"Social skills" is a code word for "diversity". Diversity is fast becoming a bad word.
Diversity, you see, means "different". Promoting diversity, really means the promotion of everything that is different about people. The end goal of promoting a bunch of different things is to bring about homogeneity of ideals, specifically, the ideal of embracing everything because it is different.
To paraphrase a idiom, there is no "Unity" in "Diversity". And there is no logic in this ridiculous circle.
This OZ article must stick in the craw of every parent.
We can start at the top.
The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT wants babies to learn social skills. The government is not really alive. To anthropomorphize it is to fulfill the beast/leviathan analogies. Who has any business saying what babies should learn? Parents. Don't babies learn social skills by virtue of their daily interactions? Evidently not. Or, not the appropriate type of "social skills".
"It's not as if children will be harmed for life by this focus on difference and commonality," she said. To which I can only say - PROVE IT.
"the goal will be to "promote children's civic participation and nurture socially responsible citizens for a future world," The goal of child rearing should be the molding of self-reliant individuals who put a premium on minding their own business.
"The early childhood years are a time when children are developing understandings of community and citizenship and learning about democracy and the rights and responsibilities of citizens," it says. The early childhood years are a time when babies are so very vulnerable, when their emotions and reactions are developing and the concepts and experiences they encounter will last a lifetime. Don't believe it? Just ask any caretaker of children who were abused during these early years. The idea that government could publish guidelines for exploiting that very vulnerable period for servitude to the state should terrify every individual.
Community Childcare executive director Barbara Romeril also welcomed the focus on equity and getting children to challenge discrimination and disadvantage. Challenge disadvantage? To challenge disadvantage, you first have to define what it is. How are you going to define "disadvantage" while promoting diversity? And who gets to define disadvantage? Ok, you don't have to answer that. We know it will be the Leviathan.
Granny Miller posted this a couple years ago:
“Back in those days people from the government came and told us how bad we had it. They told us we were poor, backwards and uneducated.
Now that was news to us, because we thought we had it pretty good.
We always had more than enough to eat and were warm and happy, while people who live in the city were standing in breadlines without jobs and freezing.
We didn’t have any hard money, but you didn’t need that much.
Everybody was poor back then but we had each other."
My father-in-law's life taught me that my world view was poor, ignorant, backwards and most certainly uneducated; and so was Uncle Sam.
If adopted, the Department of Education guidelines would cover all kinders, childcare centres and other early childhood settings, and would provide the basis for the education and care of all Australian preschoolers. Well, since we already know these guidelines are not promoting the advancement of the individual, it is no small jump to presume that soon such guidelines, and the necessity for such guidelines, will bring the government to discourage home schooling.
No comments:
Post a Comment