First off - nice OP, Alonso. Clear and concise.

the continued reminder of violent dates and events only makes it more likely that violent events will occur in the future. — Alonsoaceves

I think you may be right, but I would add that the celebration of specific violent dates and events is more a consequence of a general celebration of directed violence than anything else. Disputing whether or not the specific dates are worth celebrating could only do so much to prevent future violence imo; the only people who might be influenced to be violent by their reverence for some historical event probably already have ideological leanings that are more relevant. Although I suppose the two go hand in hand, really.

As a historical fact, it deserves attention. Now, as a reason for insertion into our daily dynamics – of active incorporation into our lives – we must ask ourselves: What do we gain by celebrating violence? What message do we keep in our minds and in those of our descendants? — Alonsoaceves

From a western point of view: we keep the message that oftentimes violence needs doing, and that we have, and have always had, the men and technology to resolve conflicts decisively. By extension I think that the practical purpose of it is to keep popular support for sending a bunch of Tim Kennedys across the world to enforce the will of the hegemony by killing Arab men who pose almost no threat to us.

Some suggestions for days to celebrate with harmonious intention are: Humanity Day, Inclusive Society Day, Scientific Discoveries Day, Technological Advances Day, World Peace Day, Hunger Eradication Day, and Equal Opportunities Day.

What else do you suggest? — Alonsoaceves

We already have an International Day of Peace - Sept 21 and look where that has gotten us. :wink:

My personal view is that celebratory days are probably vapid. In my own personal life I don't usually celebrate birthdays or anniversaries and do not consider dates to have any magical significance. I understand the urge some have to memorialize events (such as wars) they have a connection to, but that isn't for me. We also seem to be living in an era where every second day is set aside for some banal celebration, a pseudo event, which to me feel tokenistic and superfluous. Tomorrow, for instance, is International Mountain Day...

As to the broader question of what unites humanity and what role conflict pays, that's a vast quesion I have no substantive answers for. I am in favor of having a military force. I'm not in favor of invading other lands. It's a complex multidimensional question and I have no expertise in geopolitics.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum.

For many people, the time when they were "warriors" in the military was their most meaningful period of time. It may have been a good experience, or it may have been horrible, but it was memorable. They keep returning to those memories, alone and with others.

The 'military industrial complex' has a vested interest in maintaining a positive public image of the military and its fighting men. Should the view of the public change significantly, it might mean no more new fighter jets, no more new missiles, no more new aircraft carriers.

Most people in most societies are engaged in peaceful activities which maintain the stability of societies. Collectively, farmers, truck drivers, machinists, factory workers, medical workers, teachers, and so on are the force which makes societies strong. The fact that 90% of adults are working class and literally produce society seems to have gotten lost. It isn't the military that makes us strong,

We devote one day recognizing the people who make life possible (Labor Day here, May 1 in most countries). Wars, battles, generals, victories and all that are regularly commemorated -- defeats, not so much. A number of our wars didn't end with a victory celebrations, like Vietnam.

Countries are free, and they are peaceful (internally, at least) because ordinary people make it so. Wars are launched elsewhere, but the people at home manage to live peacefully and freely, most of the time. Well, yes, there was the Civil War when we ripped ourselves apart.

Rather than teach history as a series of battles in a series of war, we could more easily teach children and youth the glorious history of peaceful accomplishments. Oh, say, photography, radio, the airplane, the auto, x-rays, discoveries in science, great artistic achievements, agricultural achievements, etc.

we must ask ourselves: What do we gain by celebrating violence? What message do we keep in our minds and in those of our descendants? — Alonsoaceves

Do we really celebrate violence?

Usually we remember those that have perished wars, which makes the remembrance not a happy celebration anniversary in the typical way. Dying in wars is seen as an unnatural death by everybody. It is seen as a sacrifice or a tragedy when you have had to suffer a war. The message in the remembrance many times is "never forget". Above all, people who have seen war aren't so enthusiastic about it. I've never met a veteran that would be happy about war, that would celebrate the violence. On the contrary. So it's curious that you see this as being celebratory. Not everything we remember has to be happy and positive.

However, the continued reminder of violent dates and events only makes it more likely that violent events will occur in the future. — Alonsoaceves

Many times it is said to be the contrary. We can make the same mistakes of the past when we have forgotten that we made them earlier.

.

Some suggestions for days to celebrate with harmonious intention are: Humanity Day, Inclusive Society Day, Scientific Discoveries Day, Technological Advances Day, World Peace Day, Hunger Eradication Day, and Equal Opportunities Day.

What else do you suggest? — Alonsoaceves

The sad truth is that new celebrations are at the present are advanced by commercial interests and by consumption. A day that you have to BUY something, hopefully for others as a gift. Or then a day that you can have a party! Again something that has a commercial interest in it. I've noticed that this has happened especially with American holidays being pushed into the European scene. There's little of the collective celebration, other than celebrating with your family and friends. Or then a formal celebration of something is just a holiday that you don't have to go to work or to school. Which is fine, but do people really celebrate the celebration on those particular days? Usually not.

And the types of examples you give, well, there are many similar to them, not just peace day as @Tom Storm mentioned. But usually there's not much that makes them a celebration. With "Scientific Discoveries Day" or "Technological Advances Day" you might have museums open, but these kind of celebrations would clearly raise opposition from those who don't see the issues as overtly positive. Do we now have to celebrate Elon Musk and the other tech gurus that are insanely rich? Aren't tech and science worshiped enough already? Who would be doing the celebrating? Big multinational companies? Ivy League universities? So something that might seem for the people purposing a new celebration positive might seem for others as negative.

Not to be a downer, but simply having new positive celebrations is difficult. Usually the best way is something that comes up from bottom up, not something that those in power decide us to celebrate.

Do we now have to celebrate Elon Musk and the other tech gurus that are insanely rich? — ssu

Cool. Totalitarian Tech Bro Cocksucker Day: January 6.

. Oh, say, photography, radio, the airplane, the auto, x-rays, discoveries in science, great artistic achievements, agricultural achievements, etc.
20h — BC

Thank you for the welcome! I really appreciate your idea of focusing on achievements as a valuable teaching tool for our kids. Additionally, I think it's wonderful to celebrate meaningful holidays like Thanksgiving, emphasizing their true significance and values rather than just their commercial aspects. It's a great way to instill a sense of gratitude, appreciation, and social responsibility in our children.

It's a great way to instill a sense of gratitude, appreciation, and social responsibility in our children.
a day ago — Alonsoaceves

I doubt this. I grew up in a time where what you are suggesting was standard and obligatory practice. We were all made to learn lessons of responsibility, gratitude and to memorialise the positive achievements of others. You only have to look at sitcoms of 50 years ago to see that even these were generally presented like moral instruction as Alex P Keaton or Richie Cunningham were taught (and by extension, we, the audience) a series of lessons about humility, integrity and other virtues. It made no difference. Look where we are now, the world reared on this material. Perhaps a reaction to the moralistic, stifling mainstream preaching of yesterday? I think we probably need entirely new notions of community and citizenship. But if we do, it will need to come of its own, you can't make these things happen.

Of course we should celebrate peace! At the same time, we must not forget the horrors of what has gone on in the past.

"Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."

Consider the Holocaust.

As of June of 2022, laws mandating education in the Holocaust were on the books in Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, the Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

In the United States, the states of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Wisconsin. In total, 23 states have mandatory Holocaust education.

We need to acknowledge what has happened in the past before we can heal and learn from it.

@ToothyMaw Thank you for your kind words.

I believe reducing complex geopolitical issues to simplistic 'us vs. them' dichotomies can be misleading and ignores the nuances of international relations. It's essential to consider the multifaceted nature of global conflicts and the various stakeholders involved, don't you think?

understand the urge some have to memorialize events (such as wars) they have a connection to, but that isn't for me. We also seem to be living in an era where every second day is set aside for some banal celebration, a pseudo event, which to me feel tokenistic and superfluous. Tomorrow, for instance, is International Mountain Day... — Tom Storm

It's true, we have many mundane anniversaries and important dates. What I'm referring to is that we need to think about the children and young people who are more impressionable, and give them dates that make them realize that harmony is the solution to many of our problems.

The sad truth is that new celebrations are at the present are advanced by commercial interests and by consumption. — ssu

We definitely need to repell celebrations of that type

Consider the Holocaust. — Questioner

What do you think is more beneficial, if we had to choose, teaching young people about the Holocaust or teaching them, for example, about the efforts being made to include diverse cultures from around the world? I understand your point and why, but I believe that this way of educating by revisiting horrors is not the most effective way to create a change in mindset. Peace out!

I believe reducing complex geopolitical issues to simplistic 'us vs. them' dichotomies can be misleading and ignores the nuances of international relations. It's essential to consider the multifaceted nature of global conflicts and the various stakeholders involved, don't you think? — Alonsoaceves

There was nothing us vs. them about my post. It was a simplification, yes, but I think that that is basically the reason for celebrating or venerating acts of violence. It helps keep the train of western exceptionalism going until it hits something it can't just destroy outright. If anything, my post indicates that I don't think it is a matter of us vs. them. We have common humanity with the people in the middle east, but our actions don't indicate that we think of any of them as being anything more than an obstacle to dominance.

Also: your use of the word 'stakeholder' is strange. It implies that the many disparate groups of people involved in the middle east have a common interest in seeing some project succeed. The US specifically appears to have no interest in seeing people in the middle east be successful at nation building, except when it aligns with our own goals. Thus, we support and prop up dictators and fund and stage coups that harm people. So, I don't think that we always have to consider everyone's intentions and desires if we want to determine the best path forward for the people most impacted by our policies.

The right thing to do is pretty obvious a lot of the time, even if there are many details involved in a comprehensive analysis.

What do you think is more beneficial, if we had to choose, teaching young people about the Holocaust or teaching them, for example, about the efforts being made to include diverse cultures from around the world? — Alonsoaceves

I don’t see any reason why it should be an either/or situation. Why can’t we teach both?
And – what do you mean by “include diverse cultures?” Include them in what?

I understand your point and why, but I believe that this way of educating by revisiting horrors is not the most effective way to create a change in mindset. — Alonsoaceves

Whose mindsets are we concerned with? Certainly not those who may have become disadvantaged by past wrongs.

Consider in Canada – the legacy of Indigenous residential schools. The hurt caused by that system must be addressed, and it cannot be addressed unless it is acknowledged. Only then can healing occur. This has led to the formation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Canada.

In the US, the First Amendment protects free speech, and it was used to strike down Florida’s Stop WOKE Act’s prohibition against certain workplace Inclusion, Equity and Diversity trainings and teachings - as a violation of free speech. The employers who brought the suit understood they had to be able talk about the past in order to discuss critical issues that affected their workplace.

I believe reducing complex geopolitical issues to simplistic 'us vs. them' dichotomies can be misleading and ignores the nuances of international relations. — Alonsoaceves

But an unwillingness to talk about past wrongs specifically creates “us vs. them” scenarios. Such as in the case of Florida’s Stop WOKE Act – which is based on this premise: This is our truth, and it is the truth that matters, and your truth doesn’t matter, so shut up.

How does international relations figure into this?

We definitely need to repell celebrations of that type — Alonsoaceves

How? The only one's truly promoting festivities and celebrations are those who are selling something for the occasion.

In the US, the First Amendment protects free speech, and it was used to strike down Florida’s Stop WOKE Act’s prohibition against certain workplace Inclusion, Equity and Diversion trainings and teachings - as a violation of free speech. — Questioner

Was that a Freudian slip? Diversity, not diversion.

Such as in the case of Florida’s Stop WOKE Act – which is based on this premise: This is our truth, and it is the truth that matters, and your truth doesn’t matter, so shut up. — Questioner

Objective truth isn't relative.

What's so wrong about Florida Bill? It states that:

the following concepts constitutes an unlawful employment practice or unlawful discrimination:

- Members of one race, color, national origin, or sex are morally superior to members of another race, color, national origin, or sex.
- A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
- A person's moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, national origin, or sex.
- Members of one race, color, national origin, or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race, color, national origin, or sex.
- A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin, or sex.
- A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.
- A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the person played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin, or sex.
- Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color, national origin, or sex to oppress members of another race, color, national origin, or sex.

I think that's the anti-woke stuff above, other parts are references mainly to teaching history the Republican way, including things like flag education, including proper flag display and flag salute and issues like encouraging patriotism. Perhaps the micromanagement of the educational curriculum ought to be the thing opposed (which surely is similar with the other side too as politicians just love to make the curriculum for teachers).

I'd say that above would be an improvement, if Republicans would follow to the letter of this act in their treating of muslims and the muslim population in the US. Islamophobia is quite rampant in the US. After all, just being a sikh and hence wearing a turban was after 9/11 too much for many Americans.

The first victim of a revenge killing after the September 11, 2001, attacks was not a Muslim but a Sikh. Balbir Singh Sodhi was gunned down at the gas station he managed in Mesa, Arizona, by a man who wanted to kill "towel heads".

What's so wrong about Florida Bill? — ssu

What about it being bad for limiting speech? For instance: is the idea that some problems cannot be solved with boilerplate language about colorblindness so dangerous and meritless that it ought to be illegal? And if that is not the case, is it not possible then, that, sometimes, white people might, out of discomfort, deny that such sentiments are more common among people with their skin color and might serve to limit exposure to uncomfortable truths? Couldn't this paradigm intentionally serve to obscure and hamper attempts to get to the bottom of problems of equality, merit, etc.?

You might say that the workplace isn't the place for something this academic, but I think that relatively intelligent, open-minded adults can deal with a little bit of nuance in their thinking about social issues. Furthermore, that is the place it is precisely needed.

Was that a Freudian slip? Diversity, not diversion. — ssu

Whoops! Corrected. Thanks.

Objective truth isn't relative. — ssu

Oh, I see you edited your answer to add "objective." Well, yes, in that case.

But subjective truth is true.

We each of us have our own truth – made up of our history and current circumstances. Different segments of the population have different truths. A descendent of enslaved people, for example, may very well have a different truth than, say, Ron DeSantis. And to each of us, our life is true.

What's so wrong about Florida Bill? — ssu

It might look good on paper, but in practice it is having a very chilling effect on education and freedom of speech. Teachers are being intimidated. They fear for their jobs if they even broach the true history of the country, or race in any context. How can you teach the country’s history without teaching the truths of slavery, for example, or systemic racism? In the wake of the law, schools and colleges around the country cancelled events related to civil rights or courses covering race, fearing backlash.

It's all designed to protect White students from “discomfort” (born of entitlement and superiority) without any regard to the “discomfort” of Black Americans. It’s deeply divisive. A quote from the law:

“… classroom instruction and curriculum may not be used to indoctrinate or persuade students to a particular point of view inconsistent with the principles of this subsection or state academic standards.”

That phrase – “indoctrinate or persuade” – is so wide open it could lead to banning virtually anything.

History being silenced is never a good thing.

What about it being bad for limiting speech? For instance: is the idea that some problems cannot be solved with boilerplate language about colorblindness so dangerous and meritless that it ought to be illegal? — ToothyMaw

The above is quote is from the actual bill proposal. Does what it says limit speech? Employment practice and free speech are bit different issues.

In Finland there's a saying of "like the Devil reading the Bible" meaning that you try to interpret everything in the worst possible way. Now, just ask yourself, if your employer has some DEI lecture for employees, will it consist of the above ideas? I've listened to a few lectures to grasp what's it really about, and a lot isn't like Ibram X Kendi preaching anti-racism.

But subjective truth is true. — Questioner

For the subject, yes, and this subject can easily understand that it isn't the objective truth.

It might look good on paper, but in practice it is having a very chilling effect on education and freedom of speech. Teachers are being intimidated. — Questioner

It doesn't look good on paper, it simply looks absurd. You don't need a law to say it's NOT OK to say " Members of one race, color, national origin, or sex are morally superior to members of another race, color, national origin, or sex". How about a law that says that it's NOT OK to educate children that pedophiles have the right to sexually molest children?

And intimidation? Look, American workplace has a lot of intimidation going around already. You might be fired really the most absurd things. It is really astonishing how little job security there is in the American workplace (thanks to non existent labour unions). That's the real vulnerability. Otherwise it's just political sides accusing the other side of intimidation.

Yet there's something wrong in the US work culture. If similarly there would be a movement for "happiness" in the workplace, meaning that workplaces should better for everybody and motivated friendly, happy employees are more productive than unhappy ones, then in the US model a fucking executive "Happiness Director" would be put to be a mandatory position in the executive branch. And to improve workplace happiness, this person would go around firing people that make others unhappy. The Kafkaesque idea of this should be obvious to everybody, but for American corporate culture, I'm not so sure. Just imagine that someone has made a complaint about you that you haven't been friendly, perhaps not said hello, and have made them feel sad. And thus you need to seek counseling or commit to course or you will be fired. So, will the threat of being fired make you be more nice and happy?

But coming back to education. As I said, politicians just love interfering in education content and what they emphasize to be something important, which their opponents try to portray in the worst possible light. And it's simply absolute nonsense that politicians make laws about what the curriculum should have or shouldn't have. Talk about useless micromanagement.

And we should remember that one of the greatest achievements, a true milestone of American legislation has been the Indiana pi bill, that by legal framework and acting a law, made it possible to square the circle! Done 15 years after Lindemann had proved this impossible.

For the subject, yes, and this subject can easily understand that it isn't the objective truth. — ssu

Hmm … thinking about this. A person’s history and circumstances might after all be considered an objective truth.

You don't need a law to say it's NOT OK to say " Members of one race, color, national origin, or sex are morally superior to members of another race, color, national origin, or sex". — ssu

What do you believe was the purpose of Florida's anti-WOKE law?

How about a law that says that it's NOT OK to educate children that pedophiles have the right to sexually molest children? — ssu

Well, I am sure that is already illegal. But, what does it have to do with the teaching of history?

Look, American workplace has a lot of intimidation going around already. You might be fired really the most absurd things. It is really astonishing how little job security there is in the American workplace (thanks to non existent labour unions). That's the real vulnerability. Otherwise it's just political sides accusing the other side of intimidation. — ssu

Here in Canada, we have laws that protect workers from wrongful termination. In Ontario, we have the Employment Standards Act and the Human Rights Code.

Nevertheless, the stop-WOKE law has specifically infringed on free speech.

Yet there's something wrong in the US work culture. If similarly there would be a movement for "happiness" in the workplace, meaning that workplaces should better for everybody and motivated friendly, happy employees are more productive than unhappy ones, then in the US model a fucking executive "Happiness Director" would be put to be a mandatory position in the executive branch. And to improve workplace happiness, this person would go around firing people that make others unhappy. The Kafkaesque idea of this should be obvious to everybody, but for American corporate culture, I'm not so sure. Just imagine that someone has made a complaint about you that you haven't been friendly, perhaps not said hello, and have made them feel sad. And thus you need to seek counseling or commit to course or you will be fired. So, will the threat of being fired make you be more nice and happy? — ssu

Your analogy misrepresents and diminishes the goals of progressive policy, which in part seek to address systemic racism.

Systemic racism is a fact:

... most people of colour continue to be routinely discriminated against or otherwise unfairly treated in both public and private spheres, as demonstrated by numerous social indicators. African Americans and Hispanic Americans (Latinxs), for example, are on average more likely than similarly qualified white persons to be denied loans or jobs; they tend to pay more than whites for a broad range of products and services (e.g., automobiles); they are more likely than whites to be unjustly suspected of criminal behaviour by police or private (white) citizens; and they are more likely than whites to be victims of police brutality, including the unjustified use of lethal force. If convicted of a crime, people of colour, particularly African Americans, are generally imprisoned more often and for longer periods than whites who are found guilty of the same offenses. Many Blacks and Hispanics continue to live in racially segregated and impoverished neighbourhoods, in part because of zoning restrictions in many predominantly white neighbourhoods that effectively exclude lower-income residents. Predominantly Black or Hispanic neighbourhoods also tend to receive fewer or inferior public services, notably including public education. The lack of quality education in turn limits job opportunities, which makes it even more difficult to leave impoverished neighbourhoods. On average, Blacks and Hispanics also receive less or inferior medical care than whites and consequently lead shorter lives.

How best to address this?

But coming back to education. As I said, politicians just love interfering in education content and what they emphasize to be something important, which their opponents try to portray in the worst possible light. And it's simply absolute nonsense that politicians make laws about what the curriculum should have or shouldn't have. Talk about useless micromanagement. — ssu

Of course there needs to be educational standards set by the government, or we would have a mish-mash, and they should be made in consultation with experts and educators.

Well, I am sure that is already illegal. But, what does it have to do with the teaching of history? — Questioner

Please read the actual bill, not just the comments against it. As many bills, it simply is a hodgepodge of different issues packed into one confusing bill.

A lot of those issues stated there are simply common sense issues. The basic objective is to portray "a woke agenda" that argues something on these lines. And hence there "has to be" this anti-woke bill. This is the that the so-called culture war is fought: by portraying the other side to be for something that it isn't and exacerbate the issues at hand. Hidden agendas, dog whistles etc.

Well, I am sure that is already illegal. But, what does it have to do with the teaching of history? — Questioner

That's the way to portray something like DEI in this light. The bill basically say that you shouldn't do this or that bizarre thing and then makes things what ought to be educated, things from slavery and the holocaust to saluting the flag.

Nevertheless, the stop-WOKE law has specifically infringed on free speech. — Questioner

Where? Honestly, please show where the law specifically infringes on free speech.

Your analogy misrepresents and diminishes the goals of progressive policy, which in part seek to address systemic racism. — Questioner

Lol. It's not an analogy of anything that the utter stupidity of that kind of thinking. The point of my example is how easy it is to fire people in America. It's hugely different in Europe. In the US, if you are layed off, you'll get at worst few hours to clean your belongings and go out. For example in Finland it's far difficult to fire people.

At US firms, fired employees typically have short meetings with their employer or HR manager on why they've been fired. They usually only have hours or days to pack their belongings and leave, Meyer said.

Part of the reason for this is the country's "at-will" employment contracts between workers and their companies. "At-will" contracts are those that allow employers to fire subordinates for any reason at any time, so long as it's not discriminatory.

When you can be fired for any reason at any time, this creates an environment where these kind of issues raise really fears as basically it's so easy for people to loose their jobs. And then some kind of training can be portrayed to be this awful thing. For one segment of the population it's DEI, for another segment of the voters it is patriotic values. Oh, the horror!