Olga Bourlin wrote:
>
> From: "James Rogers" <jamesr@best.com>
>
> Education *was* better when it was
> > completely private and more poor people got a better education. It isn't
> > really even in dispute. Who's waving arms?
>
> Your insularity is showing. You say education was better when it was
> completely private and that this isn't even in dispute? Well, I'm disputing
> it. What else can't be disputed? That Gone With The Wind depicted the end
> of the America's greatest epoch?
>
> > What I didn't mention was the years in the early 19th century when there
> was
> > both public AND private education equally available in the U.S.
>
> You also forgot to mention that (during the time you depict) it was
> *illegal* for some people in the U.S. to even learn to read.
Just what the HELL does that have to do with it? Sounds like one more
case of the whiny liberal resorting to a last ditch attempt at labelling
her opponents racist to escape a losing position.
Or are YOU implying that the descendants of those who were prohibited
from learning to read are inherently less able to be educated today????
That sounds like a pretty racist opinion to me.
>
> > So tell me again how public education and the government helped the
> > poor people.
>
> Gladly. Public education does not sanction discrimination based on
> religion, ethnicity, class, and what have you (that is to say, it has truly
> become more democratic lately - if only in the last few decades - and, in my
> view, the bulk of good it does by this very fact alone puts it ahead of
> private education).
Private education cannot discriminate thus (except for religion) either.
Many private schools offer scholarships to gifted poor kids to attend
their schools. There is this thing, see, called financial aid.... I
suggest you get rid of the ComIntern originated memes against private
organizations that seem to be embedded in you.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:12 MDT