Civic illiteracy.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**dogma**

This is pretty interesting. Apparently we are a very stupid people. Not surprising really, generational success tends to breed ignorance.

I would argue that specific memorization of facts is pretty much worthless, but then a lot of people have accused me of ignoring the Constitution in my arguments. Of course, those are generally people that have not actually read, or understood, the Constitution.

**Kilkrazy**

Not stupid but ignorant, perhaps.

We never had citizenship classes as such when I was at school. Such topics were introduced through other lessons or side activities. For example, we did a project on the general election. It was for English, and we learned about the electoral process by doing it.

I don't agree that specific memorisation is worthless. It depends on what is set to be memorised, how it is used and what critical tools are taught to let people appraise and make use of facts.

A historian would be lost without a basic timeline of events. At school I was made to learn the dates of the kings and queens of England. By itself that information is pretty useless, but it gives a framework on which to build a greater store of knowledge and cross-references.

**dogma**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't agree that specific memorisation is worthless. It depends on what is set to be memorised, how it is used and what critical tools are taught to let people appraise and make use of facts.

A historian would be lost without a basic timeline of events. At school I was made to learn the dates of the kings and queens of England. By itself that information is pretty useless, but it gives a framework on which to build a greater store of knowledge and cross-references.

Ah, yes, I agree. I suppose that's really what I meant when I commented on the worth of memorization, poor phrase on my part. I seem to be doing that a lot lately.

This is, unfortunately, an old ax of the Constructionalist (of which the author, Cal Thomas, is a member) movement. They suppose that it is only an ignorant understanding of the Constitution which has allowed the Government (big G because it makes it scary) to bring us institutions like the Fed.

**jp400**

Dogma is your name Fox Mulder by chance?

**dogma**

jp400 wrote:Dogma is your name Fox Mulder by chance?

I'm confused by the implication. Are you saying I believe in government conspiracies? Because I've been accused of a lot of things in my life, and being unusually fearful of the State is not one of them.

**Da Boss**

Well, now you have.

**Typeline**

I'm honestly not very surprised by any of this. Of course no one knows anything about the constitution. Schools aren't really geared toward that anymore. They are geared toward making you score high on your tests so the school gets funding. Less civics more math/science.

None of this will matter anyway. America as a country will eventually have to collapse then things will be square for awhile while we try to form a series of different nations. Or zombie apocalypse. Either way, hope I get to see it and live through it.

**RapidKiller**

this really pains me to defend the americans when i love to bash them with a heavy brick, but so what if some one doesnt know the entirety of the Gettysburg address, or the name of FDR's plan. Its not like anyone needs to know that to have a career or become successful (unless becoming something related to history).

**Kilkrazy**

You can say that about lots of things.

There are two reasons for studying things like the Gettysburg Address.

1. Because it is one of the 100 best pieces of public oratory ever given and worth reading for the inspiring content.

2. Because you never know what little piece of knowledge or discovery will fire up a child's imagination and enthusiasm and launch them on an important course of life.

It's not even very long.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Memorising stuff is a useful skill for various professions such as doctors, actors and lawyers.

**sebster**

RapidKiller wrote:this really pains me to defend the americans when i love to bash them with a heavy brick, but so what if some one doesnt know the entirety of the Gettysburg address, or the name of FDR's plan. Its not like anyone needs to know that to have a career or become successful (unless becoming something related to history).

FDR's plan is one of the most significant peices of economic policy there's been, even looking outside the US. If you don't know its name it is probably safe to say you can't meaningfully comment on economic policy.

EDIT- the general 'you' that is, didn't mean you specifically RapidKiller. Sorry if that reads as an attack.

**malfred**

RapidKiller wrote:this really pains me to defend the americans when i love to bash them with a heavy brick, but so what if some one doesnt know the entirety of the Gettysburg address, or the name of FDR's plan. Its not like anyone needs to know that to have a career or become successful (unless becoming something related to history).

Speeches are important. I know in this past campaign it's been said that speeches are also
a lot of rhetoric, but speeches leave an imprint on the national emotional and political
landscape. They are more real for citizens, I sometimes think, than the legislation they
inspire. They personify the best and worst of a nation at a specific period in time.

Just think of the "I Have a Dream" speech and tell me that Americans shouldn't know
the speaking history of their country.

**Frazzled**

This is what happens when the latest cause of the week is more important than real history. Less "Save the Planet" month (real month in boy's Jr. High) and more John Locke is clearly required here.

**Mekniakal**

RapidKiller wrote:this really pains me to defend the americans when i love to bash them with a heavy brick, but so what if some one doesnt know the entirety of the Gettysburg address, or the name of FDR's plan. Its not like anyone needs to know that to have a career or become successful (unless becoming something related to history).

One way it is important to at least know the gist of previous speeches is because it helps inoculates you from simple lies that are bandied around as truth. If you haven't read the Gettysburg Address, or know what FDR's plan is, or hell, what "Reaganomics" actually means, it is far easier to accept at face value what other people say about the meaning/intentions of said speeches/plans/etc.

It's like when someone goes and says that so-and-so politician is a "socialist" this or "communist" that. For example; if we go my the metric set by the original socialist party in America, we're pretty much all dirty socialists! (Do you like eight-hour workdays? Socialist!)

Oh, and I quickly searched the original article and couldn't find a link to the test. So I searched and found it http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/. You can take the test and see how well you do. If you want to know something scary, most U.S. elected officials scored only 44% on this test.

**Frazzled**

10 is inaccurate (91% not including that) several are theories actually and deserve a "we'll see."

**Aduro**

malfred wrote:
RapidKiller wrote:this really pains me to defend the americans when i love to bash them with a heavy brick, but so what if some one doesnt know the entirety of the Gettysburg address, or the name of FDR's plan. Its not like anyone needs to know that to have a career or become successful (unless becoming something related to history).

Speeches are important. I know in this past campaign it's been said that speeches are also
a lot of rhetoric, but speeches leave an imprint on the national emotional and political
landscape. They are more real for citizens, I sometimes think, than the legislation they
inspire. They personify the best and worst of a nation at a specific period in time.

Just think of the "I Have a Dream" speech and tell me that Americans shouldn't know
the speaking history of their country.

So we're really supposed to memorize every single political speech and be able to hear a single phrase and know exactly which speech it came from? Or is there a list of this 100 best speeches and I only have to fully memorize every single line of those 100?

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
10 is inaccurate (91% not including that) several are theories actually and deserve a "we'll see."

No it isn't:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Seems like it guarantees the freedom of religion to me.

Also, which ones pertain to theories?

13 doesn't have a correct answer. Well, it does, but only in the sense that the simplest answer is the most correct. There is some debate as to whether Aristotle believed in absolute truth, the same for Socrates.

**malfred**

Only 84 % :(

**Aduro**

You answered 30 out of 33 correctly — 90.91 %

I missed 13, 14, and 33.

**Mekniakal**

There is a bit of bias in the questions:

For example:

9) Under Our Constitution, some powers belong to the federal government. What is one power of the federal government?
A. Make treaties
B. Levy income taxes
C. Maintain prisons
D. Natural Disaster Aid

You could make an argument for A or B because of the sixteenth amendment, which states;

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

I guess you could make the argument that an amendment is technically not part of a constitution, but it still seems strange.

Irregardles, even with those weird little quirks, I imagine any grown adult getting less the 75% on this test. I got 90.91 because I don't know much about the economy

**Kilkrazy**

Aduro wrote:
malfred wrote:
RapidKiller wrote:this really pains me to defend the americans when i love to bash them with a heavy brick, but so what if some one doesnt know the entirety of the Gettysburg address, or the name of FDR's plan. Its not like anyone needs to know that to have a career or become successful (unless becoming something related to history).

Speeches are important. I know in this past campaign it's been said that speeches are also
a lot of rhetoric, but speeches leave an imprint on the national emotional and political
landscape. They are more real for citizens, I sometimes think, than the legislation they
inspire. They personify the best and worst of a nation at a specific period in time.

Just think of the "I Have a Dream" speech and tell me that Americans shouldn't know
the speaking history of their country.

So we're really supposed to memorize every single political speech and be able to hear a single phrase and know exactly which speech it came from? Or is there a list of this 100 best speeches and I only have to fully memorize every single line of those 100?

You should at least be aware of the major speeches, who made them, when and why, the basic content and the most memorable phrases.

The 100 best speeches were collected by The Guardian in the UK and included speeches from all over the world. You can probably find the list on their website.

**Kilkrazy**

I got 88%.

I think that's pretty good as I'm English and have never studied the US Constitution.

**efarrer**

As a Canadian I feel pretty impressed with myself for getting 88%.

Question #1 - E. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
I think I knew it. The answer just felt like a trick question. I chose:
A. life, liberty, and property
Question #7 - D. Gettysburg Address
I guessed. I chose
B. Declaration of Independence
Question #8 - C. appoint additional Supreme Court justices who shared his views
It felt too Canadian
B. eliminate the Supreme Court
Question #27 - A. the price system utilizes more local knowledge of means and ends
Honestly, this should not be on a civics test. I disagree with this answer since a true free market doesn't exist, and the truest free market is currently blowing up.
D. property rights and contracts are best enforced by the market system

**Frazzled**

efarrer wrote:As a Canadian I feel pretty impressed with myself for getting 88%.

Question #1 - E. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
I think I knew it. The answer just felt like a trick question. I chose:
A. life, liberty, and property
Question #7 - D. Gettysburg Address
I guessed. I chose
B. Declaration of Independence
Question #8 - C. appoint additional Supreme Court justices who shared his views
It felt too Canadian
B. eliminate the Supreme Court
Question #27 - A. the price system utilizes more local knowledge of means and ends
Honestly, this should not be on a civics test. I disagree with this answer since a true free market doesn't exist, and the truest free market is currently blowing up.
D. property rights and contracts are best enforced by the market system

You must have read John Locke. Life, liberty, property.

I too guessed Declaration of Independence. I know of the Gettysberg address only in that it was eloquent and short. it really doesn't say anything, just like most famous speeches. Actions and causes of the Yankee War of Northern Aggression

are substantially more important than what the Lincoln-Douglas debate was about.

**Kilkrazy**

The Lincoln-Douglas debates were part of the symptoms of the underlying social tensions that brought about the ACW.

Namely, what to do about slavery.

**Frazzled**

True but not especially relevant. What is taught is the length of it. Buchanan's ineptness in dealing with the crisis is what is not taught especially well, and that is far more important. Talky talky speech memorization is irrelevant vs. learning what caused the actual conflicts and what people did about it. Roosevelt's speech after Pearl Harbor is taught, but why the Japanese had an embargo put on them by the US is barely taught.

**Ahtman**

dogma wrote:13 doesn't have a correct answer. Well, it does, but only in the sense that the simplest answer is the most correct. There is some debate as to whether Aristotle believed in absolute truth, the same for Socrates.

I agree. It wasn't difficult to figure out what answer they wanted, but I'm not sure that murder of philosophers (philosophers are like crows you know) really is all that appropriate or well thought out.

Frazzled wrote:Roosevelt's speech after Pearl Harbor is taught, but why the Japanese had an embargo put on them by the US is barely taught.

It is because they wouldn't share their Pocky™.

31/33 I still have trouble with the economics questions. While not ignorant of economic theory, it just isn't a strong area.

**Kilkrazy**

Frazzled wrote:True but not especially relevant. What is taught is the length of it. Buchanan's ineptness in dealing with the crisis is what is not taught especially well, and that is far more important. Talky talky speech memorization is irrelevant vs. learning what caused the actual conflicts and what people did about it. Roosevelt's speech after Pearl Harbor is taught, but why the Japanese had an embargo put on them by the US is barely taught.

That's just lazy (or junior level) curriculum design.

The value of a great speech should be to crystallise and illustrate a point drawing on a wider look at history which brings out the key trends.

IMO.

**Frazzled**

Meh. Its probably because I've sat through too many speeches that were exercises in tedium. Most speeches could be put down to one phrase. Still not especially relevant to a knowledge base. But thats personal opinion.