From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Aug 14 2002 - 23:46:14 MDT
Mike originally wrote (paraphrasing what Gatto says)
> Basically, beginning shortly after the American Revolution, several
> different threads in thinking began a convergence that (later) gained a
> purpose when captains of industry realized that a nation of largely
> self-educated shopkeepers, craftsmen, small farmers and such were not
> going to be suitable for the factory work that would drive the
> industrial revolution.
Through a careless error on my part, made while I was trying
to abbreviate what you said, I badly distorted that sentence.
I meant to abbreviate it as "when captains of industry realized
that a nation of.... small farmers [etc.] were not going to be
suitable for factory work...". Perhaps I should learn not to
exert any effort along those lines, but just quote the whole
bloody thing.
> > What sort of model of society do you hold when you can claim that "the
> > captains of industry... were not going to be suitable for factory work"?
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about. If you can refer to a 'claim' I
> made, that would help. If you want to play some sort of cut and paste game
> with my post, put quote marks around it, and then state that I claimed this,
> I'll need to see if this warrants moderator intervention.
You have my deepest apologies. Be sure that I won't ever cut and
paste or play any further games with your posts, probably because
I'll think at least twice before ever replying to you again, if
this is going to be your instinctive attitude.
> I'll admit that my summary isn't even that satisfying to me. I don't know
> the 'why' yet. I don't know who initiated it. I don't know if the numerous
> folks Gatto quotes were irrelevant minor functionaries or if they had
> real influence. I admit to not much knowledge about exactly when and how
> factory-type industry was created in America. I'm hoping to learn more.
I expect that it evolved, without anyone's conscious design. To be
sure, one individual is on record as having smuggled a key design for
a machine out of Britain, which he'd memorized; but I'll bet that
this was for the purpose of personal profit more than anything else.
> > In my model, or
> > understanding, those captains of industry, e.g. Vanderbilt, couldn't
> > have cared less what the state of the countries children and workers
> > was going to be in a few decades in the future. They focused entirely
> > on the bottom line---next week's if not today's.
>
> I think you're confused, I was discussing industry not day trading.
I'm submitting that the famous early American industrialists of whose
lives I've read were not idealists, and did not have designs to *make*
the nation one thing or another. Likewise with other, later, "captains
of industry" such as Rockefeller and Carnegie. It just doesn't sound
right to imply that they wanted to long-term shift the whole nation over
from one thing to another. They wanted their own profits, and weren't
concerned about the far future or the country as a whole.
> > This stinks of conspiracy theory.
>
> What does?
The picture painted in the minds of the readers of your paragraph
above (which is a good summary of Gatto IMO) is that of men in
powerful positions deliberately changing the American educational
system, such as it was, to suit their own long term goals, namely,
replacing the self-educated shopkeepers, craftsmen, and small
farmers with less educated factory workers.
And this is not just from your paragraph, but from what I did
read in the original.
> Whatever floats your boat. I have no idea what you mean or what you are
> referring to. If you're making some oblique, hidden reference that there are
> purposes so secret that John Gatto hasn't committed them to paper, then I
> really have no idea whatsoever. I'm only reading his book.
No; sorry for the confusion. What I meant was to assert that there
never was any conspiracy---i.e., a deliberate effort to change America
from one direction to another over multiple decades by people in power
or influence, but Gatto makes it sound as though there was.
> > You or
> > Mr. Gatto will have to provide me a lot of evidence that, for
> > a concrete example, the "captains of industry" carefully planned
> > the future of the United States.
>
> Or what? In any case I don't see what your sentence above has to do with
> anything I said in my summary.
Any clearer now? (Or what? Or I won't believe it.)
> I recently read an old Atlantic Monthly article on the DeBeers diamond mine
> people. It suggests that basically (warning: personal summation ahead) DeBeers
> snookered the American (and later Japanese) people that diamonds were actually
> valuable, perhaps even an investment. This went on for decades. Don't have
> the link onhand, you can find it in a recent related Slashdot article if no
> inclined.
That's quite believable. One can even imagine overhearing a meeting
at DeBeers where such a scheme is hatched.
> Again, I think you may be confusing my quick summation of several dozen pages
> of Gatto's book with the book itself. Regardless, I found your response
> thoroughly confusing and off-topic. I get that way myself sometimes so I can't
> criticize it that much. But if this is your debating style then I don't plan
> on continuing to argue with you, so if you want to think you've 'won', then
> feel free.
Here is a quote from Gatto's paper, just to focus on something substantive
that's there, and which is indicative IMO of his whole view:
> Public opinion is turned on and off in laboratory fashion.
> All this in the name of social efficiency, one of the two
> main goals of forced schooling.
Do you honestly believe that anyone or any collection of
people can turn public opinion on and off?
Again, I apologize for the confusion I caused. I do appreciate your
taking the time to post summaries of what Gatto says. I hope that
you in turn appreciate criticism, at least the part that you're able
to perceive as well-intentioned.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:07 MST