Michael Brun, you said: "I am for secular cosmopolitanism,
and am perfectly prepared to force that on others if I think
I've got enough powerful friends to help me."
How refreshing! The educators in my other discussion group
often seem to think the same way but never state it so
nakedly.
You went on to say, "And I really don't see any way to address
the world economy in a non-cosmopolitan manner. The
nationalist/provincialist method has been tried. I don't like
it."
Could you expand on this? I read an article by Pierre Trudeau
a while back in which he argued that the state (government
with the power to make laws, tax, raise armies) and the nation
(a people with a shared language, culture) should not coincide.
His answer was that states would be healthier if they were
comprised of more than one nation and managed to successfully
balance the competing needs of those nations. Hitler's Germany
was one example he gave of an unhealthy coincidence of nation
and state. Is this the sort of thing you're referring to when you
speak of a "nationalist/provicialist method?"
I'm also curious to know what you consider to be the state's
primary interest in public education. Is it economic? Is the
need to "address the world economy" a sufficient justification
for dictating the education of every child who's parents can't
afford to buy his way out of the system?
Thanks for biting.
Cindy Cotter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
