3 ms·

We'd need to significantly improve high schools before considering eliminating college. Let's face it. We can't expect American high schools to teach students a

We'd need to significantly improve high schools before considering eliminating college. Let's face it. We can't expect American high schools to teach students anything about the world. We've had schools try to spin the slave trade as sending "workers" to the New World. We've had attempts to show "both sides" of the Holocaust. And yes, college isn't perfect at teaching liberal arts, but it's better than not learning at all. I don't mean to straw man you, so I'm not implying this is what you said, but a liberal arts education is extremely important! Where else do you learn that racism isn't just slurs, that a bus route can be racist, that a health policy can be racist? Where can you get introduced to writers of color, to works by people from all times and all races? Where can you get an in depth view into how art reflects society and society reflects art? Even if you don't step into a classroom, college teaches so much by forcing students out of their hometown and out of the communities. One of the biggest issues with racism and discrimination and partisanship is that most people haven't met the other side. College is a way to meet the other side in one's formative years. I'd argue that college is the single most liberalizing institution in people's lives. No other institution takes students, transports them into a (hopefully) diverse, intellectually stimulating center and teaches them about society.

fallingknife 5y ago
> spin the slave trade as sending "workers" to the New World That's not spin. That's exactly what the slave trade was.
- hardwaregeek 5y ago
  I'd firmly disagree. Workers has an implication of voluntary, paid work. There's a reason we have a specific word for unpaid, non-voluntary work. Not to mention slavery extended beyond work. Being a slave was not only backbreaking unpaid labor, but also a whole host of horrors outside work such as rape, family separation, forced breeding, torture, etc. Calling slaves "workers" is a deeply inaccurate categorization. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/us/publisher-promises-revisions-after-textbook-refers-to-african-slaves-as-workers.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/us/publisher-promises-rev...
  - fallingknife 5y ago
    I would associate that more with "employee," with "worker" being an umbrella term. Note that "worker" is also used in a bunch of other contexts. Worker bee, worker thread, miracle worker, etc.
    - hardwaregeek 5y ago
      Okay but using umbrella terms obscures the crucial aspect of being a slave: non voluntary, unpaid labor. Yes, it is technically correct in an extremely literal sense. But that's not the same as it being the right term in the context of teaching students about the slave trade. If I said "his great grandfather was a worker", it would not imply slavery, indeed most people would assume the opposite connotation, that his great grandfather was a paid worker. I can't help but feel like you're confusing literal correctness with appropriateness. And while literal correctness is an easier judgement to make, there are many literally correct statements that absolutely miss the point. Saying that slaves were "workers" is one of them.

fallingknife 5y ago

> spin the slave trade as sending "workers" to the New World That's not spin. That's exactly what the slave trade was.

hardwaregeek 5y ago
I'd firmly disagree. Workers has an implication of voluntary, paid work. There's a reason we have a specific word for unpaid, non-voluntary work. Not to mention slavery extended beyond work. Being a slave was not only backbreaking unpaid labor, but also a whole host of horrors outside work such as rape, family separation, forced breeding, torture, etc. Calling slaves "workers" is a deeply inaccurate categorization. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/us/publisher-promises-revisions-after-textbook-refers-to-african-slaves-as-workers.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/us/publisher-promises-rev...
- fallingknife 5y ago
  I would associate that more with "employee," with "worker" being an umbrella term. Note that "worker" is also used in a bunch of other contexts. Worker bee, worker thread, miracle worker, etc.
  - hardwaregeek 5y ago
    Okay but using umbrella terms obscures the crucial aspect of being a slave: non voluntary, unpaid labor. Yes, it is technically correct in an extremely literal sense. But that's not the same as it being the right term in the context of teaching students about the slave trade. If I said "his great grandfather was a worker", it would not imply slavery, indeed most people would assume the opposite connotation, that his great grandfather was a paid worker. I can't help but feel like you're confusing literal correctness with appropriateness. And while literal correctness is an easier judgement to make, there are many literally correct statements that absolutely miss the point. Saying that slaves were "workers" is one of them.