₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
Many will agree with you, except when I say "education", I do not mean "Now, what I want is Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life", as Charles Dickens parodied in his novel Hard Times, but education that teaches the use of the senses to question and learn instead of merely believing what one is taught and told to believe.

You might understand this better by researching what it is that makes some countries invent more than others.


The mayorship is obviously not the singular point of institution of Sharia. And that's why it's ridiculous to claim a Muslim mayor of London will impose Sharia on UK or even smaller London. A mayor has no such powers.

In fact Londoners will not elect Sadiq Khan as a bin collector if he does too much Islam not to talk of attempt to impose Sharia on predominantly godless metropolitan London. Golly, we wouldn't likely even elect a Christian who does too much Yahweh because we have evolved further than that as a nation.

You see, we've been there. In my previous I mentioned Christianity was imposed on us. Rome came with their Latin Bible which the English could not read, and whatever the priest said was from God. Then Bibles started being translated into the vernacular (banned for century's too), and the natives finally read it and told Rome to go do one.

After years of reading it themselves, they then acquired their own understanding, and formed their own religion called Protestantism, which is what was the British brought to us after imposing it on their own citizens. There were times if you were not seen in church on Sunday and didn't send your tithes in somehow, you wouldn't be sold anything in the market.

That understanding has now been, or to be fair, is being abandoned, for our new religion. But I'll wait for you to ask what that is before I tell you.

Now, you mentioned "extra-governmental influence". You see those 26 bishops in the House of Lords you say just ceremoniously sit there in fancy robes? They are one semi extra extra-governmental source of influence out of many, and are not going to let some startup Sharia nonsense come and usurp them from their ceremonial seat now, would they, even though the priests of the newer religion have already curtailed their influence somewhat. And the priests of the new religion, who happen to be the majority will definitely not let any religion come and drag us back into the dark ages of the old religion of Christianity, and definitely not to the more backward (forgive me) Sharia rubbish ever.

For that would be like de-evolving. And I doubt we are ready to abandon the teachings of the high priest Darwin, amongst many others, that we have preached all around the world and do it's opposite and go backwards, considering we preach our new religion to our babies in the breast milk we feed them in school.

There are lots of "extra-governmental influences" countering Sharia apart from 26 bishops, is my point. You got schools from age 4. You got BBC in every home. You got loads of museums and libraries in every borough. There's even church in every parish. And there's your peers too. And they are all forever vigilant against religious bigotry, because, well, money, to be honest - our gdp depends on it - and we are far too enlightened for some startups to come impose some seven century Sharia law on us considering how much further than that we have evolved. I imagine it and can just see us fighting a war against anyone if they dared. And to crown it all, Muslims here are predominantly not as extreme and fanatic as they are in some places, and must love their neighbours or be hated. Or have you not read reports of some of the more îgnorant bigots amongst us placing pigs heads in their mosques?

Even Muslims in my own Orolu Kingdom of Ifon Osun are not as fundamental as some, and would dare not attempt to impose Sharia on all of us, because the Christians will not have it for starts, and Ogun and Sopona and all our other gods will definitely not sit there in their dead states and let themselves be Shariad without rising up to impose them.

I mean, just think of it. Would you not resist if someone imposed a religious law on you? Now imagine what an entire nation like enlightened UK will do if anyone dared.

I would resist a religious imposition but the question is my reason for it. Is it because I genuinely detest imposition or that I'm not cultured to accept religious imposition as divine will?
The deeper one goes in religious indoctrination the more amenable one is to its imposition however illogical. Then, the religion takes a form of defence and its boundaries expand beyond personal comforts to a more legalistic realm

Kukutente23:
My question is if Rome forced Christianity on the inhabitants of England.
I see you want to admit no without saying no.

If you see me wanting to admit saying no, then I'm afraid you are making stuff up to see.

I'm telling you Christianity was literally forced on the inhabitants of England who had their own gods which they were reluctant to relinquish.

Kukutente23:
The fact is that Christianity has never been forced except for a brief moment and even that was after majority of Europe had become converted.

Britain is not majority of Europe. We were the outskirts of Europe that didn't particularly matter to the Roman Empire until much later in their empire history, and not much to the Church in Rome until even much more later than that.

Our conversion was not, they brought it and we just accepted it. The first attempt to Christianise Britain was in the 3rd century. There was resistance. The next concerted effort was in 597 AD, when Pope Gregory I sent St. Augustine to convert the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity. That was more peaceful but it's spread was limited. The eventual conversion of most of England was in 1066 when William the Conquer led the Norman conquest, and I hope I don't need to have to explain the implication of Conquer in his name and the conquest he achieved.

We valued our gods far too much than to just abandon them and peacefully accept some foreign God from Rome.

Kukutente23:
Neither did Africa or Asia ever experience force in receiving Christianity. This distinction is important in relation to the other religion and its political ideology

Are you saying Christianity was not imposed on Nigeria? Like they brought Christianity to our shores and we just abandoned our gods and accepted Christian gods?

I think you say this because you don't want to accept that it's imposition was pretty much similar to how Islam was spread. And that makes me ask, are you a Christian? For that will explain why you protest so much.

Wherever we British took our illustrious KJV, we forced people to abandon their gods and accept our God, usually after we had enslaved them. In most instances, the people capitulated much easier than some where a bottle of scotch did the job. But if scotch didn't work, we had these big things called ships that had these big noisy things called guns that we could intimidate you with if by the coast, and we had smaller guns we could point at you like from 500m away and shoot you dead like we were magicians, or sell to you if you served our purpose, which involved you abandoning your gods and accepting our God.

Go on, resist our God we brought you if you dare!

Know that we wrote the history of how we spread our KJV God, so don't expect us to write in our books we let you read, how barbaric and backward we were. Still, it's not too hard to know we came with a book and guns and a bottle of scotch and took you away to slave in our plantations around the world and forced our God on those we left behind.

Kukutente23:
I would resist a religious imposition but the question is my reason for it. Is it because I genuinely detest imposition or that I'm not cultured to accept religious imposition as divine will?
The deeper one goes in religious indoctrination the more amenable one is to its imposition however illogical. Then, the religion takes a form of defence and its boundaries expand beyond personal comforts to a more legalistic realm

In my own opinion, you are not 'educated' if you are indoctrinated.

Take our conversation to date as an example. If you accept anything I say without questioning it like you rightly do, I will have indoctrinated you and you will ignorantly believe whatever I've said, but you would not have practised the 5Ws and as far as I am concerned you would not have been educated by me at all.

But if you refuse to accept whatever I tell you, and decide to go do your own research and find the truth out for yourself, then I have educated you, or to be more humble and more accurate, I would have facilitated your learning.

So, please know that the reason you are getting so much of my time and effort is because you are rightly opposed to my imposition because you are not amenable to my undivine will, and rightly so.

budaatum:
In my own opinion, you are not 'educated' if you are indoctrinated.

Take our conversation to date as an example. If you accept anything I say without questioning it like you rightly do, I will have indoctrinated you and you will ignorantly believe whatever I've said, but you would not have practised the 5Ws and as far as I am concerned you would not have been educated by me at all.

But if you refuse to accept whatever I tell you, and decide to go do your own research and find the truth out for yourself, then I have educated you, or to be more humble and more accurate, I would have facilitated your learning.

So, please know that the reason you are getting so much of my time and effort is because you are rightly opposed to my imposition because you are not amenable to my undivine will, and rightly so.

One man's education is another man's indoctrination
It depends on the side of the prism you're looking from
I used the word indoctrination because the fruits indoctrination bears most times lead to devastation. Now what leads a man to choose violence over peace is found in indoctrination as opposed to education. If education hasn't been able to cure indoctrination as the terrorists with western education have shown, then it means your reliance on 5W is misguided since indoctrination usually breaks through the barrier. Shamima Begum et al comes to mind here

Kukutente23:
One man's education is another man's indoctrination
It depends on the side of the prism you're looking from

That's like saying, one person's truth is another person's lies, a fallacy based on the rejection of objective facts, which I'm afraid I don't entertain.

An education that teaches the proper use of the senses to reason critically is the opposite of indoctrination.

Kukutente23:
If education hasn't been able to cure indoctrination as the terrorists with western education have shown...

Nothing of the sort has been shown! And your logic above is like claiming skool na scam because some students failed or could not find good use for their education.

budaatum:
If you see me wanting to admit saying no, then I'm afraid you are making stuff up to see.

I'm telling you Christianity was literally forced on the inhabitants of England who had their own gods which they were reluctant to relinquish.


Britain is not majority of Europe. We were the outskirts of Europe that didn't particularly matter to the Roman Empire until much later in their empire history, and not much to the Church in Rome until even much more later than that.

Our conversion was not, they brought it and we just accepted it. The first attempt to Christianise Britain was in the 3rd century. There was resistance. The next concerted effort was in 597 AD, when Pope Gregory I sent St. Augustine to convert the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity. That was more peaceful but it's spread was limited. The eventual conversion of most of England was in 1066 when William the Conquer led the Norman conquest, and I hope I don't need to have to explain the implication of Conquer in his name and the conquest he achieved.

We valued our gods far too much than to just abandon them and peacefully accept some foreign God from Rome.


Are you saying Christianity was not imposed on Nigeria? Like they brought Christianity to our shores and we just abandoned our gods and accepted Christian gods?

I think you say this because you don't want to accept that it's imposition was pretty much similar to how Islam was spread. And that makes me ask, are you a Christian? For that will explain why you protest so much.

Wherever we British took our illustrious KJV, we forced people to abandon their gods and accept our God, usually after we had enslaved them. In most instances, the people capitulated much easier than some where a bottle of scotch did the job. But if scotch didn't work, we had these big things called ships that had these big noisy things called guns that we could intimidate you with if by the coast, and we had smaller guns we could point at you like from 500m away and shoot you dead like we were magicians, or sell to you if you served our purpose, which involved you abandoning your gods and accepting our God.

Go on, resist our God we brought you if you dare!

Know that we wrote the history of how we spread our KJV God, so don't expect us to write in our books we let you read, how barbaric and backward we were. Still, it's not too hard to know we came with a book and guns and a bottle of scotch and took you away to slave in our plantations around the world and forced our God on those we left behind.

You haven't been able to prove from historical facts that Christianity was forced on England. Your allusion to William of Normandy's battle for the throne as having religious colonisation intent is far from true. It was simply a battle for succession between the contending forces for the English throne and had nothing to do with Christianity.
England like most of Europe were persuaded to abandon their gods not forcefully.
It is also nothing but a lie to claim that Christianity was forced on Nigeria. Christianity and colonialism were far apart. That's why the north remained largely Islamic while it fell under colonial control and remains so till this day. If colonialism was a religious expedition like the jihads and Islamic conquests, all of West Africa will be Christian today as we were under colonial control for decades

budaatum:
That's like saying, one person's truth is another person's lies, a fallacy based on the rejection of objective facts, which I'm afraid I don't entertain.

An education that teaches the proper use of the senses to reason critically is the opposite of indoctrination.



Nothing of the sort has been shown! And your logic above is like claiming skool na scam because some students failed or could not find good use for their education.

Well, truth is subjective it's facts that are sacred.
A German narrating world war 2 will end up giving you a different version from that of the French, British and Russian. The Russians till today detest the idea that America ended world war 2. Americans pride themselves as ending world war 2. Who is lying here? Same with space exploration etc etc etc
Indoctrination is to accept without questioning.
Education likewise has the same demand at its base.
School can be a scam. It depends on the scenario. It does not solve all of humanity's problems and painting it so is a scam

Kukutente23:
Well, truth is subjective

You just need to consider our conversation to see how false that is. After all, you are not accepting my 'subjective truth' as true. You are even objecting to the facts I give you too, so that says a lot in itself

Objective truth is not subjective. If you have ₦2 in your pocket, no amount of subjectivity will make it ₦2m.

Kukutente23:
Indoctrination is to accept without questioning.
Education likewise has the same demand at its base

Education might indeed be indoctrination where you are (where are you by the way?), but the education system I have described to you that UK has that puts the 5ws in breast milk and is designed so senses are used to critically reason, is not the same as indoctrination, and is in fact it's opposite.

Kukutente23:
School can be a scam. It depends on the scenario. It does not solve all of humanity's problems and painting it so is a scam

Stop being disingenuous. We are not talking about "all of humanity's problems" here, and no one is " painting" it so, yet, though I'm tempted.

If you let yourself be put in a scenario where your education is the indoctrinated type, your school is very likely scam, and you definitely will not have a brain that is trained to solve any problem at all.

And the opposite will be true if your education teaches you to use your brain instead of just believe what you are told.

Kukutente23:
If you have not experienced Nigerian education, it sounds racist to summarily dismiss it as inferior to British system.

I recall you claimed the Nigerian education system is modelled on the British, so let me now ask you to consider.

First, lets start with education budgets. How much does Nigeria and UK spend on education?

Do both countries spend the same amount per student?

Does the difference in expenditure per student make a difference?

Second. I hope you are aware that Nigeria uses a lot of Youth Coopers as teachers in schools. A school in my own Orolu Kingdom has a principal and five permanent teachers. The rest are corpers. Some are teaching subjects they did not major in, like a history major teaching English, and an engineer teaching chemistry.

Would you claim corpers are as experienced and capable to educate students as qualified teachers in UK are?

Would students, in your opinion, learn as much from corpers, as they might have learnt from experienced subject specific teachers?

Third. Do you know why our politicians steal our money to send their children to very expensive UK schools instead of leaving them in Nigerian schools?

And last. The minimum wage for a newly qualified teacher in UK is £32,916.

Please tell me what teachers get paid in Nigeria. Also tell me if, in your opinion, that Nigeria pay will sufficiently motivate and provide the resources that teachers might need to educate their students like they might in UK.

Other considerations would be the state of the class, the equipment and books available, the ideologies in the societies themselves etc, but I'll wait your responses to the above for now.

budaatum:
You just need to consider our conversation to see how false that is. After all, you are not accepting my 'subjective truth' as true. You are even objecting to the facts I give you too, so that says a lot in itself

Objective truth is not subjective. If you have ₦2 in your pocket, no amount of subjectivity will make it ₦2m.



Education might indeed be indoctrination where you are (where are you by the way?), but the education system I have described to you that UK has that puts the 5ws in breast milk and is designed so senses are used to critically reason, is not the same as indoctrination, and is in fact it's opposite.



Stop being disingenuous. We are not talking about "all of humanity's problems" here, and no one is " painting" it so, yet, though I'm tempted.

If you let yourself be put in a scenario where your education is the indoctrinated type, your school is very likely scam, and you definitely will not have a brain that is trained to solve any problem at all.

And the opposite will be true if your education teaches you to use your brain instead of just believe what you are told.

Like I said, there's truth and there's fact. Both are mutually exclusive. Truth can differ depending on what side you're on. What determines the absolute truth is facts. Having N2 is a fact. Declaring yourself rich can be true or false depending on where you're coming from. If you're coming from N0, you're truly now rich at least than you were previously. Meanwhile a man with N100 will still see you as poor even though you moved from N0 to N2.
My contention is that if the 5W where a fall safe method to curb indoctrination, a Shamima Begum scenario wouldn't have occurred in the UK nor the "grooming gangs" controversy.
It makes no difference. What you hold up as veritable illustration of the success of the UK education has gaping holes. That's the fact

budaatum:
I recall you claimed the Nigerian education system is modelled on the British, so let me now ask you to consider.

First, lets start with education budgets. How much does Nigeria and UK spend on education?

Do both countries spend the same amount per student?

Does the difference in expenditure per student make a difference?

Second. I hope you are aware that Nigeria uses a lot of Youth Coopers as teachers in schools. A school in my own Orolu Kingdom has a principal and five permanent teachers. The rest are corpers. Some are teaching subjects they did not major in, like a history major teaching English, and an engineer teaching chemistry.

Would you claim corpers are as experienced and capable to educate students as qualified teachers in UK are?

Would students, in your opinion, learn as much from corpers, as they might have learnt from experienced subject specific teachers?

Third. Do you know why our politicians steal our money to send their children to very expensive UK schools instead of leaving them in Nigerian schools?

And last. The minimum wage for a newly qualified teacher in UK is £32,916.

Please tell me what teachers get paid in Nigeria. Also tell me if, in your opinion, that Nigeria pay will sufficiently motivate and provide the resources that teachers might need to educate their students like they might in UK.

Other considerations would be the state of the class, the equipment and books available, the ideologies in the societies themselves etc, but I'll wait your responses to the above for now.

Without doubt the UK education has some advantages over that of Nigeria but, it does not change the fact that Nigerian system is modelled after the UK's. Neither does it remove from the fact that UK education is much more commercialised than Nigeria's.

Kukutente23:
Without doubt the UK education has some advantages over that of Nigeria but, it does not change the fact that Nigerian system is modelled after the UK's. Neither does it remove from the fact that UK education is much more commercialised than Nigeria's.

You are deflecting, and not engaging with the questions I asked you!

The argument is not about modelling or commercialisation or not, but about quality. And it's very obvious that unqualified and untrained youth corpers can not model trained teachers even in Nigeria not to talk of UK.

For your information, education in UK up till secondary school is tax funded and will cost your children nothing even if you have no income to be taxed. Whereas, free education in Nigeria is not what I'd wish for myself or my children.

budaatum:
You are deflecting, and not engaging with the questions I asked you!

The argument is not about modelling or commercialisation or not, but about quality. And it's very obvious that unqualified and untrained youth corpers can not model trained teachers even in Nigeria not to talk of UK.

For your information, education in UK up till secondary school is tax funded and will cost your children nothing even if you have no income to be taxed. Whereas, free education in Nigeria is not what I'd wish for myself or my children.

What makes UK public education free and still better than Nigeria's private education

Kukutente23, I'm aware I owe you responses.

Meanwhile, the below is effect of an education that develops mind use. Read the comments tosee not everyone benefitted from it.

https://wapo.st/4gTc9D8

Kukutente23:
What makes UK public education free and still better than Nigeria's private education

1 Cost! UK is free, while Nigeria's private education is paid for privately.

2. Long process of gradual evolution with solid institutional growth.

3. Better money management and accountability.

4. Better educated individuals administering it.

5. Better understanding of educations' contribution to the development and progress and coffers of the nation, which puts more value and investment in it than Nigeria.

6. Recognition they don't know it all, hence are not rigid and will adopt best practise wherever found.

Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.

The below is AI to how much spent per student in either country.

Kukutente23:
Like I said, there's truth and there's fact. Both are mutually exclusive. Truth can differ depending on what side you're on.

The above has troubled my heart and soul since I read it because I don't think you mean what it means.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mutuallyexclusive.asp