OT: Should cursive still be taught in schools

[retired711]

NIRH, where does your 30% figure come from? And note that 30% doesn't come close to a majority. If Trump gets 30% in the Fall, he will have lost in the biggest landslide in the history of American presidential elections. In addition, what the heck does cursive have to do with racism, ethnocentrism, or anything else you criticize?

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

As usual, NIRH builds another strawman.. this time the 30% of America who will vote trump and hate foreign languages and insist cursive be taught.. apparently BECAUSE they hate (or fear) foreign languages and are "willingly moronic, racist, xenophobic, and fearful of education or any contact outside of the bubble in which they live".

That's a big strawman.

None of NIRH's cultural awareness, knowledge of geography and ability to speak to Spaniards in their own language has taught him to make a logical argument.

Oh.. what a great idea. How about we stop teaching cursive and start teaching logic?

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

But we don't get more Middle East cultural experts by teaching your average Iowa resident conversational Spanish (or French, or German, or Chinese, etc.)

You make a good argument for diversity and a world view. But that doesn't really address the question about why so few Americans (or Australians, or New Zealanders) speak a language other than English. And the answer to that question is that there is basically not a need for most American to speak a language other than English. This is a contrast to Europe, where there is a need for most Europeans to speak a language other than their native language (and because that second language is almost always English, that further decreases the need for native English speakers to learn a second language).

I was going to respond similarly, but with way more words than were needed. I get ruhudsons point, but it has nothing to do with my point which is directed at NIRH's false choice between cursive and languages and geography... and in particular, his abusive use of strawman arguments that basically take this form:

"If you want cursive taught you are a greedy white man who supports trump, fears foreigners and have never traveled outside the USA and you want to make sure schools do not offer foreign languages".

I objected to that and suggested that these benefits of being more culturally aware, on a nation-wide and global scale that NIRH has painted, are unprovable and indeterminate. On an individual basis, yes, more education is better.. always. Maybe ruhudson thinks a better educated more culturally aware population would elect better officials who would make wiser decisions. I'd like to believe that. But I would have to see it to believe it.

And it has nothing to do with dropping cursive. 100 hours of instruction in grammar school free to teach something else? Not sure that is a world-changing decision... not unless you want to bring in serious levels of indoctrination.

 

[Upstream]

I was going to respond similarly, but with way more words than were needed. I get ruhudsons point, but it has nothing to do with my point which is directed at NIRH's false choice between cursive and languages and geography... and in particular, his abusive use of strawman arguments that basically take this form:

Yes. I think @ruhudsonfan is questioning us because thinks we are disagreeing with his point that it is valuable for Americans to speak languages other than English (and his related points that (a) currently American schools do a poor job teaching foreign languages, and (b) it is also valuable to Americans understand other cultures). I don't disagree with his points, and I suspect you don't either.

But we seem to be making a different point, in response to NIRH's claim that Americans don't speak foreign languages because we are xenophobic. We are claiming that failure to speak foreign languages has nothing to do with being xenophobic. It has to do with a lack of need to be multilingual for the average American.

And as I type that, I realize why @ruhudsonfan has questioned this. I have written that multilingualism is valuable for Americans and there is no need for the average American to be multilingual. It seems that I am contradicting myself. But I'm not.

It is valuable for American society to have a large number of multilingual people in order to do business around the world, and in order to advance and protect American interests around the world. America needs multilingual people who can collectively speak all the languages of the world. There is great value in that.

But there is little value for most individual Americans to be multilingual. Being able to speak a language other than English does not markedly increase most American's employment potential or enjoy activities (including most foreign travel) that would be denied them if they speak only English. My company needs people who speak Dutch and French and Chinese and Hindi. But my inability to speak any of those languages doesn't hinder my job performance; there are other people in my company who speak other languages. There is little personal gain that I would see from being bilingual, and therefore little need for me to do so. Compare this to someone living in Holland who truely has limited employment opportunities unless he can speak Dutch and English.

So yes, multilingualism is great for America, but paradoxically not so useful for individual Americans. That also presents a challenge on how to ensure there is a large base of multilingual Americans, given the lack on individual incentive to be multilingual. The current requirement of 2 years of high school French followed by 2 years of college French leads to little more than je ne sais pas. To Hudson's point, something probably needs to be done differently.

 

[NotInRHouse]

NIRH, where does your 30% figure come from? And note that 30% doesn't come close to a majority. If Trump gets 30% in the Fall, he will have lost in the biggest landslide in the history of American presidential elections. In addition, what the heck does cursive have to do with racism, ethnocentrism, or anything else you criticize?

Generally if you look at surveys that ask questions like "Was President Obama born in the US" or "Is he Muslim" you will get some response in the 30% range agreeing with something that is counterfactual.You all saw similar numbers post the SC primary, similar numbers answered they oppose the Emancipation Proclamation and generally feel whites are a superior race. About 70% of Americans disapprove of Trump. It is my theory that about 30% of the US just holds downright racist, very far right, and totally unshakable views. I understand that polling is not concrete but every poll I read when someone can give an answer that would show a racist or conspiracy-mongering view, I notice the numbers always pan out the same.

And it's not a majority, inevitably the Rs come in with that 30% baked in just as the Ds (especially in this election) are going to come in with a lot of groups so it's fought in the middle. Some people outside of the 30% will vote for him because they just don't like Hillary, were always Rs...but that will not be enough to win. I do think this will be a historic landslide for Hillary (who I don't like) but I would rather her than have brownshirts scanning the board for "unfair" and "negative" stories that Trump promises to prosecute with "open" libel laws.

The thread has clearly diverged from cursive. My point is (which GOR is doing an amazing job illustrating) is that there is a ton of ethnocentrism in this country- the idea that learning about other cultures is a negative. That these same people seem to cling to past notions of relevance like cursive is the icing on the cake. They would rather a useless skill. Do employers want Chinese speakers or cursive writers? The ethnocentrics would rather set back the economy to put forward their insane notions.

 

[retired711]

Probably every nation has the same percentage who are ethnocentric. That's not an excuse for the U.S., but I think it shows that at the very least the U.S. isn't any worse than anyone else. But I still have no idea why you think there is a relationship between ethnocentrism and support of cursive. I, for instance, support cursive, but I hope you would not think me ethnocentric.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Probably every nation has the same percentage who are ethnocentric. That's not an excuse for the U.S., but I think it shows that at the very least the U.S. isn't any worse than anyone else. But I still have no idea why you think there is a relationship between ethnocentrism and support of cursive. I, for instance, support cursive, but I hope you would not think me ethnocentric.

Maybe. Certainly Austria seems pretty bad lately. I would be more curious to see how other immigrant nations like Canada and Australia shake out. Too much I got mine in this country.

Not everyone who wants cursive is ethnocentric, and you are definitely not. I was referring to the belief propagated by some in this thread that we need cursive, but not foreign languages or travel or understanding of other cultures, which seems to me to be preservation of something archaic at the expense of expanding necessary skills. Overall, I think too many are concerned with the way things were, not the way things are and not going back, whether they like it or not, on a lot of issues. If we can get to a point where Americans are graduating high school conversational in a foreign language and not behind 20 countries in math, then bring on cursive (and whatever else, we will have time and money for it.)