This paragraph alone demonstrates so many ill-conceived things. From the inability of these “teachers” to understand human nature, the capitalist society and Americanism to the very fact that they do not even have the slightest clue about children themselves. Children are not just “little adults” who are able to logically discuss esoteric ideas and learn from that experience. They haven’t the experiences or knowledge upon which to base any such consideration of highly philosophical ideals.
To justify their “experiment” they explained their taking away of the toys and acknowledged that they were, indeed, teaching a political idea to the poor youngsters.
We also discussed our beliefs about our role as teachers in raising political issues with young children. We recognized that children are political beings, actively shaping their social and political understandings of ownership and economic equity — whether we interceded or not. We agreed that we want to take part in shaping the children’s understandings from a perspective of social justice. So we decided to take the Legos out of the classroom.
Politics as removed from nature, the prime mistake that all socialists and communists make, a mistake that will always, in the end, turn their compassionate ideas into totalitarian oppression.
This brainwashing experiment apparently went on for months as these overbearing indoctrinators pummeled these poor children with thinking antithetical to their nature. Discussions of “equal distribution of resources,” and “fairness” rang throughout the school over and over.
As the intellectual pogrom continued, these teachers proved over and over again their hatred for capitalism and human nature and their utter inability to understand the very concepts they sought to summarily remove from their students’ unformed minds.
To build on [a student’s ideas about] the pleasure and unease that comes with wielding power, and to highlight the experience of those who are excluded from power, we designed a Lego trading game with built-in inequities. We developed a point system for Legos, then skewed the system so that it would be quite hard to get lots of points. And we established just one rule: Get as many points as possible. The person with the most points would create the rules for the rest of the game. Our intention was to create a situation in which a few children would receive unearned power from sheer good luck in choosing Lego bricks with high point values, and then would wield that power with their peers.
Absurdly, this “game” was formed on the assumption that all capitalism was inherently based on unfair and random “in-equities” and “unearned power.” These people are teaching their children that all rich people are inherently evil, unfair, selfish, and have gained “unearned power.”
Marx couldn’t have said it better himself.
Worse, they were teaching their children that “success” or winning the game (a stand in for being rich) could be had by no work whatsoever, that just the luck of the draw created the wealth, not hard work. This “game” was based on pure lies about wealth, resources, creation, property ownership and human nature.
To disabuse you of the thought that I am still engaging in hyperbole, let these faux teachers explain their ideas in their own words.
To make sense of the sting of this disenfranchisement, most of the children cast Liam and Kyla as “mean,” trying to “make people feel bad.” They were unable or unwilling to see that the rules of the game — which mirrored the rules of our capitalist meritocracy — were a setup for winning and losing. Playing by the rules led to a few folks winning big and most folks falling further and further behind. The game created a classic case of cognitive disequilibrium: Either the system is skewed and unfair, or the winners played unfairly. To resolve this by deciding that the system is unfair would call everything into question; young children are committed to rules and rule-making as a way to organize a community, and it is wildly unsettling to acknowledge that rules can have built-in inequities. So most of the children resolved their disequilibrium by clinging to the belief that the winners were ruthless — despite clear evidence of Liam and Kyla’s compassionate generosity.
The main goal? to teach that the capitalist system is evil and that no one can get ahead fairly.
But, the reality is that people become rich not because they are “mean” and “unfair” but because they have offered some service to their fellow humans that few others can offer and people come to them specifically for that thing, whatever it may be, that is offered. As an example, I cannot make a new plow, so I have to buy one to furrow my fields. To get a plow, I exchange my grain to the plow maker for his product. He cannot eat without my grain, yet I cannot make my grain without his plow. We work together for the betterment of both. Neither the farmer nor the plow maker is “mean” or “selfish” in their interactions and both work toward a better life. In microcosm, this is the heart of capitalism.
One wonders how quickly these “teachers” would stop to coming to their classrooms should the evil rich parents who unwittingly deposit their children in this camp would suddenly stop paying the tuition for the privilege of the indoctrination?
My guess is that the concept of “free labor” of which they are so fond would immediately evaporate should they be presented with an opportunity to experience such.
After eviscerating the basic truths that capitalism is based upon, they turned their Marxist eyes toward undermining private property rights.
We added another thread to our investigation of power, as well, by turning our attention to issues related to ownership. In Legotown, the builders “owned” sections of Legotown and protected them fiercely from encroachment. We were curious to explore with the children their beliefs about how ownership happens: How does a person come to own something? How is ownership maintained or transferred? Are there situations in which ownership ought to be challenged or denied? What are the distinctions between private and public ownership?
What good hater of capitalism would be worth his salt if he didn’t also want to destroy private property ownership, eh?
The “lesson” they taught was that “collectivity” is a good thing. That no one should own anything. And that no one should be allowed to have anything that is better or bigger than anyone else. These lessons were taught as if these “evils” outweigh the efficacy of capitalism, liberty, freedom, and democracy themselves.
After their children dutifully displayed and reflected the teacher’s mandates, the staff returned the Legos to the classroom with the assumption that a good deed was done and that these children will toddle off into the world as good little Marxists. Big authority prevailed, the individual crushed by its weight.
But all the wrong lessons were taught with the false, artificial rules that under girded the lessons and, unfortunately, these kids will find themselves unprepared for life in the real world because of it. These were lessons that if the parents of the children at this indoctrination clinic had followed, they could never have afforded to live in the “upper-middle class” neighborhood in which this “school” is situated.
Not one of these ridiculous exercises was based on real world experiences or real human truths. Not once were the ideas of what induces people to labor ever considered. Not once was the very human element of sloth brought into a discussion. No one even considered where the Legos themselves came from or how they were brought into the classroom in the first place.
Why should a person receive no reward for his labor? Why have societies built upon the idea that labor should be freely given for no reward always collapsed… always, not once in a while? In fact, why should anyone toil for no reward as others merely take and offer nothing in return? A situation like this is bound to occur in human interaction based on such ideals, it has been proven over an over again that it will. Why was this concept not brought up?
And, why did these people not consider what has to be done to a society to enforce the idea of total equality? Because the only way to achieve total equality is to round down to the lowest denominator, total equality of man displaces the need to achieve. Once achievement is eliminated as a human goal, desire or characteristic decay will ensue. And, as governments attempt to enforce this total equality, achievement must be quashed to prevent the possibility that someone, somewhere might “get” more than their neighbors. Suppression begins and murder results as humans strive to obviate the oppression of their nature.
But, no leftist ever sees the ultimate end of their “collectivity.” they constantly deny the evidence of the billions their ideas have murdered in the arrogant imaginings that they are, indeed, smarter than any human who has ever lived. Their arrogance is the cause of the biggest crimes against humanity.
Sadly, these lessons have, in essence, laid the groundwork for these kids to fail in life, hate their parents for the success they earned, and undermine the very basis of this country.
And this is what our children are being taught, not just in Seattle, but all across the country. The question is what are we going to do about it?
*This story is found on the rethinkingschools.org website. An organization described as “Founded in 1986 by activist teachers, Rethinking Schools is a nonprofit, independent publisher of educational materials. We advocate the reform of elementary and secondary education, with a strong emphasis on issues of equity and social justice.”
