OT: How Hollywood is rewriting the role of the British and the USA in war (Big)

[killmore]

You think you got problems?

I have seen "historical" books that say 4 million Jews died in Polish prison camps.

(Instead of: 4 million jews died in German/Nazi concentration camps in Poland)

Otherwise:

Can you say "BraverHart"?

Or

"Bravehart 2"

[Holman]

Stoffel,

You're referring to (Orson) Welles' broadcast version of (H.G.) Wells' WAR OF THE WORLDS. In the interest of historical accuracy, you should remember that this broadcast occurred in (I may be off by several months) 1939, when Americans (and Europeans) were on the whole much less scientifically literate than they are today. The ominous tone of world events at the time might also have contributed to readiness to credit news of an "invasion," don't you think?

Anyway, though, trying to compare whole nations on the basis of a few examples is silly.

[Allan]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stoffel:

Although it has nothing to do with films I want to say this to Allan,

You say you could distinquis real things from science fiction.

Please explain to me why many people in the US tought they were attacked by Mars after hearing war of the worlds on the radio.

Many people actually believed it and fled their houses. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hearing is the key word here. It was a radio play. My generation was raised on TV and cheesy sci-fi movies. You could tell that the aliens were fake due to poor quality effects of the day. In the War of the Worlds, the special effects were in one's mind due to nature of radio. The power of the mind and imagination is far greater than any special effect Hollywood could produce. Add this to the paranoia of the era and you have people believing the invasion was real. I remember watching those sci-fi films with my dad. Even though I knew the monsters were fake, I was still frightened just a bit. I hope this addresses your question.

Allan

[This message has been edited by Allan (edited 06-05-2000).]

[Speedy]

What you Americans threw away good tea!!!!!

If thats the case, that Tarleton chap had every right to go around lopping of peasants' heads. Its not as if those damn colonials are of any importance.

------------------

IN VINO VERITAS

[Miyamoto Musashi]

I think most of the discussion here has been right on, and I think the jist of the article, that Hollywood enjoys distorting history, is unfortunately very true. I'm surprised the article didn't mention movies aimed at children, like the animated Anastasia and Pocahontas, which were huge lies wrapped up in cartoon form. Anastasia came out when I was in grad school, studying the American Revolution, ironically enough. A friend of mine was doing his thesis on Russian history, and the trailers for Anastasia irked him to no end. And Pocahontas... well I don't want to waste my time on that

Anyways, the point I wanted to make was about something that was said in the article. The Times piece said that Hollywood was more interested in portraying all historical characters (or at least the ones portrayed as heroes) as modern liberals. I think this is entirely true, as is the point that, instead of looking down on Nazis, etc., we should be more concerned with the circumstances which created those ideas. Who's to say that modern liberalism is the ideal? Obviously the predominately liberal Hollywood personalities would say this is the case, but I think personally that many stories in history are very interesting as they actually occurred. There's nothing wrong with showing the men and women of the various periods as who they are, with shortcomings and differing ideas... this would be much more interesting (not to mention truthful) than transposing a bunch of 21st century attitudes and ideas onto 18th century people.

Anyways, FWIW...

[Guest Big Time Software]

Well, what the Times guys totally dropped the ball on is the fact that characters and stories are *almost always* flavored by the times when the tale was produced. The propaganda films out of the 3rd Reich made Frederick the Great seem like the poster child for the NSDAP. And let us not forget that for decades Hollywood made hundreds of films where the "Red Man" was the bad guy and figures played by the likes of "The Duke" were the good guys. This was also taught in schools as well. Turns out it wasn't so true after all...

On a semi related note... Ever seen Gilbert and Sullivan's "Mikado"? It was supposedly about feudal Japan, but was in fact about 19th century British society. And this is the funny thing... it was banned (IIRC) in Britain because it was "offensive to the Japanese people". Oddly enough, the Japanese LOVED the musical. Why? Because they got the joke Of course the British governement did as well, hence the banning While living in London I saw a performance of the musical where they had updated it to the 1920s and the joke was on the current British Government (Maggie at the time). Just goes to show how timeless some things can be.

Steve

[Mark IV]

Then there's old Francis Parkman, who wrote about the Great Lakes (and other) Indians before we knew how we were "supposed" to write about them. The Noble Savage doesn't always look so good up close- check out the Mackinac Massacre, or the Conspiracy of Pontiac, sometime.

If history had been written by the Ojibwa, the Iroquois would have been the Totenkopf SS, and the Totenkopf would have seemed downright merciful by comparison. The Iroquois are one hell of a subject in themselves.

Parkman is our most readable historian, and provides abundant scenario material for CM46: The French and Indian Wars (TELL me ice skate troops will be modelled, or NO preorder).

G&S rule. Awaiting the sensation of a short, sharp shock. Pinafore? Penzance? Reason enough to forgive the Brits...

[Spook]

I personally lean to Allan Eckert's style, although I've only read "Sorrow in Our Heart" (Tecumseh's story). I think that Tecumseh's life & accomplishments would make a great movie, but I suspect the PC forces would take their toll in such a project.

[Formerly Babra]

It is unfortunate, but true, that there are literally millions of people who will never read a history book, will never look behind a story to discover the truth in it. And such people outnumber us, my friends. Yes, Hollywood (and Pinewood and every other studio) is in the entertainment business alone, but they do have the power to corrupt the truth.

Case in point: Captain Bligh, RN. Scary fellow, what? Everyone *knows* what a terrible fellow he was. However, if all you know of this man was garnered from Mutiny on the Bounty (any version) then you've been misinformed to a degree you would hardly believe they had the audacity to pull. That's what Hollywood does. They tell stories.

There have been a string of historical films in the past few years which have portrayed the English as little better than land-stealing, wife-raping, baby-killing thugs. The English have become the stock bad boy for Hollywood costume Epics. Rob Roy, Braveheart, The Patriot... This is propaganda in its most basic form, and it will leave its mark on the uneducated.

Tarleton WAS savage. The whole campaign in the south was marked by its singular brutality on both sides. I repeat -- both sides. Will that be portrayed in The Patriot? I doubt it.

Film-makers are not under any contract to produce only the truth, but they must be cognizant of the images and stereotypes they portray and they ought to at least make an effort at fairness. To consistently portray an entire nation (and a so-called ally at that) in such a poor light is patently unfair.

------------------

When I die I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car

[Guest Big Time Software]

Oh, I agree. But if you want to start criticising the impact of Hollywood (and TV studios) on society, set aside a couple of weeks to just write the stuff down Hollywood has ingrained the notion that the gun solves problems, for example, instead of creating them. It also loves to blow any current event out of proportion to make a clumsy moral message. So it is no wonder that it butchers history since it has no concept of social responsiblity at all. Not sure it should, but that is the argument that rages at local and national levels about all sorts of things (violent music, video games, etc.).

I once listened to a report on the radio about a study (or was it a book?) about the dumbing down of the world's population (please note the word WORLD here). The theory was fleshed out with a lot of research and certainly makes sense to me. It is a simple case of numbers. In general, "smart" and/or educated people are fewer than "stupid" and/or uneducated ones. In general the ones which have more kids are the ones that are stupid or uneducated. So for every 2 "smart" people they produce 1 child, while for every 2 "stupid" people produce 4-6 kids. Since the latter is the least able to provide for their kids, the majority of them wind up adding to the wrong side of the equation, which is already unbalanced. There were other things mentioned, but this one thing has always stuck in my mind.

Steve

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Hollywood has ingrained the notion that the gun solves problems, for example, instead of creating them<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One silver lining, is that they seem to be teaching that the best way to use them, is to shoot 2 at a time while holding them sideways. Thus those most likely to believe what they watch, are least likely to survive the first experiment.

Hollywood "gets away with" more "truth" in movies than TV. Amazing that they can sell violence and sex while engaging in social engineering.

And then "Zulu" did glorify (rightly, I believe) the men at Rorke's Drift, in a REALLY unjust war that the British provoked with a relatively harmless "savage".

[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 06-05-2000).]

[Lorak]

I just wonder how much research goes into some of the movies, and what they choose to leave out.

In braveheart 2; will they discuss or put in at all the templar knights that fought on the side of Robert? For some reason I have the feeling they will be left out, even though they did play a big role in the english fear factor.

just rambling...

Lorak

------------------

http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/combatmissionclub

Lorak's FTX for CM <--Proud member of the Combat Mission Webring

[Miyamoto Musashi]

Oh, and Steve's "dumbing down" point reminded me of something I meant to include in my earlier discourse... I heard on the radio the other day about Pres. Clinton's discussion with the new Russian president, Putin. I guess Bill's dream (aside from erasing his embarassing episodes from the world's collective memory) is to put a computer with internet capability in every village and hamlet in the world (literally, no sarcasm there at all). Now I have no problem with this... at least no problem with the internet being available as a communication tool. But Bill's looking at this as a big educational thing... as if internet computers will help these villages and hamlets across the world begin to produce cancer researchers, etc.

I DO have a problem with this view that the internet is an end-all to the education problem. I use the internet every day, so I don't want to appear as though I'm knocking the 'net... but I don't think the internet is this big education solution that's going to turn our slouching schools into genius factories (unless we redefine "genius" to mean someone who's ultra-competent with a computer... but that's another story). How is a computer in a village going to improve those people's education? How is it going to help those children's minds to blossom, anymore than reading books can? In the U.S., we have a computer per child in a lot of the wealthier school systems, and at least one computer in most if not all of the other schools (as opposed to a computer per town) and this hasn't seemed to help our world ranking in education.

Of course, the argument against an overreliance on technology has gone on for years, especially in the last half of the 20th century. And as I said, the Internet is a fine tool for doing all sorts of things (like buying superior wargames )... and I believe it can be responsibly used to aid in the educational process. But I still don't think that surfing the web and looking at streaming video can replace reading information in a book. I just don't see how the mind watching pictures is more stimulated or grows faster than the mind which is forced to paint its own pictures as it translates words on paper into viable thoughts. Now I may be proved wrong in the coming years; we may begin to see a rash of superbrains emerge from the new "wired" schools. But judging from the early returns, I seriously doubt it...

[Lorak]

I don't know about the "net" creating genius. But this forum sure isn't helping job productivity... from my point of view anyway.

Lorak

------------------

http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/combatmissionclub

Lorak's FTX for CM <--Proud member of the Combat Mission Webring

[Marty]

It seems the movie world knows what buttons to hit in order to make those dollars - and more power to them if they are up front about it. But some of there actions are really questionable.

A few years ago Disney Studios attempted to open another "Disney World" style park in Virginia, near Manassas, I think. This park was to 'celebrate' the American Experience. The locals organized to oppose it for several reasons, property values and traffic being a couple. However, one of the big factors in Disney losing out was that people, having seen some of the "historical" features Disney produced, decided they didn't want an entire theme park of warped American history.

[Spook]

While I certainly don’t feel “entertained” by seeing the British (or any other nationality) being reduced to caricature-level in “historical” films, I have the following comment to Lord Puttnam & the Times writers in regards to their perception of anti-British bias:

Reap what you sow.

OK, so it’s gotten tiresome for them to see repeat British-bashing in recent films like Braveheart, Last of the Mohicans, Rob Roy, Michael Collins, etc., etc. Does that allow them to presume that English history-based films have always held up some elusive standard of objectivity? Bull****, I say.

The most flagrant example to me is the Ken Branaugh version of "Henry V." Sure, Ken could argue that he was only sticking to the Shakespeare play, but his film version seemed to strive for an “authentic, emotional” appearance of the Agincourt battle. At the battle’s climax in the film, we see that some spiteful French horsemen are able to penetrate through the English forces and slaughter the defenseless boys watching the camp, then ride off with no further interest to fight the English. Henry’s men rush back to the camp but are too late, and thus rage at the “base villainy” of the Frenchmen for “violating the rules of war.”

Uuhhhhh……why was there no portrayal of the FACTUAL slaughter of 3,000-plus French prisoners at Agincourt, by Henry’s order, when Henry mistakenly thought he was flanked and felt himself shorthanded? Doesn’t that sort of dim this “rage” that the English should be allowed to show in this film? OK, again, the film was supposed to be borrowed strictly from Shakespeare, who never claimed to be a historian. But with the “enlightened” view of the 1980’s, couldn’t have Branaugh done a little more to be “fair” in his portrayal of Agincourt as a historical event? In other words, couldn’t he have stepped a bit away from Shakespeare for the sake of objectivity?

And Lord Puttnam with his “Chariots of Fire.” While his was a good movie, was it a story told strictly to relate the personal lives of two British athletes that would achieve greatness at the ’24 Olympics? Or were their stories and that particular Olympic event chosen to apply a distinct “pro-British” filter? I personally tend to believe the latter, all the more due to an added scene early in the film at a British academy that showed a plaque with a list of former students who died in WW1. None of this was inherent wrong or misleading to do; it’s only that as the film progressed, the nationality bias of Puttnam’s was rather obvious to me. The potent lesson to some movies & stories like this is that even when "sticking to facts", the selective usage of facts or history COULD have a hidden bias or agenda.

Would it be that “historical license” was taken only in filmmaking, but this isn’t the case even with “official histories” coming from Britain or many other nations. When James Campbell tried to access information for his book on the disastrous RAF bombing raid on Nuremburg, he found the “official” RAF and strategic bombing histories to be woefully lacking in information. And Bomber Command chief Harris made no mention of it in his post-war book. It wasn’t really an out-and-out cover-up (like Slapton Sands by SHAEF), but there definitely was an effort to “de-emphasize” and obscure the Nuremburg raid, which cost more lives than either Schweinfurt or Ploesti for the USAAF, and was even less successful in bombing results.

So while I would welcome the goal of Lord Puttnam and the Times writers to see more objective treatment of the British in “historical” film projects, these people should first recognize that objectivity has to be a two-way street to work. And as Steve has mentioned earlier anyway, the presumption that Hollywood would EVER concern itself with historical objectivity is likely an exercise in futility.

[fatherof6]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So for every 2 "smart" people they produce 1 child, while for every 2 "stupid" people produce 4-6 kids.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Boo Hoo. Steve called my wife and me "stupid".

Although sometimes I'm tempted to agree with him, the only way he can mollify my hurt feelings is to send me a copy of the final release today.

Glenn

[This message has been edited by fatherof6 (edited 06-06-2000).]

[Supertanker]

I'm getting tired of that "post-literate society" line, myself. I believe the increasing focus on technology and the Internet is driving first- and second-world societies the other way. How can you participate in discussions like this one without a decent grasp of the written word? Even a Usenet flamewar requires more skills than the most challenging film or television show. Bah.

[Guest Captitalistdoginchina]

Someone mentioned earlier about the internet influence....Well let me tell you people do believe what they see or read, whether it is on the internet or in movies.

I work here in China and all my staff are local Chinese, i often have to re-educate them on various subjects - During conversations one will make a sweeping statement which to me is clearly untrue, and i would ask where did you learn of this? ."Oh i read it on the internet so it MUST be true" is a common reply. Or "I saw it in a movie".

Nowadays so many young people are easily fooled, and in countries like China millions of people have been educated to believe anything that is written or seen. (A throwback from communist propaganda material). The Chinese never, ever questioned what they saw or read - it was believed and followed wholeheartedly. So the damage caused by such hollywodd movies has a bigger impact on Asian countries than in the west where a different education system allowed a more free thinking thought process.

The bombing of the China embassy was a good point, the china government released a statement that suggested the bombing was deliberate, I can tell you 98% of the population immediately beleived it and never once questioned that statement - to this day they believe that it was a deliberate act.

The impact on history that these movies portray is a real worry for the younger generation, these movies are in a way, a form of propaganda - and throughout history propaganda proved to be very effective indeed.

Sorry if i have digressed.

CDIC

------------------

"Death solves all problems - no man no problem"

J.V.Stalin, 1918

[Guest Big Time Software]

Heheh... Father of 6, you are clearly intelligent. Afterall, you like CM

Seriously, you have made up for about 3 childless couples I know, but you aren't making a dent in the problem. You can try for double digits, but all you are doing is filling up your house more

Steve

[dumbo]

What a disturbingly sane thread. Somethings gone wrong here 8)

I do actually buy into the notion that the internet helps with education, I certainly get a different perspective on the news by reading the times of india every day rather than relying on anglo-american interpretations.

That said some beliefs are really ingrained. I remember growing up in England where you could scarcely find a person who didnt attribute some kind of moral equivelency to the west and the soviet union which looks utterly daft nowadays. Frankly after reading so much about Stalins camps I regard those views of "well they both have good and bad points" as pretty repugnant self delusion.

However as I said before I dont worry too much about hollywoods effect on people, mainly becuase I cant rationalize the argument which usually goes like this

A-"Hollywood makes people beleive stupid things"

B-"But what about you?"

A-"I am smarter than the common folk."

While A might well be correct I still have a hard time with it, if ya follow my drift.

oh well its late,

good thread

bedtime for dumbo

[Screamin Demon]

In that movie Braveheart they dont tell you that a couple of hundred years later some dude named Charles from England came back to Scotland and kicked their asses.

I beleive they should have because now everyone thinks "yay Scotland kicked the evil English bastards asses, woohoo England sucks" but that just isnt right!

Here is just a bit of Holywood style crap that i recently found creeping into my own school------>

In book I recently read in school it said in the history of WWII part that the United States army was rescued from the beaches of Dunkirk, and not the English, I almost puked.

Thats my last useless post for tonight in my wild attempt to get my Member status back

Mr. Demon

[Allan]

Well I just watched a movie called "Dogma". It is about two angels trying to get back into Heaven( Matt Damon and Ben Affleck). It is almost Monty Python like in its style. Anyway, the point being during one scene, Alan Rickman who is an angel appears to a mortal. The mortal starts spouting religous quotes or something. Alan Rickman then says(paraphrasing) "Geez what's up with you people? You see "The Ten Commandments" (the movie) and everbody is an expert in theology. Don't you ever read?"

Maybe this is a case of Hollywood making fun of itself and its impact on society. Oh well, food for thought.

Allan

[Bobbaro]

Yup, this has been one of the wiser threads. Lots of points to set the old neurons sparking. A normal newspaper article, flawed and unflawed, not too unlike its readers, both first hand and otherwise- and the ripples back and forth across the pond has brought forth a lot of apt observations.

I am not too sure which of movie making's two prime objectives comes first, entertainment or money making. Seems like that stick has two ends of which the absence of either one uncreates the stick. This animal is biped and locomotion is lost in the absence of either one.

In an upcoming movie yet to be filmed to be entitled The Windtalkers the story's script set in Saipan calls for a GI to kill a poisonous snake. That snakes did not exist on that island does not even occur to the writer, for whom the issues of entertainment are prime. Everyone "knows" that movie snakes are all poisonous. Hell, the same is true of a huge porportion of the population concerning real snakes. It remains to be seen whether that movie indiscretion can be altered in this case. If the director likes it, it will stay. Movie induced fear sells.

I was pleased to see the Allen Eckhart reference. His books impressed me to no end. To have history presented in the manner he does it is probably the best possible way to introduce that kind of informantion. It runs the way a grognard would demand of Hollywood. It intertains and appears to maintain a fidelity to the facts in a way that even formal histories might do well to emulate. I think his presentation imbeds into it the human nature of the all the participants in such a way, that makes it unnecessary to have to explicitly draw conclusions about their nature for the reader. The Indians and the Europeans, immigrant and locally born, are just laid out as the record has it, and the record seems plain enough. One puts down a Eckhart book, feeling that these were familiar people, capable of all the stupid, predudicial behaviour and thinking as well as that of the practical, mundane day to day life sustaining acitvities, and on occasion nobility that one finds going on presently.

This is the way history is for the historian as one extracts from the primary and often tedious, mouldy, and difficult sources, those glimmers and insights into the past that build a comprehensive vision of what was, without the tedium of the search and without the cloak of deadly boring text and uninspired classwork. Praise be to those few, those blessed ect. who make the story come alive for the rest of us in or out of a class.

By the way, on the Patriot movie, the makers did have the grace to change the names of the historical characters to a sort of parapharase version in recognition that their product was not history. There is no Tarleton in the movie. His character goes by another name which only evokes an impression of the orignal - for those who know enough to notice.

One thing I have never understood is why most of the story tellers, Hollywood or otherwise, fail to comprehend that the factual story was generally and often more entertaining than their altered product when messing around with the historical. In answer to my own question, I can see the constraints of time and the medium and the mispercecption that their audience was incapable a better intellectual response than low level reflexes. We all know that even educated and well read people are capable of responding to Hollywood's appeal to less than the most sophisticated in humanity through our own personal experences. We find ourselves as succeptable to the primative appeal, as does the cat's wandering attention, instantly fixed by the flutter of a feather.

I suppose in the art of the movie no less than music and literature, cliches reign. It is the nature of man himself. I find it difficult to distinguish much difference in so much of it, classical or otherwise, as motiefs are borrowed, stolen or anyhow repeated. Given the clumsiness of most of us in the performing skills, we just cannot let go of our fascination with that which we do not possess, that a lot of well performed drivel is deemed wonderful - for a while. Buying the sizzle not the steak.

I think nothing serves any better than Monty, although others serve as well, to shine light on that facet of human nature that rallys each to his own self, family, clan, village, flag, etc. He has struck as bright a spark from the flint as any steel ever has. Both in the record of the time and in the secondary evolutions, this guy has elicited such a **** storm of ego and counter ego that one hardly trusts any account in trying to get close to the reality. He has served not only as a great study in military leadership, but also as a great opportunity to watch human nature at work in those who worked with him, and later those who expressed their opionion about his role in the war. It seems to me that those at the poles in the matter are the least supportable. Leadership comes in many forms. Often the occasion more than the man determines which kind it the best. Poor humanity does well to embrase all who better their lot. This regardless of the fact that a particular hero may have his imperfections. I am one American, who is grateful for Monte, that he was there, an effective allied general to do that job. Was there better? There usually always is, as well as a far numerically superior worse. The same could be said about others in that war. Partisanship here only obscures the necessary understanding.

Is a hero ever as great as potrayed - just ask a hero.

We all have assholes. It is part of our nature. When you especially need one, and it performs well, and you think about it; you almost can feel an affection for the old fellow. It gains a nobility through an effectiveness that often fails other parts, which may have substitutes or backups. And though it may occasionally offend, we do value it. Which puts me in mind of the perpetrator of another thread of current interest on the Forum.

It is not only the impact of the media, electronic, auditory, and printed that often impairs the learning process, there is the diploma; it also can distort by conveying authenticity undeserved. I am mindful of a HISTORY teacher, who was visiting with her class at the local National Museum of the Pacific War (a facillity of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, but the only one in the U.S. so devoted) --- anyway, the teacher made reference to World War Eleven (II). I am sure she did manage to convey to her students in the course of her work valuable information. However, one begins to understand the very high mountain of attainment it is, to have to raise each individual human born on this earth from primative one celled organism to civilized, informed citizenship, a struggle his ancestors and parent generation, dead and still present, have yet to perfect, though they have been at it for thousands of years.

What a task, to recreate in one individual in one lifetime, the accumulated civilization of multitudes over eons. That it fails is not the wonder, but that it has any success at all; even if it were in only one case.

[Miyamoto Musashi]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bobbaro:

It is not only the impact of the media, electronic, auditory, and printed that often impairs the learning process, there is the diploma; it also can distort by conveying authenticity undeserved.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A very good point. When I was a teaching assistant in grad school (and when I was doing my semester of student teaching), one of the recurring themes was "how did this student graduate without being able to --insert necessary skill here--" Many of the freshmen in my TA class had virtually no writing skills and found it very difficult to convey a thought into words that made sense. And when I or one of the other TAs would give them a low grade on an essay test, they would balk and complain, as if the fact that they put anything down at all was worthy of at least a C. And many of these kids were coming from the bigger schools which had internet access, etc.

And to address one of the earlier posts which said the internet was good for education, please understand that I DO think the 'net could be valuable if used responsibly. Reading foreign news is a good example of this. However, our reliance on the 'net as an education savior is what I'm appalled at. Instead of throwing money (federal and otherwise) at the school systems to buy servers, computers, etc., some of that money could be used to increase teacher salaries to make that profession attractive enough to bring in quality teachers at every level.

In addition to quality teachers, the school systems could also use a tweaking of priorities. I don't know what's taught in kindergarten anymore, but it must not be reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic. If reading and writing were being taught early, there'd be less need for "Hooked on Phonics" or any of the other reading helps out there. Now some kids might need additional help with reading, I understand, but if these things were taught as they should be in the schools, the need for outside help would be much less. And that's only one example that comes to mind. I can only assume that if reading and writing are not being taught in the early grades that math is not being taught either.

So what are they teaching the children? Maybe someone on the board with a little one in kindergarten or first grade can help with this. I'd hope they aren't teaching them social history or computer science... but you have to wonder why the spelling bee champions from the last few years (as well as many of the other competitors) come from home schools and not the public schools.

Now this isn't meant to be a broad condemnation of all public schools... I know some are very good. When I did my student teaching in college, I taught at a top-notch school. There were only 20 or so computers for 3200 students, but a good portion of the students were very bright and really wanted to learn. But I started this post to agree that many diplomas are being handed out hand-over-fist when a good number (if not a majority) of the students getting them don't deserve to graduate from high school yet. High schools (and in some cases, colleges) are, as Bobbaro said, validating the product they are producing by giving them the diploma, whether the products are truly finished or not.