"The highest result of education is tolerance."
- Helen Keller, 'Optimism,' 1903
As odd as this quotation may sound, I believe it has merit.
In this case, "tolerance" has many meanings. Among them are tolerance of the opinions of others, of their different religions, skin colours, cultural identities, family histories, even hair colours, tatoos and pierced skin jewelry.
Tolerance, however, also includes those differences which cause many to go to war. Some wars are motivated by greed for what another has that they want and for power over the others. Modern wars concern themselves more with defeating concepts which some find vile.
This latter could include the so-called Cold War. The Cold War, ostensibly one that did not involve fighting, but competition over political ideologies and for dominance in space, was indeed a violent one as the two opposing sides sponsored acts of violence (including supplying weapons) and murder, even genocide, in what the western world called Third World countries. In the First World, these were considered by many to be more skirmishes and revolutions in small countries where power was all that mattered.
When disagreement must be settled with weapons that kill, civilization is but a hollow concept. To those who are motivated by greed or revenge for real or perceived offences, words alone may not turn them back. But a physically powerful opposition that refuses to use its overwhelming brute force to defeat a relatively meager enemy would be a satisfactory first step toward opening dialogue.
In today's world, where no country threatens to take over world domination by force, no reason exists to use superior force. Words would do in many cases. This supposes, of course, that the more powerful force wants to use words rather than weapons and that it knows the right words to use in a dialogue.
Words will also stir up those who seek to use any excuse for violence. We might want to consider the motivations of the Pope of Rome in his recent attacks against Islam, attacks which were supposedly based on facts, but which any student of Islam could have told him were blatantly false and clearly inflamatory.
It's hard to convince people to beat their swords into ploughshares when their leader encourages making more swords.
Words work both ways.
Bill Allin
'Turning It Around: Causes and Cures for Today's Epidemic Social Problems,' striving to use words to encourage those who want peace and to defeat those who want war.
Learn more at http://billallin.com
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 33
Which is why we're in so much trouble today. The leaders of the country with superior power don't seem to have a clue on how to be diplomatic.
It's not just education. Apparently you can have an Ivy League education and still not be able to figure out how to run a successful business even after three tries nor run a country with ideals apparently so complex it goes right over your head.
As to the educated not having the words or not wanting to learn them, if I say what I think I will be on the No-Fly list.
In any case, it is true that with just a little education about another group, whether it is religious or cultural, could save a lot of misunderstandings which can eventually lead to war. I've seen people say the most ridiculous things about things they have no comprehension about and make insulting remarks about another religion because they don't understand it and they fear it.
With just a little effort on the part of these ignorant people, they could educate themselves and learn that their preconceived notions are wrong. Maybe if we all did that we would be a more peaceful world.
Miscommunication and misunderstanding due to culture are also a catalyst for war.
Also consider that many of the people that support, and initiate war are themselves well educated.
There is a crucial kind of education, I think, that actually leads to a mind that does not see violence as a viable solution to problems. It is sometimes called 'enlightenment', and is an education within. Once one learns of themselves, it is not even necessary to know of others before approaching them in peace.
Without this "internal" education, the external kind guarantees nothing.
John and Felix, please make a distinction between education and higher education. Helen Keller meant education in the sense of not being illiterate or lacking in basic knowledge about how to look after yourself.
An Indian economist (whose name I can't remember but he now works in a university in the UK) won a Nobel prize in 2002 for his studies showing that education was the "cure" for poverty. Poverty doesn't result in wars, it creates conditions conducive for chaos where tribal-style leaders can take over and rule the size of fiefdom that they can control. (See Afghanistan, other than Kabul and Kandahar.)
I am having great difficulting grasping your point. Your own article seems a fairly convincing argument against the notion that education alone is the "Key to World Peace". Yet you are apparently asking me to argue against a case you have not yet made for the idea that it is.
I don't understand what distinction you would have me make between levels of education.
Education of otherwise illiterate people is much different from higher education. I can't help you to understand if you can't grasp that.
Looking around the world (as the UN does) its answer to end wars that we in the west hear little about (such as those in Africa) is to educate every child as much as possible.
I disagree that the purpose of education is "for some desired political or religious goal." As a former classroom teacher, I find that offensive. Mind you, I am Canadian and that may make a difference. Other cultures may not be like mine.
Education is a fine thing, most often. It can provide many avenues of enrichment on many levels, and it is surely a worthy goal to provide it for the impoverished people of the world. But;
Your article's title is a question about peace, as a result of education. Your response to my last comment is extremely evasive, in my opinion. To assume that I am not fully aware of what you wrote, is a form of arrogance, and does nothing to substantiate your nonexistent argument on how education will end war, or other less horrific forms of violence.
The world is almost completely controlled by "educated" people, yet it is filled with violence of virtually every conceivable kind, the bulk of which is perpetrated by "educated" people. To site the lack of education in many of those impacted by this violence is to me an avoidance of this reality, and essentially is a form of "blaming the victim".
You yourself, in your article site numerous examples of well educated people engaging in violent activities, and such a list of these "anomalies" could stretch to the end of the internet. I will touch upon but one obvious example of the failure of education to end violence, and major warfare;
World War Two was the greatest conflagration in history, the level of violence was staggering. The intentional killing of non-combatants was unprecedented, and unrestrained. All the major players in this nightmare were countries with high levels of educated citizens, and all the leaders of those countries were highly educated individuals.
If "education" alone is the antidote for violence, this war should never have been. And this holds true for the wars fought in the wake of that catastrophe, including the major one this country is now engaged in; Iraq, which was also a nation with a high percentage of "educated" citizens, as are we.
If you cannot make a logical case for the proposition that "Education The Key to World Peace", this is not a problem to me. I know that all good things are not justifiable by logic all the time. But if your contention along these lines is based on assumptions about how "educating" the impoverished people of the world will alter the behavior of the powerful (and educated), please do not fault others for finding cause to doubt your presumption. That is what thinking humans are want to do.
The point I should have stressed (and did not) is that if you want to achieve peace, you must teach peace to all children. That isn't done. Teaching peace is the link to education, John. The circle is closed.
What you say that is taught in history classes in the US today is what all history classes used to be like. "History" meant a history of war.
But that's not waht history is, really. It's the history of people. It's just taught as the history of war. That's what I was taught in school too.
What comes between anthropology and what happens in our own lifetimes? The history of people.
People sometimes make war, but they don't ALWAYS make war, which is what the old concept of history suggests.
"Teaching peace" could be as simple as doing impromptu lessons, as a potential conflict situation arises, about finding other ways to resolve a problem that violence.
I once had a child, in my grade three class, who stole pencil crayons from nearby desks after school. She was underdeveloped socially (a bit), underdeveloped emotionally (a bit), tall and attractive (physical attributes that ensured that she was not socially ostracized) and of a lower socio-economic status than most of the others in the class.
Long story short, after our "class meeting" where her theft was made public and the class had to decide what should be done about it, the girl was encouraged to join in everything thereafter by every group of girls, her self esteem shot up and she went from an average student to a much higher level, as befit her intellectual ability. I just provided a little "social guidance" to achieve the goals for her that I was after.
Also, there were no social outcasts in that class after that. All the kids knew that kids don't misbehave because they are bad, but because they have needs that are not met. At 7-8 years of age, they could understand the sociology lesson that most adults seem unaware of.
Bill, thank you for sharing this story. I wish there were more teachers like you. I also appreciate that you mention this: It's the history of people. It's just taught as the history of war. That's what I was taught in school too. What comes between anthropology and what happens in our own lifetimes? The history of people. I think our failure to address this is one of the biggest problems in our education system. My experience with people from other countries is that they do learn how people differ around the world, and have some understanding of how things can be different and still 'right' in the context of the other country.
This girl would have become more of a victim than she made herself among the girls if I had not intervened. Instead, she will become a model citizen and a blessing to have in her community and her family.
Sometimes the risks pay off. This story was a keeper.
Schools cannot overcome stupidity. In all things remember the bell shaped curve. (Gresham's Law has already applied to schools.)
Schools are largely responsible for creating the stupidity you mention. It's not in their mandate to overcome what they create. It's built into the system and has been there since the mid 1800s.
Going off in different directions means diversity. Where I live, we welcome diversity. It works for us.
Schools are responsible for ignorance.
Stupidity comes from DNA. Not having the correct DNA to deal with what society considers very important OR not being able to take care of oneself.)
Gresham's law states (roughly) that bad (inflated) money drives out good money. Can you extrapolate here? Or are you an example of Gresham's law?
Diversity doesn't have to"work;" it is a value. Did I question your value system?
I am familiar with Gresham's Law, just not with how it applies here. I guess I was driven out of the loop.
Let's not begin a conflict here. I will decline to reply if I think that someone will be hurt or offended by what I write.
I'm just asking questions. If you can't or won't answer them why did you publish the article in the first place?
This is my last post to this thread. It's over for me.
Thank you for a valuable lesson. You practice what you preach.
Ignorant and illiterate people are not more likely to be "unpeaceful". It has been the greedy and selfish educated populace that violate the peace.
How was reconciliation reached, was it reached, did not reaching out and finding common ground lead to the next war and the next....??!!. Thanks to all for thoughtful commentary on a important issue. World Peace Eventually or Global Anialation! My vote is for Peace and understanding! Ken
Horowitz: Reich Wing Hater In Academia
excerpt =
``Horowitz launched into an unscripted two-hour tirade that meandered between selective (and dubious) readings of Middle East history
... as usual, he offered up a sensational and bizarre spectacle that appeared better suited for the US tabloid talk show circuit than a forum of legitimate public debate.
... Prominent conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife has poured 4.2 million dollars into Horowitz's activities
... He also compared his own father, a communist Queens schoolteacher, to Mohammad Atta, the operational leader of the 9/11 attacks.
"It was like listening to the ravings of a lunatic on a subway car," said Blumenthal. "The only difference was that on the subway the police are there to remove the lunatic and here they were there to protect the lunatic."
..................................................................................................................................
Yes, education can be a source for peace and understanding. But that would not include this type of hate and warmongering fueled by wealthy warmongering elites.