena College in California. Miss Haugaard writes that her current students have a lot of trouble expressing any moral reservations or objections about human sacrifice. The subject came up when she taught her class Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery,” a short story about small town American farm families who kill one person each year to make the crops grow. In the tale, a woman is ritually stoned to death by her husband and children.
In classes she has taught since 1970, Miss Haugaard says that “Jackson’s message about blind conformity always spoke to my students’ sense of right and wrong.” No longer, apparently. A class discussion of human sacrifice yielded no moral comments, even under Miss Haugaard’s persistent questioning. One male said the ritual killing “almost seems like a need.” Asked if she believed in human sacrifice, a woman said, “I really don’t know. If is was a religion of long standing.” Miss Haugaard writes, “I was stunned. This was a woman who wrote so passionately of saving the whales, of concern for the rain forests and tender care of a stray dog.”
Both writers believe multiculturalism has played a role in spreading the vapors of non judgmentalism. Miss Hauguarrd quotes a fifty-something nurse in her class who says, “I teach a course for our hospital in multicultural understanding, and if it is a part of a person’s culture, we are taught not to judge.” Christina Hoff Sommers, author and professor of philosophy at Clark University in MA, says that students who can’t bring themselves to condemn the Holocaust will often say flatly that treating humans as superior to dogs and rodents is immoral. Moral shrugging may be on the rise, but old-fashioned and rigorous moral criticism is alive and well on certain selected issues– smoking, environmentalism, women’s rights, animal rights.
Miss Sommers points beyond multiculturalism to a general problem of so many students coming to college “dogmatically committed to a moral relativism that offers them no grounds to think” about cheating, stealing and other moral issues. Mr. Simon calls this “absolutophobia”–the unwillingness to say that some behavior is just wrong. Many trends feed the fashionable phobia. Postmodern theory on campus denies the existence of any objective truth: All we can have are clashing perspectives, not true moral knowledge. The pop-therapeutic culture has pushed nonjudgmentalism very hard. Intellectual laziness and the simple fear of unpleasantness are also factors.
The “values clarification” programs in the schools surely would come in for some lumps, too. Based on the principle that teachers should not indoctrinate other people’s children, they left the creation of values up to each student. Values emerged as personal preferences, as unsuited for criticism or argument as personal decisions on pop music or clothes.
But the wheel is turning now, and “values clarification” is giving way to “character education” and the paralyzing fear of indoctrinating children is gradually fading. The search is on for a teachable consensus rooted in simple decency and respect. As a spur to shaping it, we might discuss a culture so morally confused that students are showing up at colleges reluctant to say anything negative about mass slaughter.
—
Accordigng to the IB learner profile, “The aim of all IB programmes is to develop internationally minded people who, recognizing their common humanity and shared guardianship of the planet, help to create a better and more peaceful world.”
What about people who are educated in various subjects, who can later work and support themselves and their families? Does the goal of “competing a global economy” imply that redistribution of the wealth is the answer?
Are the goals of the UN’s ‘one world’ what they are teaching your kids in IB?