Learning
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Lloyd DeMause
Nov 15, 2010, 7:00:28 PM11/15/10
to psychohistory-his...@yahoogroups.com
ABC News: All Chinese children learn English starting in
kindergarten. By the time they are
ten they are bilingual! American schools can't teach reading and
writing one language very well.
Lloyd
kindergarten. By the time they are
ten they are bilingual! American schools can't teach reading and
writing one language very well.
Lloyd
Ted Clark
Nov 15, 2010, 11:30:37 PM11/15/10
to realpsyc...@googlegroups.com
I lived in China the past decade. All Chinese children do not start using English and try to talk with 10 year olds in English. But there is a nation-wide effort to achieve a bi-lingual society to become a successful business society and yes, American schools can't teach reading and writing English well, and many "teachers" in China know little or nothing about teaching and or English as a language-simply being able to speak English is often the only basis for hiring native-English speakers to teach English. Big mess.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "realpsychohistory" group.
> To post to this group, send email to realpsyc...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to realpsychohist...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/realpsychohistory?hl=en.
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "realpsychohistory" group.
> To post to this group, send email to realpsyc...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to realpsychohist...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/realpsychohistory?hl=en.
>
rachel stoltenberg
Nov 16, 2010, 9:48:33 AM11/16/10
to realpsyc...@googlegroups.com
"ABC News: All Chinese children learn English starting in kindergarten. By the time they are
ten they are bilingual! American schools can't teach reading and writing one language very well.
Lloyd"
Lloyd. Your current posts would not make it past your own 1999 - 2005 filter for others' posts.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "realpsychohistory" group.
To post to this group, send email to realpsyc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to realpsychohist...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/realpsychohistory?hl=en.
This e mail address was once "hacked" by a virus like faux Gmail phisher that scans address books for more addresses for spamming. If you ever have or do get weird messages or forwards from this e mail address, they aren't from me.
rachel stoltenberg
Nov 16, 2010, 9:57:59 AM11/16/10
to realpsyc...@googlegroups.com
"ABC News: All Chinese children learn English starting in kindergarten. By the time they are
ten they are bilingual! American schools can't teach reading and writing one language very well.
Lloyd"
Lloyd. Your current posts would not make it past your own 1999 - 2005 filter for others' posts.
Rachel
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "realpsychohistory" group.
To post to this group, send email to realpsyc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to realpsychohist...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/realpsychohistory?hl=en.
--
This e mail address was once "hacked" by a virus like faux Gmail phisher that scans address books for more addresses for spamming. If you ever have or do get weird messages or forwards from this e mail address, they aren't from me.
Lloyd DeMause
Nov 16, 2010, 10:16:38 AM11/16/10
to realpsyc...@googlegroups.com
Rachel: Did you see the ABC News report on Chinese children now all learning English from the
beginning of their schooling? It was very detailed, had lots of schools reporting, gave
statistical evidence that was convincing. Your doubt below is unvalidated. Can you
give evidence the ABC News report was wrong?
Lloyd
rachel stoltenberg
Nov 16, 2010, 1:04:41 PM11/16/10
to realpsyc...@googlegroups.com
Lloyd!
" Rachel: Did you see the ABC News report on Chinese children now all learning English from the
beginning of their schooling? It was very detailed, had lots of schools reporting, gave
statistical evidence that was convincing. Your doubt below is unvalidated. Can you
give evidence the ABC News report was wrong?"
Apology. My remark appears to be in response to your last post re. China. It' not. It's about several of your recent posts, at least.
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
Nov 16, 2010, 1:38:23 PM11/16/10
to realpsychohistory
Lloyd, for me the concern would be that you tend to make America seem
"bad," fully worthy of the downfall it seems intent on willing on
itself. The rest of the United Nations -- Europe, whose social
improvements you frequently delineate for us, mostly, but also now not-
so-long-ago, absolute-progress-stopping, foot-binding China (are you
for memory, or not?; or is it that you would just have us put-aside
or showcase, as suits the momentum of your current inclinations?) --
are by contrast mostly made to seem sane and civil. You kinda get the
sense that you're mostly concerned these days through the like of
flattery and appropriately-directed scorn, to count yourself amongst
the few deserving Americans around still able to appreciate the
maturity of the international community, and who maybe won't be
suffering from what their peers' folly has earned for themselves. The
feeling is that you're shirking most of the rest of us off, to count
yourself amongst the bland but safe. Lloyd the revolutionist is at
the end neutering himself so to seem as prosaic as denatured,
internationalist Obama.
Patrick
"bad," fully worthy of the downfall it seems intent on willing on
itself. The rest of the United Nations -- Europe, whose social
improvements you frequently delineate for us, mostly, but also now not-
so-long-ago, absolute-progress-stopping, foot-binding China (are you
for memory, or not?; or is it that you would just have us put-aside
or showcase, as suits the momentum of your current inclinations?) --
are by contrast mostly made to seem sane and civil. You kinda get the
sense that you're mostly concerned these days through the like of
flattery and appropriately-directed scorn, to count yourself amongst
the few deserving Americans around still able to appreciate the
maturity of the international community, and who maybe won't be
suffering from what their peers' folly has earned for themselves. The
feeling is that you're shirking most of the rest of us off, to count
yourself amongst the bland but safe. Lloyd the revolutionist is at
the end neutering himself so to seem as prosaic as denatured,
internationalist Obama.
Patrick
Florian Galler
Nov 16, 2010, 2:24:23 PM11/16/10
to realpsychohistory
Patrick wrote the following: "The > feeling is that you're shirking
most of the rest of us off..."
My commentary: Please remember, that this is not a tea party group but
a psychohistorical discussion group. So
your formulation "most of the rest of us" is hardly true. If you
believe the contrary, please do so. During the times of neoliberalism
I never used my limited ressources to discuss with neoliberals. I did
not estimate it as something productive. I do not judge it appropriate
to behave in another way with Tea Partiers. That's all I have to say
to that.
Florian
On Nov 16, 7:38 pm, Patrick McEvoy-Halston <pmcevoyhals...@gmail.com>
wrote:
most of the rest of us off..."
My commentary: Please remember, that this is not a tea party group but
a psychohistorical discussion group. So
your formulation "most of the rest of us" is hardly true. If you
believe the contrary, please do so. During the times of neoliberalism
I never used my limited ressources to discuss with neoliberals. I did
not estimate it as something productive. I do not judge it appropriate
to behave in another way with Tea Partiers. That's all I have to say
to that.
Florian
On Nov 16, 7:38 pm, Patrick McEvoy-Halston <pmcevoyhals...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Lloyd DeMause
Nov 16, 2010, 2:40:36 PM11/16/10
to realpsyc...@googlegroups.com
Patrick: You cannot tell what my views are when you have never
subscribed to my Journal
and read my articles. You just endlessly attack me on
realpsychohistory for unstated crimes.
subscribed to my Journal
and read my articles. You just endlessly attack me on
realpsychohistory for unstated crimes.
Lloyd
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "realpsychohistory" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> realpsyc...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to realpsychohistory
> +unsub...@googlegroups.com.
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
Nov 16, 2010, 3:29:22 PM11/16/10
to realpsychohistory
Not so, Florian. With posts like this he is showing he is talking
directly to (and counting himself amongst) civilized but a bit dull
people, while bleeding into the background those who've encountered
all he's done before who he knows would instantly recognize / sense
his going simple (we may be sane and unpredictable, but he's quickly
judged, probably not of most consequence). (And there is a sense that
he's not even so much talking to any of us, as to someone beyond who
would approve of what he is saying, of the deference he is
communicating.) He is making himself more boring -- and certainly
more "in-line" -- than he actually is, as Pauline Kael used to remark
about fellow critics, feeling inclined to turn traitor, I'm sensing,
on people who represent the striving and quite accomplishing Lloyd he
could never quite convince himself would ever be safe from retributive
attack.
This long story of prosperity is terminating in a colossal way. We
know who's coming, we know it's payback time, and his still
inclination is to skip as fast as he can to the side to get out of the
way. There is always a ball in play here, and sometimes its motioning
us to stretch-out, participate, and still-grow, but you do get a weird
sense that the pleasure derived whenever it is made part of an
interesting game, also derives from it outing into firm remembrance
who exactly in particular not only took the ball, but ran with it.
Patrick
directly to (and counting himself amongst) civilized but a bit dull
people, while bleeding into the background those who've encountered
all he's done before who he knows would instantly recognize / sense
his going simple (we may be sane and unpredictable, but he's quickly
judged, probably not of most consequence). (And there is a sense that
he's not even so much talking to any of us, as to someone beyond who
would approve of what he is saying, of the deference he is
communicating.) He is making himself more boring -- and certainly
more "in-line" -- than he actually is, as Pauline Kael used to remark
about fellow critics, feeling inclined to turn traitor, I'm sensing,
on people who represent the striving and quite accomplishing Lloyd he
could never quite convince himself would ever be safe from retributive
attack.
This long story of prosperity is terminating in a colossal way. We
know who's coming, we know it's payback time, and his still
inclination is to skip as fast as he can to the side to get out of the
way. There is always a ball in play here, and sometimes its motioning
us to stretch-out, participate, and still-grow, but you do get a weird
sense that the pleasure derived whenever it is made part of an
interesting game, also derives from it outing into firm remembrance
who exactly in particular not only took the ball, but ran with it.
Patrick
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
Nov 17, 2010, 12:25:40 PM11/17/10
to realpsychohistory
And just a reminder, guys. When the next purity crusade is on us, an
era in absolute obeisance to the sacrifice / punishment desiring
maternal alter, it will not come about in any form that would "tip its
hat" as to its true nature -- it cannot, cannot, cannot make the
liberal, well-behaving, civilized amongst us feel anyway GUILTY. That
is, it will not be (for example) anti-semetic (the exact last thing it
will in fact be), anti-black, for banning ALL alcohol, not Green,
anything really Bush / Cheney, previous prohibition-looking in
origin. It will come across as eminently sensible, reasonable,
evolved, adult. Therefore it will be FOR education reform, for making
America once again ahead of nations (like China, that now shame us) it
was once so far ahead of before (as the story goes) love of profit
became the cancer that destroyed its host, for reform /
reinvigoration of industry, manufacturing, transportation -- the
muscle fiber of the nation -- for making it clean, green, ordered, and
finally vigorous again. It will be done multiculturally, by colors
of every hue, operating in a preferred environment of sanity and adult
decorum. Expect the United Nations to cheer it on. And all of this
will be done to the overall effect of mounting more and more numbers
to the increasingly DESERVING suffering, to the inhibition of freedom,
to strangling what is actually good about America, though all the time
its loudest proponents will actually come from the (regressing members
of) the left.
That is, if you want to make psychohistory another means to serve
Mother, you will be offered many things by the Obama administration
that will look so very supportable but that actually work against what
is real in psychohistory. Obama can be made to seem the only option
against the Tea Party nation, and therefore a bulwark that MUST BE
supported to the psychological health, to the evolutionary health of
the nation -- even if it this means the quieting down / suppression,
stigmatizing of other (dissonant) liberal voices, which ostensibly
mostly now serve to weaken what can only now be supported -- but,
thank god, there are little demons and goblins all the way through
(the likes of) "Emotional Life of Nations," that will be mocking you
along the way for what must be your ultimate capitulation to the voice
you've spent a lifetime trying to steady yourself to no longer feel
the need to heed. I hope that if I keep pointing these irritants out,
we'll at some point have feel the need to either address what is
evidently moving us to cooperate with the so readily offered "easy
outs" in discussion and not stay true to what is still everywhere and
obvious in "the text," or find some way to guilt-free "burn the book,"
and in our moment of self-recognition, help keep hope alive.
Patrick
era in absolute obeisance to the sacrifice / punishment desiring
maternal alter, it will not come about in any form that would "tip its
hat" as to its true nature -- it cannot, cannot, cannot make the
liberal, well-behaving, civilized amongst us feel anyway GUILTY. That
is, it will not be (for example) anti-semetic (the exact last thing it
will in fact be), anti-black, for banning ALL alcohol, not Green,
anything really Bush / Cheney, previous prohibition-looking in
origin. It will come across as eminently sensible, reasonable,
evolved, adult. Therefore it will be FOR education reform, for making
America once again ahead of nations (like China, that now shame us) it
was once so far ahead of before (as the story goes) love of profit
became the cancer that destroyed its host, for reform /
reinvigoration of industry, manufacturing, transportation -- the
muscle fiber of the nation -- for making it clean, green, ordered, and
finally vigorous again. It will be done multiculturally, by colors
of every hue, operating in a preferred environment of sanity and adult
decorum. Expect the United Nations to cheer it on. And all of this
will be done to the overall effect of mounting more and more numbers
to the increasingly DESERVING suffering, to the inhibition of freedom,
to strangling what is actually good about America, though all the time
its loudest proponents will actually come from the (regressing members
of) the left.
That is, if you want to make psychohistory another means to serve
Mother, you will be offered many things by the Obama administration
that will look so very supportable but that actually work against what
is real in psychohistory. Obama can be made to seem the only option
against the Tea Party nation, and therefore a bulwark that MUST BE
supported to the psychological health, to the evolutionary health of
the nation -- even if it this means the quieting down / suppression,
stigmatizing of other (dissonant) liberal voices, which ostensibly
mostly now serve to weaken what can only now be supported -- but,
thank god, there are little demons and goblins all the way through
(the likes of) "Emotional Life of Nations," that will be mocking you
along the way for what must be your ultimate capitulation to the voice
you've spent a lifetime trying to steady yourself to no longer feel
the need to heed. I hope that if I keep pointing these irritants out,
we'll at some point have feel the need to either address what is
evidently moving us to cooperate with the so readily offered "easy
outs" in discussion and not stay true to what is still everywhere and
obvious in "the text," or find some way to guilt-free "burn the book,"
and in our moment of self-recognition, help keep hope alive.
Patrick
James Sturges
Nov 18, 2010, 1:05:24 PM11/18/10
to realpsyc...@googlegroups.com
| Is anyone watching the new HBO show "Boardwalk Empire?" It is about prohibition era Atlantic City, which according to the scriptwriters was a key port for importing illegal booze to the eastern seaboard. There was a great line a few weeks back, but first a review of the timeline relating to two U.S. Constitutional amendments: 18th Amendment -- Prohibition -- Congress passed the amendment on December 18, 1917. It was ratified on January 16, 1919 and took effect on on January 16, 1920. (It was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933.) 19th Amendment -- Women's right to vote -- Congress passed the amendment on June 4, 1919 and it was ratified August 18, 1920 Anyway, in early 1919, a woman leader of the Suffrage Movement confronts a group of male politicians and says: "You are keeping us from something we want, and so we are withholding something you want. ..." (A pause ensues here ... this is cable after all ...) One of the males finally answers: "Yeah, booze." It wouldn't surprise me if Lloyd or others have not made this connection previously, but it struck me as probably an interesting PH dynamic, and that the fictional depiction probably had a lot of truth to it.. ------Jim --- On Wed, 11/17/10, Patrick McEvoy-Halston <pmcevoy...@hotmail.com> wrote: |
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages