5 ms·

"Into their coffee shops and houses, the children were building their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys — assumptions that mirrored th

"Into their coffee shops and houses, the children were building their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys — assumptions that mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society — a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive." God help those children.

xirium 19y ago
I certainly didn't make coffee shops with Lego. However, it is political correctness to ban it. Lego is a very flexible toy which develops spatial skills and co-ordination. You can do whatever you like with Lego but these teachers don't like it because inequality can be projected onto it. I'd like to know what replacement is deemed more suitable.
- Afton 19y ago
  I think you may have gotten bored and stopped reading. They got the lego back.
Afton 19y ago
Does this mean you disagree? You believe that a class based capitalist society isn't unjust? Really? You think you have the same rights as anyone else in your society? Interesting. You might think that a class-based capitalist society is the best option available, but that's a far cry from claiming that it is just and non-oppressive. The simple fact is that the statistically most likely way to be a rich person is to be born into a rich family. No one is saying that it's the only way, but if you want to lay odds its the way to bet. That's just? It plays havoc with the idea of a meritocracy. The lesson that I understood that the kids were learning is that what you happen to have started out with doesn't give you inalienable rights. In other words, be sensitive to the fact that you got where you are _at least partially_ by luck. The rest is just figuring out what it means to be sensitive in this way. There is another important lesson that I think the teachers missed (about how to handle the disenfranchisement that the Lego-less kids felt), but that's another story.
- goofygrin 19y ago
  I certainly disagree. Just because you weren't born into money doesn't mean you can't get there. That's the beauty of the free market, you have the OPPORTUNITY to succeed and get ahead. If everyone and everything is the same, then why even bother doing anything better or trying? Socialism scares me to no end because it is way easier to scream for support and get it than it is to actually make something out of yourself. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want to have to live in a world that is built for the LCD.
  - Afton 19y ago
    Actually, I agree with you. I assume that you are reading into my comment some enormous weight of dialog that I wasn't a part of. I'm unsure about how to respond since I feel like we're talking at cross purposes. So with the fair warning that we may simply continue to misunderstand each other, here goes: Of course you can 'get there'. But that doesn't make it 'fair'. If someone has to work for 0 hours for 100% chance of success and I have to work for 2000 hours for 0.01%, that isn't just. Horatio Alger stories are, frankly, rare and far between. The basic problem is that the outlook that a person should take on life is that they are the master of their own destiny and that they can make it on the strength of their own power. When I say "should" I just mean, that is the viewpoint of the world that makes them have the best chance of achieving success. It's a psychological trick that gives people courage, and helps them to recognize opportunities. That's a very short form of what I meant when I said that there was another lesson that the teachers missed out on. What is frustrating to me is that people take an outlook ("I am the master of my own destiny") and apply it to the world as though it were _true_. So it is common to hear people look down on the poor by saying variants of "if only they weren't so lazy they could make something of themselves". This ignores the fact that different people have different oportunities and that those oportunities are not of their own making. In any case, have a good day.
    - mynameishere 19y ago
      Snore. I count 29 instances of the word "inheritance" on this page. [1] http://www.usatoday.com/money/2005-09-22-forbes-list_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/money/2005-09-22-forbes-list_x.htm Whenever someone wants to attack capitalism, they always seem to attack people born into wealthy families. That has nothing to do with capitalism. Nothing whatsoever. In fact, one of the GREATEST CHANGES to take place with the industrial revolution was the reduction in the prevailance of nepotism due to the importance of technical and managerial skills, rather than clannishness. Clannishness, family preferences, primogeniture, cousin marriages, etc, are all necessary to maintain feudalism, not capitalism. If you really hate capitalism, go straight to the real alternative: Command economy. This is where some brain dead bureaucrat decides who gets wealth based upon adherance to political orthodoxy--which is essentially what the teachers did in the end. Works great with fixed resources like toys. Doesn't work so great when the fields need tilling. [1] EDIT: Should be several higher. They only wrote "WalMart inheritence" once.
Xichekolas 19y ago
The fundamental problem with their Lego trading game (and the original Legotown) is that they assume capitalism involves a fixed amount of resources that can only be traded. In reality, the resources are constantly growing. If it was really a fixed-resource system, it would always end like Monopoly, with one person owning everything, or owning enough to always be in power at the least. All it takes is a second to stop and realize that wealth is created, not taken. If it was all really taken, then where in the heck did we take it from? (I mean we as in the whole world.) The world is immensely more wealthy than it was a thousand years ago, and all that wealth was created by the hard work of all those generations. Surely all the wealth creation done by startups is evidence of that. I think this is generally an economic misunderstanding that a lot of people have. To them, it's "Every dollar Bill Gates has is a dollar less for everyone else, so that is unfair." In fact, PG made this argument much better than I can, here: http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html That said, I did really enjoy how these teachers approached the art of teaching children. Challenging the children to examine and modify their own worldviews seems infinitely more effective than preaching to them about 'the right way.'
- bocajuniors 19y ago
  natural resources are used in the process of creating wealth.they are not unlimited. america uses a lot more natural resources than it's entitled to(europe as well). and:if you make 200 k a year in a country where avg income is 500 k i'd say that your a lot worse off than if you make 100 k in a country where the average is 100 k
  - Xichekolas 19y ago
    Yeah brlittle brought up my misuse of the word 'resources' in a sibling post to yours. My brain really meant to use the word 'wealth' instead. I wish I had noticed it while I still had the edit link handy, as it is quite a distracting gaffe.
- bouncingsoul 19y ago
  Ha, we wrote almost the exact same thing. And I'm in Kansas City too... Weird.
wallflower 19y ago
"Brown eyed people are dumb" Good they didn't try Jane Elliot's famous and controversial "Brown eye/Blue eye" exercise in that classroom: http://www.janeelliott.com/ http://www.janeelliott.com/
wallflower 19y ago
I had no idea an early childhood classroom could evolve into a Lord of the Flies scenario. When we played our favorite game - peg ball in elementary school, we didn't think so deep. It was throw the ball against the wall and if you fumbled it/didn't catch it, run to the wall before you got pegged. I think these teachers are really imposing a Brave New World kind of lens on their microcosm of a world. Maybe it's just me I wasn't that self-aware, clued-in at their single-digit age (maybe not even now).
deleted 19y ago
[deleted]
bocajuniors 19y ago
i think it is quite clear that a purely capitalist society is unjust and oppressive.
- thaumaturgy 19y ago
  There has already been some good conversation in this thread over that, which I think at the least means that it isn't quite clear at all.
  - bocajuniors 19y ago
    i think it's very obvious that a purely capitalistic system produces a lot of very poor people.that is it is a bad system.
    - corentin 19y ago
      You end up with a lot of people who are relatively poor but practically rich, whereas socialism promotes a system in which nobody is richer (or poorer) than his neighbor but with the nasty side effect that everyone is practically poor. Hence it's a relatively good system :)
      - bocajuniors 19y ago
        i didn't say that a purely socialistic society is any better.and, as long as you make more than 100k/year(which is enough to fullfill your physical needs), it really is your relative income that counts.
      - ced 19y ago
        ... assuming that being "practically rich" causes happiness. There was some study a while ago that said that most people would rather have 1000$ in a society where others have 10$ than have 1 million in a society where everyone is a billionnaire. (I made up the numbers, I didn't look for the actual thing. I'm not sure how they accounted for the "inflation" that such a mythical society would have)
snorkel 19y ago
Comrades, The Lego bricks belong to the People! You are a friend of the Lego Revolution, are you not? I suspect you do not like our Cherished Leaders! Western ideas have poisoned you! Do not sit with us during the Snack Time Celebration! Our Great Teachers are watching you! Also the clear Lego bricks are being collected by the People's Ministry of Security. Only Authorized Friends of the Revolution are allowed to use the clear Legos. To become an Authorized Friend you must donate cookies the People's Party Headquarters next to book shelf. DO NOT donate cookies to Headquarters of the People's Party, they are traitors, spies, and enemies of the Revolution! They must not be allowed to go play during Recess! This is the New Fairness. Hail to our Great Teachers for teaching us the New Fairness! - Comrade Jimmy

xirium 19y ago

I certainly didn't make coffee shops with Lego. However, it is political correctness to ban it. Lego is a very flexible toy which develops spatial skills and co-ordination. You can do whatever you like with Lego but these teachers don't like it because inequality can be projected onto it. I'd like to know what replacement is deemed more suitable.

Afton 19y ago
I think you may have gotten bored and stopped reading. They got the lego back.

Afton 19y ago

Does this mean you disagree? You believe that a class based capitalist society isn't unjust? Really? You think you have the same rights as anyone else in your society? Interesting. You might think that a class-based capitalist society is the best option available, but that's a far cry from claiming that it is just and non-oppressive. The simple fact is that the statistically most likely way to be a rich person is to be born into a rich family. No one is saying that it's the only way, but if you want to lay odds its the way to bet. That's just? It plays havoc with the idea of a meritocracy. The lesson that I understood that the kids were learning is that what you happen to have started out with doesn't give you inalienable rights. In other words, be sensitive to the fact that you got where you are _at least partially_ by luck. The rest is just figuring out what it means to be sensitive in this way. There is another important lesson that I think the teachers missed (about how to handle the disenfranchisement that the Lego-less kids felt), but that's another story.

goofygrin 19y ago
I certainly disagree. Just because you weren't born into money doesn't mean you can't get there. That's the beauty of the free market, you have the OPPORTUNITY to succeed and get ahead. If everyone and everything is the same, then why even bother doing anything better or trying? Socialism scares me to no end because it is way easier to scream for support and get it than it is to actually make something out of yourself. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want to have to live in a world that is built for the LCD.
- Afton 19y ago
  Actually, I agree with you. I assume that you are reading into my comment some enormous weight of dialog that I wasn't a part of. I'm unsure about how to respond since I feel like we're talking at cross purposes. So with the fair warning that we may simply continue to misunderstand each other, here goes: Of course you can 'get there'. But that doesn't make it 'fair'. If someone has to work for 0 hours for 100% chance of success and I have to work for 2000 hours for 0.01%, that isn't just. Horatio Alger stories are, frankly, rare and far between. The basic problem is that the outlook that a person should take on life is that they are the master of their own destiny and that they can make it on the strength of their own power. When I say "should" I just mean, that is the viewpoint of the world that makes them have the best chance of achieving success. It's a psychological trick that gives people courage, and helps them to recognize opportunities. That's a very short form of what I meant when I said that there was another lesson that the teachers missed out on. What is frustrating to me is that people take an outlook ("I am the master of my own destiny") and apply it to the world as though it were _true_. So it is common to hear people look down on the poor by saying variants of "if only they weren't so lazy they could make something of themselves". This ignores the fact that different people have different oportunities and that those oportunities are not of their own making. In any case, have a good day.
  - mynameishere 19y ago
    Snore. I count 29 instances of the word "inheritance" on this page. [1] http://www.usatoday.com/money/2005-09-22-forbes-list_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/money/2005-09-22-forbes-list_x.htm Whenever someone wants to attack capitalism, they always seem to attack people born into wealthy families. That has nothing to do with capitalism. Nothing whatsoever. In fact, one of the GREATEST CHANGES to take place with the industrial revolution was the reduction in the prevailance of nepotism due to the importance of technical and managerial skills, rather than clannishness. Clannishness, family preferences, primogeniture, cousin marriages, etc, are all necessary to maintain feudalism, not capitalism. If you really hate capitalism, go straight to the real alternative: Command economy. This is where some brain dead bureaucrat decides who gets wealth based upon adherance to political orthodoxy--which is essentially what the teachers did in the end. Works great with fixed resources like toys. Doesn't work so great when the fields need tilling. [1] EDIT: Should be several higher. They only wrote "WalMart inheritence" once.

Xichekolas 19y ago

The fundamental problem with their Lego trading game (and the original Legotown) is that they assume capitalism involves a fixed amount of resources that can only be traded. In reality, the resources are constantly growing. If it was really a fixed-resource system, it would always end like Monopoly, with one person owning everything, or owning enough to always be in power at the least. All it takes is a second to stop and realize that wealth is created, not taken. If it was all really taken, then where in the heck did we take it from? (I mean we as in the whole world.) The world is immensely more wealthy than it was a thousand years ago, and all that wealth was created by the hard work of all those generations. Surely all the wealth creation done by startups is evidence of that. I think this is generally an economic misunderstanding that a lot of people have. To them, it's "Every dollar Bill Gates has is a dollar less for everyone else, so that is unfair." In fact, PG made this argument much better than I can, here: http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html That said, I did really enjoy how these teachers approached the art of teaching children. Challenging the children to examine and modify their own worldviews seems infinitely more effective than preaching to them about 'the right way.'

bocajuniors 19y ago
natural resources are used in the process of creating wealth.they are not unlimited. america uses a lot more natural resources than it's entitled to(europe as well). and:if you make 200 k a year in a country where avg income is 500 k i'd say that your a lot worse off than if you make 100 k in a country where the average is 100 k
- Xichekolas 19y ago
  Yeah brlittle brought up my misuse of the word 'resources' in a sibling post to yours. My brain really meant to use the word 'wealth' instead. I wish I had noticed it while I still had the edit link handy, as it is quite a distracting gaffe.
bouncingsoul 19y ago
Ha, we wrote almost the exact same thing. And I'm in Kansas City too... Weird.

wallflower 19y ago

"Brown eyed people are dumb" Good they didn't try Jane Elliot's famous and controversial "Brown eye/Blue eye" exercise in that classroom: http://www.janeelliott.com/ http://www.janeelliott.com/

wallflower 19y ago

I had no idea an early childhood classroom could evolve into a Lord of the Flies scenario. When we played our favorite game - peg ball in elementary school, we didn't think so deep. It was throw the ball against the wall and if you fumbled it/didn't catch it, run to the wall before you got pegged. I think these teachers are really imposing a Brave New World kind of lens on their microcosm of a world. Maybe it's just me I wasn't that self-aware, clued-in at their single-digit age (maybe not even now).

deleted 19y ago

[deleted]

bocajuniors 19y ago

i think it is quite clear that a purely capitalist society is unjust and oppressive.

thaumaturgy 19y ago
There has already been some good conversation in this thread over that, which I think at the least means that it isn't quite clear at all.
- bocajuniors 19y ago
  i think it's very obvious that a purely capitalistic system produces a lot of very poor people.that is it is a bad system.
  - corentin 19y ago
    You end up with a lot of people who are relatively poor but practically rich, whereas socialism promotes a system in which nobody is richer (or poorer) than his neighbor but with the nasty side effect that everyone is practically poor. Hence it's a relatively good system :)
    - bocajuniors 19y ago
      i didn't say that a purely socialistic society is any better.and, as long as you make more than 100k/year(which is enough to fullfill your physical needs), it really is your relative income that counts.
    - ced 19y ago
      ... assuming that being "practically rich" causes happiness. There was some study a while ago that said that most people would rather have 1000$ in a society where others have 10$ than have 1 million in a society where everyone is a billionnaire. (I made up the numbers, I didn't look for the actual thing. I'm not sure how they accounted for the "inflation" that such a mythical society would have)

snorkel 19y ago

Comrades, The Lego bricks belong to the People! You are a friend of the Lego Revolution, are you not? I suspect you do not like our Cherished Leaders! Western ideas have poisoned you! Do not sit with us during the Snack Time Celebration! Our Great Teachers are watching you! Also the clear Lego bricks are being collected by the People's Ministry of Security. Only Authorized Friends of the Revolution are allowed to use the clear Legos. To become an Authorized Friend you must donate cookies the People's Party Headquarters next to book shelf. DO NOT donate cookies to Headquarters of the People's Party, they are traitors, spies, and enemies of the Revolution! They must not be allowed to go play during Recess! This is the New Fairness. Hail to our Great Teachers for teaching us the New Fairness! - Comrade Jimmy