here we go again...

red fox,

Yes, as I stated prior. Perhaps that was unclear?

I feel that we all have ample experience with this medium, such that we understand it's limitations, and thus have the intelligence and adaptability to accommodate those limitations in our communications within this medium.

When we fail to communicate effectively, I assume that it is in error, and that the person has the opportunity to reframe (or recontextualized -- the term I have used before) their statements or to apologize and restate in such a way that better asserts the intended meaning.

In case anyone would be offended by post 125, wherein I describe in more detail why I consider the "limitations of medium" excuse not valid, by including an age 'starting point' of 25, please let me apologize to anyone who may be offended by this, and write according to my meaning.

I believe that those under the age of 25 are particularly savvy with this medium, and also tend to have a particularly playful and creative way of using it. It often defies my expectations and understandings, and creates a unique learning experience for me. I rarely find these playful, creative methods of communicating to be offensive -- they are simply, or tend to be, uniquely different than those in my own age group, or those in the age group about 10 years (or more) above me. We tend to be more "staid" -- perhaps out of our life experiences or comfort levels.

I do, however, enjoy communicating with those who utilize these creative methods -- regardless of age (because both younger and older are capable of it!) -- because I find it to be a valuable learning experience for me. I also like to "play" in this way as well, though I admit it is a bit of a mind-bender, breaking me out of common forms and tropes, which expresses ideas and feelings in ways that I cannot explain.

I do not believe that the communications on this thread that I found offensive fall into this category, as I have rarely found these playful versions to be that -- nor do I see evidenced in the writing that the person is working from this particular angle.

I certainly do not want anyone to think that I think that those who are younger than myself are less intelligent, mature, or capable of sound arguments. I know -- from my own experience and other evidences out there -- that young people (under the age of 25) are very capable, intelligent, curious, and excellent communicators -- and in fact often uniquely excellent in these modern incarnations of communication (texting anyone? my goodness!) :D

I am *reading* your post. You expect me to "read into" your post that you MEANT that you felt these children (poor kids!) were sadly not being encourage to "pursue their dreams!" beyond what their community values or they would be shunned!

But here is what you WROTE:






Originally Posted by peggy

I'm not talking about the quaint window dressing we all see, but the realities of the life. We can all admire simple living and buggies and oil lamps and farming. I do. But I admire it as a CHOICE, and not as some edict from god. Or rather the leading elder of the order, who has surprising latitude to enforce his interpretation of the 'rules'.
It's not a choice.

What you wrote:
It's not a choice.



What I wrote:
8th grade, despite some people's thought, does not prepare you for the realities of modern life. Sure, it prepares you to wait on tables, or scrub toilets, but not much else.

What you wrote:
Really, I'm reading into this?




What I wrote:
These people don't just have a comfortable relationship with computers or technology, and although you say you know those who do, we know that isn't the norm.

What you wrote:
"we" do? evidence?

Oh, wait, here is your evidence:




What I wrote:
It just isn't. That's their whole thing, remember?

What you wrote:
Obviously, you are very ignorant of the amish. Do I know about the amish? DO i remember? Yes. What about you?




What I wrote:
Being shunned by your community, and even your parents is a very big pressure on young people. People do what they know, largely, in this closed community as well as the greater modern community. It's a whole lot easier to just go with the flow rather than seek further education, without family support, separate yourself from the community you grew up with knowing this community now say you as a traitor, and cast yourself into an unknown, unfamiliar world.

What you wrote:
Yes, and obviously this is not a problem of just the amish, as you write. If this was your whole point, why make all of the other ignorant, condescending statements that you made?




What I wrote:
They can certainly choose this, that's their right. It's also my right to say I think it's a rather non-productive community at the very least, and terribly regressive(I acknowledged later this was a typo. I meant repressive) at the most.

What you wrote:
Yes, That's right. I'm reading into your opinion that you find these people "non productive and backwards."





So, if a kid wants to be a yoga instructor? How would they fare there? Do you think they could stay in their community and do this? I don't think so. What about being an artist? or a Musician? Or a scientist? And what if this kid was a woman? This community has a fairly narrow focus on approved careers. And if you want something different? Sorry. You have to choose between your parents, friends, and community and the thing that floats your boat.

what you wrote:
As evidenced, a kid can choose to leave, and they may not be fully shunned by their community. I've given several examples.





I don't think I'm being condescending. Anyone who has lived an extremely sheltered life would be overwhelmed by modern American life.


What you wrote:
Culture shock is not a terminal disease. Culture shock can be overcome, and in most instances, is. And even if it is overcome, often people choose to go back to their original culture/environment anyway. It is, perhaps, a more educated choice.





We have fundamentalist who won't let their kids go to public school because they fear the messages and ideas 'out there', but these people still have TVs and magazines and presumably function in the modern world. Take even those modern things away and you have a pretty sheltered person, innocent and ignorant of modern ways. Mind you, that doesn't equal to stupid, it just means what it says, ignorant of the ways.

What you wrote:
Right, and ignorance can be overcome.




What I wrote:
Do you think Amish sit around the table talking politics?

What you wrote:
Yes.




What I wrote:
Or modern music, movies, the art museum, fencing, world languages, science, world politics, advances in medicine, business, or a zillion other things we talk about and take for granted everyone knows even a little about.

What you wrote:
Yes, to many of these things (not music or movies, but pretty much the rest of it).




What I wrote:
Michael Jackson. You probably don't listen to him, or even admire his music, but you know who he is. And if someone makes a reference to him, in what ever context, you probably get it. That's a cultural reference.

What you wrote:
Right, without knowing all the cultural references of another culture, all is lost. I live in NZ. I don't get 90% of cultural references here. Seriously.

Poor me, so backwards and unproductive and not able to make a choice about how to live!




What I wrote:
And there are a million of those we don't even think about that color our everyday lives. . . . How many Amish do you think have read 1984? or Animal farm? of Atlas Shrugged? Or Catcher in the Rye?

What you wrote:
Right, because without these things, we just can't have a good life in the modern world, or have a real choice in regards to deciding not to continue in modern life or their own traditions.




What I wrote:
This is what I'm talking about. I'm not trying to demonize them, but I'm also not romanticizing them either. They are what they are. A fairly closed, strict religious sect, quaint buggies aside.

What you wrote:
So, this is what you are talking about?

That these people are ignorant, non-productive, and backward and incapable of making it in the modern world, and because of that, incapable of having a choice in regards to whether or not to continue in the modern world or be amish?

Demonized view? no.

Ignorant and condescending? yes.



Here is the entire post that you presume to damn me with. Tell me exactly what is ignorant and condescending? You're pretty much the only one calling names here. I stand by all my words. I admitted in a later post that I meant repressive, not regressive, (although regressive simply means opposing progress) and if you had actually read my posts instead of damning me, you would know that. There is nothing denigrating here, except your personal attack on me.

You seem to agree with me that they don't have the cultural references, the background in literature, education, or experience we all share in this MODERN world, which is what I'm talking about. I never said a person can't learn. You INFERED that. I just said an 8th grade education does not prepare you to live successfully in THIS MODERN WORLD. And it doesn't. That isn't denigrating. It's reality. And if your culture doesn't embrace or value education beyond 13, then you are hard pressed to 'go it alone'. I never said some don't. Again, your 'interpretation' of what I said. I just said it was very difficult. And the faster this world speeds ahead, the harder it will be.

You are so invested in making these people educated, and forward thinking, and hip and connected, you've got them more savvy than a New Yorker! You can't even allow them to be what they are, a closed religious sect that live a simple, fairly austere (simple, plain, disciplined) life. I would suggest you are the one being condescending. I accept them for who and what they are. But apparently that bothers you.


I own my words. They are not denigrating and I won't apologize or re-phrase them to fit your world view. Sorry Zoe, you are just going to have to accept that.

Now, if you want to discuss the merits of an 8th grade education,(dropping out at 13) and how it's doesn't prepare you to function successfully in a modern, 21st century world, that's another thread we can start.

My experiences with the Amish are extremely limited, but one in particular stands out. My Dad (the consummate cattle rancher from Nebraska) and I had the opportunity to spend a day with an Amish farmer in Ohio many years ago. My Dad was very politically active and very environmentally conscious. His dissertation, in 1952, dealt with his concerns regarding the use of chemicals in 'modern' farming and he eventually became quite well known in agricultural politics on a national level. Anyway, during the day in Amish country I have rarely seen two men so engaged by what the other had to say. Both men were talking well above my head at the time, but it was obvious the Amish farmer had no shortage of knowledge of nematodes, microorganisms, spores or any of the myriad other things that effect livestock and crops. That gentleman was also extremely aware of the shift taking place (in the late 1960's) regarding public policy and industrial agriculture.

I have no idea how that farmer acquired his knowledge, but he had it. It may be way off base, but from that single encounter I have always assumed that it was acceptable, in the Amish culture, to gain knowledge from other parts of the world and from there it was basically a matter of filtering it down to find what aligned with their values when deciding what to put to use. If that is true I would view that as extremely enlightened rather than backwards. To those with firsthand knowledge of that culture: is that close?

Correct, Gregg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

My experiences with the Amish are extremely limited, but one in particular stands out. My Dad (the consummate cattle rancher from Nebraska) and I had the opportunity to spend a day with an Amish farmer in Ohio many years ago. My Dad was very politically active and very environmentally conscious. His dissertation, in 1952, dealt with his concerns regarding the use of chemicals in 'modern' farming and he eventually became quite well known in agricultural politics on a national level. Anyway, during the day in Amish country I have rarely seen two men so engaged by what the other had to say. Both men were talking well above my head at the time, but it was obvious the Amish farmer had no shortage of knowledge of nematodes, microorganisms, spores or any of the myriad other things that effect livestock and crops. That gentleman was also extremely aware of the shift taking place (in the late 1960's) regarding public policy and industrial agriculture.

I have no idea how that farmer acquired his knowledge, but he had it. It may be way off base, but from that single encounter I have always assumed that it was acceptable, in the Amish culture, to gain knowledge from other parts of the world and from there it was basically a matter of filtering it down to find what aligned with their values when deciding what to put to use. If that is true I would view that as extremely enlightened rather than backwards. To those with firsthand knowledge of that culture: is that close?

---

You too Gregg? Show me! SHOW ME where I said they were backwards! Do it now, cause I'm getting pretty tired of being accused of saying something I didn't say. So go ahead, do it. Show me. You're supposed to be helper, well help. SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THEY WERE BACKWARDS, STUPID AND LAZY!

You know gregg, I've read lots of your posts and I didn't think you were illiterate and unable to read. To those of you who know him, is that true?

I would expect a farmer to know about farming. That's his business. Pretty much the only business along with related 'business' , fixing the farm equipment, animal husbandry, carpentry. think the girls know all that? Or maybe just 'girl' things like cooking and sewing, and milking.

You are all so anxious to present these folks as worldly and forward thinking, and hip and savvy, and connected, hell, we should all drop out of school at 13 and stay right in our own communities. Apparently we will learn all we need to know to function...in that community. How far would that have gotten you gregg? How far would that have gotten you bae? Do you think those good Amish parents are teaching their kids about geometry and algebra and computer science and computer chips and marketing and evolution and molecular biology, and physics, electrical repair and computer languages, or any foreign language besides english, or programming, or all the other bits of education you all take advantage of knowing and using.

It's a particular sort of arrogance that takes all the advantage of a modern 21st century education and experience but argues for keeping a certain segment away from this because, I don't know, we don't think they deserve it. Or we like driving into the country and buying milk from them, or quilts.

Which brings us back to my original point, which for the life of me I don't know why I'm being damned on.
I think it's sad that Amish kids have less opportunity in THIS MODERN WORLD than your kids or my kids. I may not know 'hundreds' of Amish, but I do know kids, and I'm not so arrogant as to think Amish kids are any less intelligent, curious, or excited by the world all around them. But when your family doesn't value education beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic (13) it's hard to rise above that. Sure there is continuing education, in home skills and farming skills, but that's pretty narrow, and the bigger (smaller) and faster the world grows all around them, the more these bright, curious kids will be forced to choose between home/family/church and 'the world'. I know y'all keep saying it's a choice these kids can make, but it's not a fully informed choice, is it, or there wouldn't be any backlash to not choosing it. And there would be better preparation towards making that choice. i.e. school past 8th grade. Heck, why not send them off to live with an english family for 6 months or a year. Then it would truly be an informed choice. I would certainly admire something like that.

Now how am I derisive or ignorant in saying that? How is it condescending to say I think these bright kids deserve every opportunity my kids, your kids, Appalachia kids, all kids deserve, without condemnation from their community. So, maybe they aren't 'fully shunned' (zoe's words)... How lovely.

Peggy, Gregg did not reference you at all. Please, I know you've been feeling attacked, and that is a dreadful feeling. May I ask you to consider that he is not talking about you?

PS - In my book, you have the right to your opinions!

I've avoided entering into this, despite the fact that I know some Amish and Mennonites well, as well as several very fundamentalist homeschoolers who homeschooled their kids to make sure that no "worldly" information was imparted to them, and to ensure their willingness to accept creationism, the Bible as literal truth, etc., and also someone, a niece of Warren Jeffs, from the offshoot fundamentalist sect of LDS folks up in Colorado City, who lived until adulthood in that sect, and is now shunned by her family completely for escaping marriage to a 58 years old man when she was less than 16 years old, and leaving.

I hear what all of you are saying. We've known expert Amish cheesemakers, farmers, and others, and one of my best friends is an "english" living smack dab in the middle of an Amish settlement, who interacts and is friends with all her neighbors. (In fact, she's the one person in the neighborhood with a car, so is the 'go to' person for grocery lists, etc., and the first person to alert me to the fact that she gets cases and cases of frozen bread dough from WalMart for them, so those Amish ladies can sell their "homemade" bread to the tourists at the farmers' market).

Of course, they are intelligent, able in many ways, and if it were possible to come to adulthood with awareness and knowledge of all the world, and THEN choose to enter one of these groups, freely, I'd personally have no problem with it. We have friends who became members of a Mennonite community as adults, and it has been a fine choice for them.

Where I have my problems, and I THINK this is what Peggy is trying to address, is that in many cases, the children of these groups, BECAUSE they are kept from knowledge or experience of a wider world, often accept the limited horizons of the world of their particular group, without question, and perhaps these are the lucky ones, because the ones who do not accept these limited choices often have the hardest row of all to hoe.

When I look at two families I've described that we know well, the ones that homeschooled, like bae, to widen their childrens' horizons and to introduce them to large amounts of ideas, worldviews, critical thinking skills, etc., and the ones who homeschooled to make sure no "suspect" "worldly" information filtered in, for the kids homeschooled with the very rigid, creationist, fundamentalist homeschool curriculum, whle they are great kids, they DO and did have very limited horizons for possibilities for their lives. The idea that they might travel to a foreign country (other than, perhaps, as a missionary), just did not compute. The concept of going to college just wasn't part of their lives. I sat at their dining room table one time, waiting for my friend to finish her homeschooling class, and picked up one of the teenager's "social studies" textbooks. It opened to a page which explained, very carefully, why Bangladesh and other countries suffer floods and other natural disasters "because they worship false gods", and exhorting the students "aren't you glad that YOUR parents have exposed you to the truth about our Savior?" I guess, thereby, making sure they wouldn't be subject to floods and natural disasters, which made me wonder how such parents explain tornadoes in the South, etc.)

I wanted to stand up and say something like, "This is ONE way of looking at the world. You are only exposed to people who will not question this view. Just know that there are many other ways of seeing reality, and many, many facts which are being withheld from you that could change how you believe." (I could never have REALLY said anything to them without destroying my friendship with their parents). They only interacted with people from their church, only were exposed to the fundamentalist curriculum of their textbooks. They only knew US because we had been friends of their parents before their parents became fundamentalists, and they only saw us a few times a year, with huge elephants of things unsaid in our visits in order to maintain our friendships.

So when their schooling was finished, at about age 17 for each, the two oldest girls started a small housecleaning business until both married just a couple years later. The third one worked for a short time as a waitress, before becoming pregnant (somehow, I guess the abstinence education didn't work out well) and getting married at 17 because of that. The two youngest are still at home, and the boy works on the small farmholding and does a small chimney sweeping business. Those are their horizons. NONE of them had any opportunity or exposure to anything that might have increased their options. When I compare their lives with the lives of the other family, I want to cry for all the possibilities unborn. Are they happy? Apparently. But, it almost feels as though they didn't even question the possibility of other options.

Most of the Amish people I know, and who live around my friend, are older, so I don't have a lot of experience with Amish youth, but I'd be surprised if they didn't have a lot of this more or less stunted "possibilities in life" situation.

The woman I knew from the fundamentalist LDS group had half a dozen mothers and several dozen brothers and sisters. She WAS one who had a spark of not wanting to fit the mold, and because her mother was in an abusive plural marriage, she wanted a different life for her daughter, so when the father tried to marry her off at a young age, the mother helped her escape. But to this day, many years later, she is still estranged from her large family, none of which will have a thing to do with her, and she is marked in many ways from her early life experience, and not what many would consider "normal" yet.

I find myself sometimes with the same feeling when I see a mother, grandmother and teenaged boy that I see occasionally in a Barnes and Noble we go to. Both women weigh probably over 400 pounds, and the young boy is well on his way. We step in when parents physically abuse their children, but why doesn't someone step in when that child is fed to become morbidly obese at a young age? Is religious freedom SO complete that people "own" their children and can keep them from experiences or knowledge that they might want in later life if they even knew such experiences or knowledge existed, or would be acceptable to their families?

Why is it that somehow, many of the same folks who defend absolute freedom for parents to limit their childrens' lives, also seem to be the people determined to keep every zygote alive, and believe that real, live women, adults have no rights over their own bodies, or their reproductive health? Why is complete incursions into privacy and freedom in one case o.k., but in another is not?

I don't know.......but I hear what Peggy is trying to say. I'd feel much better if everyone were able to have access to all the information and be able to make informed choices, and if that choice was to enter a religious group with very rigid ideas was chosen freely with all information, maybe not a problem. But the fact that most of these kids have no way of even knowing what COULD be for them, not to mention the exclusion and shunning should they make a "wrong" choice, DOES mean that they don't have an opportunity to MAKE an informed choice, which I find sad.

I don't pretend to know the answers, but I do hear what she is saying, as well as hearing what the rest of you say, as well.

What is your alternative? Should we all turn our children over to the collective for proper orientation on the off chance that some may not approve of our lifestyle or choices?

I don't know, Alan......should women turn over their rights to their own reproductive freedom and choices because certain peoples' religious and moral views seem to dictate that they should?

Should we concern ourselves far more with microscopic zygotes' rights than the rights of real, live children?