> The current Indigenous life outcomes are as a direct result of discriminatory policies created by said "Western civilisation. Yes, their life expectancy has definitely improved. Oh, you didn't mean that.
What's wrong, specifically, with current Indigenous life outcomes? It sounds like you have a negative view of them.
>Why do you connect way of life with quality of life? I don't at all. Mostly you're assuming a lot of what I actually mean.
>Why can't someone who has a different way of life to yours also have a quality of life? They can, absolutely. I have zero desire to force Indigenous people toward success by our cultural metrics. I would think that is morally wrong.
Define quality of life for me real quick. It seems from your above statement you're defining it as "material success", but I'm willing to hear you out.
>Relevance is you're using those subjects to support your argument that learning those = better educational outcomes. No that isn't what I was doing at all.
If certain things are important knowledge for reaching success metrics in our culture, and Indigenous culture does not teach them, how can their culture fill the gap? The subjects themselves are mostly irrelevant but nonetheless they are objective topics.
> I would have thought the intention of formal education is to sculpt the minds, emotion, social and physical well being of a person, 100% exactly that's what it is meant to be. The culture knows best what its children should become in adulthood. The intention of all cultural indoctrination technologies is to make new productive members of the culture.
Not much point for a desert culture to teach it's children the wonders of fishing, is there?
Not much point teaching all city dwelling children hunting, trapping, and skinning is there? They need to "get jobs".
>but I'm not surprised you only see it as an social indoctrination apparatus This is the same thing as "sculpting the minds etc", it's very funny that you think that because you use softer language it changes what it is.
>What about all the negative effects that come with assimilation, you're assuming there is only positives and that no negative impacts on the child's development and well being through that process.
I really do agree with you entirely- people should be allowed to live organically within their own culture without interference. Not every warm body is fodder for our corporate meme machine.
But with that we lose the right to complain if, eg, they have a lot of violence against women in their culture, or no material wealth, etc. Can't have your cake and eat it. I don't care if a group of people doesn't want to get "educated" by our system, and with that lack of caring comes apathy towards their cultural attitude towards, say, child murder, or polygamy, or whatever.
Of course if they would like to play along with us culturally that means they have to fully buy in. I think that's more than reasonable.
>You implied wearing a suit means the person is unlikely to abuse police, what about Richard Pusey? No. I didn't. What about a careful reading of my very simple hypothetical?
>Much like there is no indication someone screaming at police would have less formal education than someone driving a 200k car. In order to gain success in any society one has to learn how to pick their battles and behave correctly (Assimilate, you see). A majority of people who react to formal authority with aggression are going to similarly not have the behavioural capacity to work with others and succeed in the day to day world either. There aren't any successful cultures where internal non-cooperation is the best strategy for success. Human cultural success (indeed most animals) is due to cooperation. I invite you to tell me about any exceptions to this rule.
But I'll bite on that. Bring me the statistics for educational attainment in people arrested for resisting arrest or assaulting police.
By your assumptions it should match the general population.
