Sorry for the delayed response. I haven't had much time to respond to everything I want to.



Its not exactly like he's sending to war. She's just reading poetry, something that tons of kids do, some broadcast on public television. The only difference here is that tghe poetry she's reading is political. Obviously its influenced by her parents, but that doesn't mean its not genuine, and if that's she chooses to write that kind of poetry, I don't see why she shouldn't be allowed to read it publicly. Besides, he didn't just stick her out in public and leave there to fend for herself. I don't know if this is in the article, but in a CNN video I watched on it, it poitned out that he interupted several times during their interview with her, and he said he was being protective of her. Its seems strange to me that reading poetry is now considered an act of revolution. Its not even really acivism, anymroe than me posting on here is activism. Its just saying what she thinks, the same that other child poets do with their poetry.



Here's what you said:



Now, readign that, I didn't really have any question in my midn what you meant, because it seems pretty obvious here that you are saying, essentially, that its his issue, and that he shouldn't be "making" his kid become an "activist" (i.e. reading some political poems...?) when its his issue. If that's not what you meant, then you shouldn't have said it. Don't criticize me for thinking that you actually meant what you said.



So, you think the dad should've published the poems in his name? Or the poems shouldn't be published at all? I still don't see what the big thing is here. She wrote and recited some poetry of hers (which is not that uncommon), and some idiots are mad about it. So what? Because some wackos take issue with her poetry, that means her dad shouldn't let her publish it? As I already said, its not exactly an act of revolution, its just some poetry.




My apoligies for mistaking you're ideology. The point remains, you can't adequately understand the present, especially present-day struggles, without understandign history and past struggles that have occurred. Past revolutions have failed, for instance, because they did not have the benefit of hindsight. Later revolution were more successful because they had exactly that benefit, and used it as best they could, taking lessons from prior struggles. Do you think the French Revolution would have occurred the way it did if the French revolutionaries had any preceding revolutions of that kind to work from? Do you think the Cuban revolutionaries just one thought up the idea of makign a revolution, and did so without understanding previous socialist revolutions and the historical struggle in Cuba? What do you think we are doing when we discuss the Russian Revolutionand its failures?



The issues aren't simpyl beign ignored, but they are misunderstood, precisely because so many people don't understand their history well. History is not just facts and dates. That's school-book history, and bears little resemblence to true historical analysis. Why do think so many American's seems fall so easily for patriotic demagoguery, believe the bullship spewed by politicians, allow themselves to be used the way they are? Why do you think they vote in right-wing capitalists who exploit them and abuse them and use them to fight imperialist wars against other oppressed people? If all you need to know is what you're living in, then why aren't their revolutions going on everywhere, everyday? If the issues are ignroed by many people, its because they don't know anything about their history, and so they don't understand the present issues.

Besides that, according to you she shouldn't be exposed to public scrutinty for her political poems, so I hardly see how it would be better for her to only write about current issues, which would be even more contraversial.

Well, that's good to hear. I have taken it rather in a rush (I don;t have much time to spend on here) and taken it more literally than I should, so I say I'd agree with what you had to say about it. Thank you for taking time to debate it.



My point with this was though that many people lacking economic resources will have not have the privilidge to have access to the information. So there either have to be solutions taken for people donating time, effort and material to do so or they'll have to act on what they know presently.



But that has to also do with more than history. It has to do with psychological warfare/brainwash and religious/patriotic sentiments reinforcement and fear mongering.

The way I see it, those who do have that privelage should utilize it to the fullest extent. There's a very good reason why even the most radical leaders in revolutions tend to come from at least middle-class backgrounds. The key is to apply that information in action, and to make it available to those who without it.



True, but the reason that is able to have any effect is because so many people are ignorant when it comes to these issues, in which history is crucial to adequately understanding. Its simply not enough to say that right-wing patriotic speel is not true; you have to show how and why its so, and find a proper way to challenge it, and a worthwhile alternative to it.