Wednesday, 12 March 2008

Youths, Violence and Values in TnT

Reproduced From Trinidad and Tobago News and Jumbie's Watch

Youths, Violence and Values in TnT
‘Chickens come home to roost’
By Dr. Kwame Nantambu                      

March 12, 2008

The recent stabbing death of teenager Shaquille Roberts at the Success Laventille Composite School speaks volumes as to the overt breakdown and rapid, exponential decline and failure of all aspects of young life here in TnT.

The fact of the matter is that the 18th-19th century inherited/ imposed/ accepted Euro-centric British education system has not only totally failed the youths in TnT but, most viciously, it has also successfully imbued in them a sense of worthlessness, nothingness and unpreparedness.

Truth Be Told: The current Euro-centric education system does not equip young people with the vital tools, foundation, direction and security to survive and/or make-it in this “dog-eat-dog” way of life in TnT, 24-7-365.

Today’s youths do not “go to school and learn well.” Instead, after years in public schools, the “3Rs”, namely, Reading, Writing and Arithmetic” are alien to them. After years in public schools, these youths can neither read, write, nor think properly–but they can sure as hell beat a Tenor Pan exceedingly well.

After years in public schools, these youths are just allowed to pass through the System and thus, at the end of their putative matriculation, they find themselves as a superbly nothing group. They find themselves shamefully unemployable, unacceptable and unsuitable vis-à-vis the rest of society. They see themselves as miss-fits in society. They now find themselves engulfed in a total failure syndrome with no viable way/avenue to turn. They begin to hate the education system that did this to them. In their limited reasoning capability/capacity, revenge then automatically becomes the order of the day.

The sad reality is that today’s public school is no longer a safe, healthy/humane sanctuary in which young people congregate in order to co-operate on knowledge-based issues. There is no serious academic/educational intercourse between youths. They now engage in a different genre of cellular intercourse in the nation’s public schools–for a very cheap price.

Today’s school is no longer a place where youths bring well-respected and well-held values from well-knit family-home environments. Such domestic/familial values as respect for all adults and those in authority, discipline, personal and communal responsibility and the ultimate value of human life are not innate assets that youths carry in their school bag. Today, youths carry other items therein.

Today’s school environment is replete with the mind-set of competition, negativity, and self-destructive, dead-end behavior. In addition, the obdurate mind-set of “instant gratification” now seems to be the driving-force, albeit the magnetic force, behind the modus vivendi, of today’s youths.

Ergo, in their socially-neglected and abandoned way of thinking, youths no longer see their father (if he is not in prison) and/or teacher as a role model to emulate. On the contrary, they see Tupac Shakur (who was born in prison) and “50 Cent” as their “brethren” role models to emulate.

Indeed, the scary part is that today’s youths have deduced, rightly or wrongly, that in their current failed socio-economic status, “get rich or die trying” a la 50 Cent’s life philosophy is a viably, acceptable option to emulate. And what is even scarier is that these youths violently act out this option, 24-7-365.

These youths have further deduced, rightly or wrongly, that their failure and/or despair in the education system has forced them to voluntarily embrace Tupac and “50 Cent” as their reliable comfort zone for survival in this society.

As a direct consequence, their personal, inner emptiness propels them not only to pursue vanity at its zenith but also to ossify their propensity for material things such as gold chains, fancy designer clothes and shoes, top-of-the-line cars, etc., rather than the acquisition of information and knowledge about themselves and their history.

Crass materialism and non-existence of the human factor/element/being are the overt mantra/trade mark of today’s youths. “This is madness; total madness” to the extreme.

The “instant gratification” mind-set has propelled today’s youths to gravitate, consciously or unconsciously, towards their community drug dealer/lord as their role model to emulate. And since the Euro-centric education system did not instill any modicum of reasoning powers in them, then, the magnetic force of the drug leader/lord seems a reasonable option.

Today’s youths have also deduced, rightly or wrongly, that since society via the education system failed them, then, ipso facto, society and by extension the System, owes them. And if society and/or the System do not respond to their bottom-less pit and peripheral position, then, they will take and get whatever they want there from, by any and all means necessary. If this means killing another “youth man”, then, so be it, period. Youths have declared “war” on society. Is society listening?

The fact of the matter is that the abolition of corporal punishment in the nation’s public schools, by accident or unforeseen design, has sowed the seeds of the current germinated/blossomed reckless, inhumane, violent and anti-life behavior of today’s youths in TnT. As a result, these young people have absolutely no respect for authority, themselves, people their own age, adults, etc.

And since no one can “cut dey tail”, today’s youths are operating like loose cannons in society. This abolition gives them a false sense of invincibility.

And this scary scenario is further compounded by their perceived expendable, “have-nots” status in society, the breakdown of family values and the violence these dislocated, impressionable youths internalize and act out via BET-TV. BET-TV has now emerged as the baby-sitter of these youths. This exposure accounts for their misplaced ‘aggressiveness’ and physical attire/appearance a la African-American criminals.

The fact of the matter is that these youths are solidly attracted to this criminal, anti-social lifestyle.

These youths have deduced, rightly or wrongly, that this criminal, anti-social behavior fills the void that the Euro-centric education system has dug deep into their very soul. These youths are in dire internal pain. Is society listening?

Today’s youths, therefore, see violence as their only way out. It is their only perceived option to become equal with society that has robbed them of their share of the wealth that is floating around. They want piece of the action, now. They refuse to wait for tomorrow because they may not be alive to enjoy it.

The sad tragedy is that neither government nor society, at large, seems to be listening to the hidden cry of today’s youths. Half-baked measures such as the Community-based Environmental Protection and Enhancement Programme (CEPEP) and the Unemployment Relief Programme (URP) are the problem; they are not part of the solution. Truth Be Told: These make-shift programmes not only perpetuate, foster and cement gang warfare and criminal activity in their “bowels” but most destructively, they also posit the cycle of neo-colonial dependency syndrome among the youths. Sadly, this dependency syndrome serves as another complimentary comfort zone for them.

In the final analysis, three immediate public policy actions are suggested: (1) the relegation of the current outward-looking Euro-centric education system to the ash heap of TnT’s colonial history and its replacement with an inward-looking, real, historical holistic education system, (2) the re-introduction of corporal punishment in public schools and (3) the deletion of BET-TV from the nation’s television line-up.

The fact of the matter is that subliminal indoctrination of our youths per this medium has got to go now.

Now is the time to stop this country’s societal bleeding precipitated by the Americanization of life, values and human interaction in TnT, 24-7-365.

Fellow Trinbagonians: Wake up and smell the coffee–the “missing generation” has finally found us today.

In other words, as a result of the abolition of corporal punishment in the nation’s public schools, “the chickens (have) come home to roost.” A reality check reveals quite equivocally that there is undeniably a direct correlation between these two variables.

In this regard, now is the most critical juncture in terms of life and death in TnT for responsible public policy makers to stop being in denial of this stark reality. History will not absolve them.

Shem Hotep (“I go in peace”).

Dr. Kwame Nantambu is a part-time lecturer at Cipriani College of Labour and Co-operative Studies and University of the West Indies.

Replies

Linda Edwards
March 13, 2008 at 12:43 am

Adults tend, even with the best intention sometimes, to recommend systems that failed them, as good for others on the basis of “I got that, I turned out OK.” Dr. Nantambu’s corporal punishment recommendation falls into that category. (My extensive piece sent to all the media houses has not yet seen the light of day, but I sent Dr. Nantambu a copy at the time of issuance. He already knows how I feel about corporal punishment.) Men beat boys. I wonder how much sexual put down is involved in that. Studies have shown that there is a co-relation between the increased violence of adult supervisors towards pubescent boys, as if trying, unconsciously, to eliminate the sexual competition these young rams offer.

Unless we are willing to take a good look at the sado-masochistic aspect of physically beating someone into submission, we are not mature enough as a society. All contact sports have this aspect to them, and contact sports appeal mostly to male egos.Is corporal punishment meant to be a corrupted contact sport?

It is possible for a caring society to devise curriculums that challenge the thinking and problem solving skills of youth, rather than rote memory skills of dubious value. Cold storage training is of no use.

Unless we train people to think as a way of solving problems, unless we foster team-work and hands on training, we are wasting the time of young men, whose physicallity the adults try to beat down.

Give them the means to try to build a computer. Let then design and build modern machines, in mock up form. Do things with scrap metal other than trying to make home-made guns. If the engineering faculties of our two universities would sponssor some machine building competitions among our young people, they might find a use for measuring things, and the math that goes with it. If part of their school education required them to build a 1/4 scale model, liveable house, those two by fours would not be used as weapons.

Our children, particularly boys,need practical solutions to accompany the theories taught in schools.
BET-TV is not to blame. I never watch it, but I get lots of courses in killing from watching regular TV like Law and Order, and see much simulated anger and fake competitive work in Survival. Surliness reaches in Zenith in The Apprentice- created and owned by America’s self made billioniare. BET is not to blame. Because its African looking does not mean its worse than the others. Our internal racism is coming out here. The fact that many cannot envision life after school attests to the vacuity of what happens there, and the dearth of meaningful expectations. Our schools need regular career fairs, and corporations could get involved in on the job training, instead of asking for policemen to have guns all the time. This tells the youth that they too need to be armed, Negatives all the way.

-----------------------------------
LadyBird
March 13, 2008 at 3:39 pm

The point is being missed that our education system, whether Eurocentric or not, has on the whole served our country well. In spite of its weaknesses and shortcomings it has produced, over the years, hundreds of thousands of successful individuals who chose to participate in the system, whose parents and guardians chose to get involved in the education of their children, as opposed to others who elected (with the connivance of their parents and guardians as well) to merely pass through the system, a critical difference that seems to escaped Dr. Nantambu’s usually insightful analysis.

But even so, the majority of those who have failed for one reason or another to benefit from an education system (that many others have benefitted from) have not been affected in the negative and deleterious manner described by Dr. Nantambu, another pertinent difference that seems to have flown over his head. In fact; only a small percentage of those failures degenerate into the socially evil predators that stalk the land today and I am not convinced that they are capable of the type of analysis and deduction, warped as it is, that Dr. Nantambu attributes to them, to enable them to arrive at the conclusions he has arrived at with respect to their feelings of low self worth and alienation.

I am finding it difficult to accept that any academically focused education system, particularly ours, could produce the type of savagery that we are witnessing in Trinidad and Tobago at the hands of the Corridor criminals and their progeny. I find it difficult to accept that our education system could produce the jungle instincts with which these Laventille/Morvant gangland criminals and their progeny are evidently well endowed. Their frenzied arousal by human blood, by human misery and human suffering cannot have been caused by the mere fact that they did not do academically well in school. Boo Hoo.

While defending the education system I am prepared to accept the argument that the removal of religious instruction, ergo morality, from education is probably the greatest causative factor to the violence we are witnessing today. When the decision was taken to remove religion from education in the 1960s, many underprivileged children for whom the only moral input in their lives was what they were exposed to at school, were literally thrown to the wolves. One can reasonably assume therefore that these children grew up with an amoral perspective on life, incapable of forming moral judgments on any issue and not recognizing the need to exercise moral and conscionable judgment in their lives. And as we all know “Goat Don’t Make Sheep” and 30 odd years later their children and grandchildren are still being denied exposure to religious and spiritual values in school.

While the expert analyze the situation into the ground one can safely assume that whatever holistic solutions they come up with will take years to yield results and in the meantime hard headed delinquent students and their equally hard headed delinquent parents will continue to disrupt the education of our children secure in the knowledge that the consequences of their criminal actions would be minimal at worst, nil at best. The last time I checked our schools were intended to be centers of learning for the young and ambitious, for those who recognize the need for education and want to attain it, not battlegrounds for hooligans, criminals and their progeny. And this is where Dr. Nantambu’s suggestion that corporal punishment be reintroduced in schools is timely, appropriate and relevant.

Children must not be beaten for not understanding their work, for not doing their homework or for their lack of academic performance. But, for disruptive behavior, bullying or any type of violence towards other students or teachers corporal punishment is a legitimate, necessary and useful instrument of discipline. It should not be administered however by either teachers or principals. It should be done by a specially appointed individual, a Dean of Discipline who may be a retired police officer or someone chosen from among the school’s security personnel. Bullies and thugs understand only one language, the strength of a bigger bully and thug. You cannot speak Hindi to someone who understands only Swahili, so why try.

As a parent of a productive and promising child in school I am not too concerned about the psychological well being of the school bullies and thugs who are intent on disrupting his education and possibly doing him harm and whom the education authorities seem to want to molly coddle. Today’s school bullies and thugs are tomorrow’s criminal gangsters. There is no place in the school system for them and they should be removed either voluntarily by their parents, or forcibly by other means. Let them take their violent behaviour into the streets where the police will deal with them the way criminals are supposed to be dealt with.

We must remember that no solution, holistic or otherwise, can erase student violence completely. The criminally inclined, like vermin, will always be among us, in the schools and in the wider society, so that the authorities must be prepared to confront their violence and nip it in the bud as soon as it rears its ugly head.

We, as a society must be prepared to surgically remove, the few bad seeds among us that threaten to overrun us with their evil, in much the same way that the good surgeon would not hesitate to excise a diseased part of the body so as to save the whole.

------------------------------------
Linda Edwards
March 13, 2008 at 7:09 pm


The previous writer must answer these questions about our schools:

When we had classes called “the remove”, whose children were usually put in them? Answer: More from Belmont than Woodbrook, more from Laventille than Belmont,and more from Woodbrook than St. Clair. Now is that accidental geography or race/class distinctions?

When there were schools like St. Crispins and Trinity Junior school, where multi-racial children got tgether, whose children were likely to be beaten? Answer: The nappy headed poorest of the lot.

We assign “Success” to those who made it through, got jobs and became earners and spenders in the system, what has traditionally happened to the “Others”?
If our education system was so successful, why were so many university students involved in the uprising of 1970? These were not the boys from Laventille Hills

We have ignored, I think, the fractioning of society all along, while trouble was brewing.

Now, for the first time perhaps, we have a predominant number of young men who are unemployed, unemployable, angry, nay pssed off, at a system that equipped them for nothing, while incompetence piled upon incompetence, and we expect to beat their younger siblings and their sons into submission? You joking!

Talk to any Trini whose children attend school in other countries, annd see the horror stories they remember about school in Trinidad and Tobago.I know educators in Canada and the US who were schooled in TnT whose memories are a horror show.

That grown men, allegedly with doctoral degrees could still advocate this cruel path to the subjugation of youth, is dangerously puerile, and unbecoming anyone claiming to be an educator.

Only former slave societies beat children in schools, and the darker their skins the more licks the get. The poorer they are the more licks they get. The more frustrated the teacher, the more liks the children get.

Licks is not an aceptable method of disciplining anyone, including our own child. All they do, is wait until they are bigger, stronger, and you are going down. Fair warning. Unlike Dr. Nantambu, my experience is in the public schools of TnT, and three states in the USA, some of which abandoned physical punishment in the eighties, becuse of its obvious racism. We are still in the dark ages on that issue, in TnT. If we could line up the advocates of licks and look at them collectively, and look at wo they want to beat, we will see what I am tlking about. Anna Maria Mora, my former student, where are you girl?

-----------------------------------

LadyBird
March 14, 2008 at 1:20 pm

In response to Linda Edwards.

You wrote:

“When we had classes called “the remove”, whose children were usually put in them? Answer: More from Belmont than Woodbrook, more from Laventille than Belmont,and more from Woodbrook than St. Clair. Now is that accidental geography or race/class distinctions?”

LadyBird’s response:

I am not familiar with the term “the remove”. Are you referring to detention classes?

You wrote:

“We assign “Success” to those who made it through, got jobs and became earners and spenders in the system, what has traditionally happened to the “Others”?”

LadyBird’s response:

The majority of them are NOT bandits, kidnappers, gangsters and murderers. Many of them lead productive law abiding lives. A minority, less than 10 per cent end up social menaces.

You wrote:

“If our education system was so successful, why were so many university students involved in the uprising of 1970? These were not the boys from Laventille Hills”

LadyBird’s response:

1970? Oh Gawd! Yuh want de real trute bout 1970? A handful of idealistic but backward thinking UWI students with a half baked political agenda allowed themselves to be manipulated by an amalgamation of rabble rousing anti government  trade unionists who had their own agenda. The end result was 20,000 odd idle people mashing up de country for reasons which 99 percent of them couldn’t understand and didn’t want to understand. Williams guns put paid to their bow and arrow dotishness.

Now back to topic.

You wrote:

“When there were schools like St. Crispins and Trinity Junior school, where multi-racial children got tgether, whose children were likely to be beaten? Answer: The nappy headed poorest of the lot”.

LadyBird’s response:

Your reference to “nappy headed poorest of the lot” being beaten more than others would be relevant if those children were singled out for flogging for no reason other than the fact they were “nappy headed and poor”, which I seriously doubt was the case.

Are you suggesting that the indiscipline and disruptive behavior of the “nappy headed and poor” should go unpunished simply because they are “nappy headed and poor”? Gimme ah break!

Being “nappy headed and poor” does not confer entitlement to special treatment, good, bad or otherwise.

-----------------------------------

Riaz Ali
March 14, 2008 at 3:16 pm


Repeating something without fear of contradiction won’t make it true. Yes, licks was common among societies that practised slavery but it was just as common in societies that did not practise slavery. In ancient China, one form of punishment(considered mild) was for a child to be struck on the soles of their feet with a bamboo rod. The Aztecs had a form of punishment which included rosting a chilli and making the child inhale the fumes…doing far worse damage to their lungs than a simple spank. In Japan, it was only when Westernized education systems (The ones being blamed by writers on this blog for all the licks) arrived that corporal punishment in schools was made illegal.

Anyway as I said, it is a topic that experts on both sides will continue to debate.

For the Bible readers out there check Proverbs 23:13-14. I cross-referenced it with at least 10 translations and the individual word for word translation of the earliest avaiable texts with the software available at my school’s library and in every one of the translations, the words “beat” or “strike” are used.

-----------------------------------

LadyBird
March 14, 2008 at 1:17 pm


Children should not be flogged for not performing well in school or for minor infractions of school regulations. But for bullying, threatening or intimidating behaviour, BREAK DEY ARSE AND BREAK IT GOOD.

And this is where we must recognize the difference between corporal punishment administered as a legitimate and justifiable consequence of one’s gross and potentially violent indiscipline, and abuse inflicted for the sole purpose of domination.

Children must be made to understand the rationale behind their punishment, not just their cut arse but any type of punishment. The child must understand that the cut arse that he is about to experience is being administered as a consequence of specific wrongdoings and for no other reason, certainly not because Mummy/Daddy/Teacher is annoyed with him but simply because there are consequences, good and bad, to his actions and behaviour. When he is good he is rewarded, when he is bad he is punished, and if he behaves violently or hurts people or animals he will get his arse cut.. The child must be made to understand that anger has nothing to do with his punishment. And the rules must always be clearly laid out so that the child knows well in advance that if he engages in a certain type of inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour, his arse will be broken.

For MOST children corporal punishment is NOT necessary. There are other children however, who by nature, are not responsive to other forms of discipline and for whom corporal punishment does work and must be administered.

The rationale behind corporal punishment on children is no different to other forms of punishment which the child will experience in the adult world. And if we were to accept the logic that corporal punishment serves no useful purpose then we might as well abolish all forms of punishment and all laws that prescribe punishment or penalties because no law, no punishment, no penalty serves as a deterrent, but people, including children sometimes need to be punished simply because their behavior warrants it.

If a person whether, child or adult refuses to respect authority in an orderly civilized society founded on respect for the rule of law, he has to be forced to do so.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Discussion ended at this point on Trinidad and Tobago News but was continued on another blog, the British based Jumbie's Watch between the same LadyBird and one Captain Walker

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Captain Walker
6 years ago


The above comments might gain popular support by uneducated masses who feel "We forefathers knew how bes' to do it".

Most reputable research on behaviour modification has shown that punishment of the kind captioned is merely a way of controlling behaviour. It does not instill lasting change. We see this every day in certain Middle Eastern societies where people 'behave' only so long as totalitarian rule prevails. We saw what happened when Saddam's totalitarian regime fell. The world was treated to how presumably devout muslims - Koran toting and all - behaved like real animals. Yes - now I expect some donkey out there to tell me that we not dealing with 'Muslims' or those under 'Saddam-type' regimes. Well yes - anybody could see that - the important issue that the same principles operate whether you're dealing with a 'dog' or a person living under some kind of regime where fear of punishment becomes the norm.

'Breaking a childs arse' for violence with acts of violence is utter nonsense. Then people say it is possible to spank a child without being angry - pure nonsense! Oh yes - there must be one or two totally individual who have superhuman control over their emotions. The majority pride themselves with control but have very little.

Then the author of the comments tries to hide behind his/her own ignorance by saying "..for MOST children corporal punishment is NOT necessary." But then does a switch to say "But there are children however, who by nature, are not responsive to other forms of discipline and for whom corporal punishment does work and must be administered". The author clearly has not seen English schools in operation where there is a total absence of coporal punishment. Am I to conclude that not a single child in England requires the 'Break arse' referred to - or that by some mysterious process England has managed to extract only those children of West Indian (and T&T) origins who do not require a 'Break arse'. Ahm - ah t'ink dat defies common sense - so a cyah buy it. More likely, the English have found non-corporal ways of dealing with indiscipline.

"And if we were to accept the logic that corporal punishment serves no useful purpose then we might as well abolish all forms of punishment and all laws that prescribe punishment or penalties because no law, no punishment, no penalty serves as a deterrent, but people, including children sometimes need to be punished simply because their behaviour warrants it."
Well i's a long time ah eh read such utter garbage. Garbage? Yes - because it is an inappropriate generalisation extrapolating inappropriately from one issue specific issue to all manner of 'punishment'. Law enforcement is not just about punishment. The author of the captioned comment displays muddled and misguided logic. Buh eeen Monkey Island whey everybody does t'ink dee same way - boy dat captioned must be a real bright statement. Ah mean it could win Manning yet anodda elecshan, boy.

"If a person whether, child or adult refuses to respect authority in an orderly civilized society founded on respect for the rule of law, he has to be forced to do so. Again I have never read such utter misguided rhetoric in ages. The authors choice of words contrasts the need for an ordered civilized society onto indivduals who disrespect such order and justifies corporal punishment by slight of hand. Notice words like 'rule of law' - Ooooh wow!! Boy dat songing ('sounding' eef you is a American accented Trinbagonian) real powerful -eh!! In reality people use 'the rule of law' quite out of context to its true meaning. In reality it is primarily about the State exercising restraint and consistency in how it approaches individuals - not about justifying beating up and killing people for the purpose or 'ruling'. Look, Jumbie ah could go on for days about this and it will never get through people with very thick skulls. How do you deal with people who have thick skulls - beat dem to lorn? No you invite dem to unpeel the layers of their ignorance.

"There is a difference between beating for punishment and beating for violence's sake."
Yes Jumbie - I agree. However you too will appreciate that on the spectrum between A) Beating for punishment (which I don't agree with) and B) Beating for violence sake (equally disagreeable), the problem is setting the correct threshold or coming to an understanding of what is allowable or not. Why 'allowable'? Because there are important legal concepts regarding 'assault' and 'battery' - that most laypersons who would prefer to beat children (for punishment) couldn't care chew mat about. This territory has been covered in similar case law related to consenting adults being violent to each other in violent sport and sexual activity. Those who haven't studied this area will simply choose to see me as pulling rank - which is totally outside of any of my motives. What might seem based on culture and upbringing as parental right to 'give the child a cut ass' with due restraint is wrapped up in a set of law that needs to be studied very very closely.

Now - I will tell you that when I came to England I used to wonder "Why dee ass dey doh put two slap on dat cheil [aka child]" (in situations in supermakets for example). Yeah, I was 'right' in my own mind, and dem English people was 'white', prim and proper, and dohtish. Now...now..I will be accused of being afflicted with 'roast breadfruit syndrome' or some kind ah crap like that. So when your eyes become open to what you couldn't be seen before you suddenly become 'white'? But is that the issue or is the issue whether corporal punishment can or should be part of disciplining children, mindful of all the legal issues? I hope that considerations is about the issues and the logic instead of me and individuals who disagree.

-----------------

Crankyputz
6 years ago

loved the line: Break their arse, and break it good...im going to quote you on that

-----------------

Anonymous
6 years ago


The following is the first part of LadyBird's response to Dr. Nantambu's article on the failure of our education system and the need to reintroduce corpopral punishment in our schools.


"The point is being missed that our education system, whether Eurocentric or not, has on the whole served our country well. In spite of its weaknesses and shortcomings it has produced, over the years, hundreds of thousands of successful individuals who chose to participate in the system, whose parents and guardians chose to get involved in the education of their children, as opposed to others who elected (with the connivance of their parents and guardians as well) to merely pass through the system, a critical difference that seems to have escaped Dr. Nantambu’s usually insightful analysis.But even so, the majority of those who have failed for one reason or another to benefit from an education system (that many others have benefited from) have not been affected in the negative and deleterious manner described by Dr. Nantambu, another pertinent difference that seems to have flown over his head. In fact, only a small percentage of those failures degenerate into the socially evil predators that stalk the land today and I am not convinced that they are capable of the type of analysis and deduction, warped as it is, that Dr. Nantambu attributes to them, to enable them to arrive at the conclusions he has arrived at with respect to their feelings of low self worth and alienation.

I am finding it difficult to accept that any academically focused education system, particularly ours, could produce the type of savagery that we are witnessing in Trinidad and Tobago at the hands of the Corridor criminals and their progeny. I find it difficult to accept that our education system could produce the jungle instincts with which these Laventille/Morvant gangland criminals and their progeny are evidently well endowed. Their frenzied arousal by human blood, by human misery and human suffering cannot have been caused by the mere fact that they did not do academically well in school. Boo Hoo.

While defending the education system I am prepared to accept the argument that the removal of religious instruction, ergo morality, from education is probably the greatest causative factor to the violence we are witnessing today. When the decision was taken to remove religion from education in the 1960s, many underprivileged children for whom the only moral input in their lives was what they were exposed to at school, were literally thrown to the wolves. One can reasonably assume therefore that these children grew up with an amoral perspective on life, incapable of forming moral judgments on any issue and not recognizing the need to exercise moral and conscionable judgment in their lives. And as we all know “Goat Don’t Make Sheep” and 30 odd years later their children and grandchildren are still being denied exposure to religious and spiritual values in school.

While the expert analyze the situation into the ground one can safely assume that whatever holistic solutions they come up with will take years to yield results and in the meantime hard headed delinquent students and their equally hard headed delinquent parents will continue to disrupt the education of our children secure in the knowledge that the consequences of their criminal actions would be minimal at worst, nil at best. The last time I checked our schools were intended to be centers of learning for the young and ambitious, for those who recognize the need for education and want to attain it, not battlegrounds for hooligans, criminals and their progeny. And this is where Dr. Nantambu’s suggestion that corporal punishment be reintroduced in schools is timely, appropriate and relevant.

Children must not be beaten for not understanding their work, for not doing their homework or for their lack of academic performance. But, for disruptive behavior, bullying or any type of violence towards other students or teachers corporal punishment is a legitimate, necessary and useful instrument of discipline. It should not be administered however by either teachers or principals. It should be done by a specially appointed individual, a Dean of Discipline who may be a retired police officer or someone chosen from among the school’s security personnel. Bullies and thugs understand only one language, the strength of a bigger bully and thug. You cannot speak Hindi to someone who understands only Swahili, so why try.

As a parent of a productive and promising child in school I am not too concerned about the psychological well being of the school bullies and thugs who are intent on disrupting his education and possibly doing him harm and whom the education authorities seem to want to molly coddle. Today’s school bullies and thugs are tomorrow’s criminal gangsters. There is no place in the school system for them and they should be removed either voluntarily by their parents, or forcibly by other means. Let them take their violent behaviour into the streets where the police will deal with them the way criminals are supposed to be dealt with.

We must remember that no solution, holistic or otherwise, can erase student violence completely. The criminally inclined, like vermin, will always be among us, in the schools and in the wider society, so that the authorities must be prepared to confront their violence and nip it in the bud as soon as it rears its ugly head.

We, as a society must be prepared to surgically remove, the few bad seeds among us that threaten to overrun us with their evil, in much the same way that the good surgeon would not hesitate to excise a diseased part of the body so as to save the whole."


----------------

Captain Walker
6 years ago


Yeah we read all dat. It sounds like a load of garbage to put it in a tight nutshell. The person writing it song ('sound' if you're British or American) like eef she is some big pappy who went 'ova' and did some studies in psychology. Once dey come back with dee 'holistic' dis an' holistic dat - yuh could get an idea of what's going on.

But quarter-baked professionals are abundant - and love to show orf what dey t'ink is expertise. What shows most glaringly in the post is the lack of reference to justifying principles. Instead, you are given much rhetoric. Example: Justifying beatings for 'bad behaviour' - without any reference to any psychological or educational principle, or evidence base. The opinion is 'high-sounding' ('high-songing') but lacks any real substance.


-----------------

LadyBird
years ago


Captain Walker describes my views on corporal punishment as” uneducated”, “garbage” and “ignorant” but I am not easily deterred, converted or convinced by his gratuitous rants. His inability to make the simple distinction between corporal punishment of children as a legitimate and useful instrument of discipline, on the one hand, and outright child abuse, on the other, provides good fodder for analysis.

To what extent, therefore, is his objectivity on the former clouded by the fact that he may be a victim of the latter? Or is it that he may simply be a contortionist and having got his head inextricably stuck up his anal cavity his view has become “excrementitiously” tainted.

Which is it Captain?

Your rants against corporal punishment are based on extremes of punishment that have little or nothing to do with the legitimate parental right to discipline or that of school authorities acting “in loco parentis” in the first instance and thereafter for the preservation of the school’s good.

You have mistakenly conflated a legitimate, tested and proven instrument of parental discipline (within certain limits of course) with rank brutality and criminality.

Never the twain shall meet.

Your reference to the total absence of corporal punishment in schools in England and your touting of that culture ignore the astronomically high levels of British juvenile delinquency and the parlous state of British Society in general.

All over the world the removal of corporal punishment or the relaxation of any disciplinary measure gives rise to juvenile delinquency and criminality and Trinidad and Tobago is the living proof of that assertion.

Yuh want to criticize then do so constructively from a practical, commonsense point of view, relevant to our Trinidad and Tobago situation.

“Set of law that needs to be studied very very closely” my rear end!

----------------

Captain Walker
6 years ago


"Captain Walker describes my views on corporal punishment as” uneducated”, “garbage” and “ignorant”...."
Well said and I explained why quite clearly. You seem intent on displaying more of the same characteristics.


"His inability to make the simple distinction between corporal punishment of children as a legitimate and useful instrument of discipline, on the one hand, and outright child abuse, on the other, provides good fodder for analysis".

I made no distinction. That does not translate in an incapacity to make the relevant distinction. If I choose not to walk, it does not mean I'm incapable of walking. Get a real brain.

You are confused. You confuse yourself. And you are intent on confusing others who read any of this, because you appear obsessed with winning a point. The point seems more your personal victory than finding a truth greater than yourself. If you had any real education or substance to your words you might have made some head-on rebuttal of the material issues instead of preoccupation with my personal characteristics as you perceive them.


"...between corporal punishment of children as a legitimate and useful instrument of discipline, on the one hand, and outright child abuse, on the other, provides good fodder for analysis."

You load your sentences with stuff that hypnotises you into believing your own drivel. Legitimate? - notice no demonstration of the foundation of 'legitimacy' nor is this word even explained. 'Useful instrument of discipline' - where, what evidence, what foundation. In reality you have none. You jes want to browbeat and bamboozle - no? Look, dis is not 50 years ago whey you jump up wid yuh doctorate and spout - and everybody clap. If you profer something give some substance to it man - else you are simply involved in spouting rhetoric. Since you orginally made the relevant assertions I challenge you to demonstrate that corporal punishment of children has any degree of 'legitimacy' and I challenge you to supply foundaiton for your view that it is a 'useful instrument of discipline'.

"To what extent, therefore, is his objectivity on the former clouded by the fact that he may be a victim of the latter? Or is it that he may simply be a contortionist and having got his head inextricably stuck up his anal cavity his view has become “excrementitiously” tainted".

Yuh feel good dey -eh? Daize how dey teach dee educated to argue a point? In Monkey Island yuh woulda get one set a 'Keh keh key...give 'im good!' from dee monkeys an' dem. Applause from monkeys is just that - applause from monkeys. Your insults get you no further forward and take the issue at hand no further foward. You simply demonstrate simple-mindedness in that you are obsessed with scoring a point for the purpose perceiving applause from monkeys.

"punishment that have little or nothing to do with the legitimate parental right to discipline or that of school authorities acting “in loco parentis” in the first instance and thereafter for the preservation of the school’s good".

Boy, to a chupidee dong in dee bush someway dat songing real high powered boy. You seem impressed with yourself. What is this 'right' you refer to? Where is it derived from? Do you know what a right is? Show us oh learned one where the 'right' is sourced from and how it is legitimised. Maybe ah should know better - dat a 'right' is you say it is, or what all average people sharing your brand of common sense say it is.

"You have mistakenly conflated a legitimate, tested and proven instrument of parental discipline (within certain limits of course) with rank brutality and criminality".

Oh ho ho ho!!! Daize not me doing a Santa Clause impression - okay. I jes had tuh laugh at your high songing use of language dey. I didn' conflate nuthin. You conflate everything in yuh own head and then spit out the junk you perceive on the outside. Buh since yuh so good and right, educate we chupid people nah. Legitimate? Tested and proven? Whey hey hey? Whey dat maan? Show we dee light oh learned one.

"Your reference to the total absence of corporal punishment in schools in England and your touting of that culture ignore the astronomically high levels of British juvenile delinquency and the parlous state of British Society in general".

Sounds like more high-powered garbage to me. Your choice of descriptors eg. 'touting', is clearly intent on twisting the argument. I touted nothing. You need traning. What 'astronomically high levels of juvenile delinquency' - gih we dee figures professor. 'Parlous state of British Society' - Ooooh wow - and dee solution to all dis is tuh break dey arse and break it good. Dis is dee cure for British delinquency - eh professah?

"All over the world the removal of corporal punishment or the relaxation of any disciplinary measure gives rise to juvenile delinquency and criminality and Trinidad and Tobago is the living proof of that assertion".

Ah doh suppose we could burden yuh to gih we some evidence fuh dat. Ah mean you is such a big wig on world knowledge an' t'ing. If you on Monkey Island you mus' be a big fish, boy! Yuh could jump arong in yuh small pond and spout garbage like dat and expect chupidee people to nod in respec'. Look nah, man dem kinda argument is rumshop talk. Since you make the assertion back it up with facts and figures not merely your brand of commonsense.

"Yuh want to criticize then do so constructively from a practical, commonsense point of view, relevant to our Trinidad and Tobago situation".

Well leh meh see tah - yuh mean like dis kinda constructive criticsim: Or is it that he may simply be a contortionist and having got his head inextricably stuck up his anal cavity his view has become “excrementitiously” tainted. Dat really constructive boy - ah mean daize a whole new meaning to constructive - eh? Yuh invent yuh own dictionary or what?

"...relevant to our Trinidad and Tobago situation"
All that was said was relevant. You simply refuse to see the relevance. None so blind. And you demonstrate a closed-mindedness to any frame of reference other than T&T. Ah know dee cry 'I's wee country..we eh wa' not white people or pseudo-white people from Englan' tellin' we 'bout we business'

"Set of law that needs to be studied very very closely” my rear end!"

Sorry, we not interested in your rear end. Kindly conduct yourself in a more appropriate manner. In reality you show yourself to be obsessed, pre-occupied with your own image, and determined only with winning for the sake of it - not for the furtherance of any shared learning. You lack discipline and any true degree of intellectual fortitude. You are just another wanna be making loud noises. The way you wrap big words into some kind of flowery sounding but hollow argument, is rather telling. And that is what intelligent readers will observe. Your logic is woolly, twisted, unreferenced and confused. You demonstrate quite clearly a lack of critical thinking skills. But you shall not be perturbed in the slightest because with your big ego will bulldoze you through anything. You are over-confident and you display arrogant cock-suredness.

The largely uneducated masses who would find truth in your garbage are not out here in their numbers. They are too economically and intellectually deprived. So your image of yourself as some kind of educated intellectual is in tact within your own mind. You find solace in the image of yourself that you create. In reality you are a loose cannon and you need to be told so. Reality bites. You believe in yourself and your pot of knowledge - and you demonstrate in these posts a lack balance or any ability to examine issues from different perspectives. All you are concerned with is 'me...me..me'. People who dispense with legal considerations in such a frivolous manner as you do, are a danger to civilised society and to themselves.

In summary you are a ***********  ********** and telling your that will result in a rather predictable response: retaliation with insults that you will see as necessary to defend your person. Could you demonstrate any real commitment to providing evidence for your assertions. I don't think so. [Ahm - dat woz me practisin' yuh brand of constructive criticism. Ah lornin' from yuh dey eh.]

----------------

Jumbie
6 years ago

Again, must ask commenter's discipline to refrain from personally attacking each other, and keep arguments on the issue at hand.

----------------

LadyBird
6 years ago

Your resident contortionist drew first blood even before I entered the discussion. What was a simple response in another forum became the topic of discussion here. I have staked no claim to intellect, whether by inference or by the gratuitous labeling of others as “uneducated” and “ignorant” or their views as “utter garbage”. But let’s move on and way from the “excrementitiously” tainted logic and rants to which we have been so humourously entertained thus far.

The single issue at hand is corporal punishment of school children in Trinidad and Tobago as advocated in Dr. Nantambu’s article. I stated my endorsement of corporal punishment as a legitimate, useful and necessary instrument of discipline by parents in the first instance and by school authorities acting “in loco parentis” in the second.

The discussion has nothing to do with any of the many extraneous matters that have been introduced for the evidently sole purpose of obfuscating what essentially is a simple issue.

References to “dogs” and “the “total absence of corporal punishment in British schools”, “Koran toting Muslims”, “totalitarian rule” in Middle Eastern societies”, or a “round the world tour” of countries where repressive regimes use physical punishment as an instrument of torture, fear and control against political dissidents are neither necessary nor relevant to the core issue at hand.

Bogging down a discussion in an avalanche of irrelevant and useless arguments and counter arguments is a well known strategy of those who wish no real ventilation of a particular point of view. Reminds me of the absurd abolitionist arguments against the Death Penalty in Trinidad and Tobago that cite the persecution of Jews and Christians in bygone eras and the hanging of African slaves in former slave colonies.

My argument for the retention or reintroduction of corporal punishment for children is rooted in simplicity and the empirical, indisputable evidence of the dramatic increase in school violence and violent crime generally in Trinidad and Tobago since its removal in schools.

The fact that corporal punishment can and does escalate at times into outright physical abuse, even assault and battery does not negate its usefulness as a legitimate instrument of parental discipline and an indispensable aid to responsible parenting and schooling.

You don’t ban something because of its potential for abuse. You legislate to control the abuse.

It’s like calling for an absolute ban on the production and use of cocaine because of its potential and actual abuse by illegal drug traffickers and addicts without any consideration of its legitimate pharmaceutical uses and medicinal benefits.

Likewise, you don’t ban the production of automobiles and guns because of their misuse in the hands of irresponsible motorists and criminals.

Again, you legislate against the abuse or misuse.

I will not waste precious time by arguing to convince anyone of something that is common knowledge in Trinidad and Tobago; that the removal of corporal punishment from our schools coincided with dramatic increases in school violence. In the denominational and private schools where corporal punishment has been retained there is an almost total absence of the type of delinquency and truancy that attend the public schools.

I leave it up to the forum’s resident contortionist to use his time (if he deems it necessary) to do the research, to present the “head on rebuttals” that he feels are necessary to advance the discussion, to where I don’t know, because the only thing his head is butting on right now, embedded as it is, where it is, is the fecal matter that "excrementitiously" taints his view and colours his rants.


----------------

Captain Walker
6 years ago

Your time isn't precious.

It is useless. Go away!!

You basically are out to sling mud and go "He start it first".

Your response is predictable hot air - reversing the challenge. You were the first to display your thoughts in public and assert various rights. Now you back out, trying to blame me for not coming forward. Ha!

Go away and shut up, forever more.


------------------

LadyBird
6 years ago

Reversing the challenge, you say?

Look Skipper,

I have never been intrigued by certain odours so it is only natural that I would avoid the excrementitious rants and robust mental farts emanating from certain quarters.


--------------------

Captain Walker
6 years ago


It seems that LadyBird's real talent is in spitting verbal diarrhoea and expletives. Doh worry, I will be blamed for dat.

What follows is an analysis of something - that LadyBird should not read.

"You don’t ban something because of its potential for abuse. You legislate to control the abuse". [I refer to this hereafter as the captioned sentence].

So cocaine is something with a potential for abuse - everybody know dat. So by the natural extension of 'You legislate to control the abuse' - we should end up with cocaine not being banned.

But amazingly "It’s like calling for an absolute ban on the production and use of cocaine because of its potential and actual abuse by illegal drug traffickers and addicts without any consideration of its legitimate pharmaceutical uses and medicinal benefits".

The above is what you call waffle - else obfuscating the truth with utter drivel. That may be seen as a personal criticism but in reality it is a criticism of the kind of logic that may not be obvious to an average person.

I'm not interested in Ladybird at this point. I'm interested in damage limitation that such twisted logic can have on unsuspecting minds.

The captioned sentence starts of from an assumpton that cocaine has 'legitimate pharmaceutical uses', 'medicinal benefits', and that cocaine production is not banned. In reality if you are caught producing cocaine in your backyard in the UK, your ass will be locked up - fas' fas'. Why? Because cocaine production is banned in the UK and I dare say in T&T.

Notice the form of the sentence. High-sounding words that might give a notion that cocaine has 'legitimate pharmaceutical uses' and 'medicinal benefits'. Well if you are easily impressed by dat kinda language you migh nod your head and go "uhuh..uhuh" in agreement. In reality there are no 'legitimate pharmaceutical uses' or 'medicinal benefits' of cocaine. Amazingly a Google search for the string of words "legitimate pharmaceutical uses" turns of 90 such references. When coupled to "of cocaine" only two links turn up. And you might have expected that the string of consecutive words "legitimate pharmaceutical uses of cocaine" might have turned up at least 20 such references. Guess how many turn up? None! Nada. Zilch. Zero. How many links turn up in Google for the string medicinal benefits of cocaine? Only 10 links and none of those ten bear any substance about benefical medicinal effects of cocaine!! If you got this far..you'll be asking yourself why I go to this extent. Hold strain as dey say.

So far it is clear that there is an actual ban on the use of cocaine and that there is now no visible evidence for 'legitimate pharmaceutical uses and medicinal benefits' of cocaine. So look at the words 'without consideration'? Hardly anything I can see to 'consider' at all. In fact nothing to consider. Ah sorry fuh yuh eeef you still living in the dark ages and believe dat "dey does use cokeeen to deaden dee nerves by dee dentis'". Dey don't. Trus' meh on dat one nah.

But look at the word 'legitimate'. We saw it before, used by Ladybird 4 times. People often use high-powered sounding words rather assertively to railroad a point home. I've asked before for foundation for 'legitimacy' - then I was sent on a fishing expedition to find it myself. It doh work so if you use the word show we dee foundation of evidence supporting your assertion. That is only fair. So what is this use of 'legitimate' about? I suggest that it is being used as partly a stock word and as a way of appearing authoritative. That links in with the hollowness of the sentence about 'legitimate pharmaceutical' and 'medicinal benefits' etc.

So now we have stock words railroading through a comparison and an analogy based on a consideration that really is unnecessary. See it again -  "It’s like calling for an absolute ban on the production and use of cocaine because of its potential and actual abuse by illegal drug traffickers and addicts without any consideration of its legitimate pharmaceutical uses and medicinal benefits". So I repeat that in reality there is an absolute ban on the use and produciton of cocaine.

So w'at about special cases, somebody go arks. This is important. A ban is a ban. By ban I mean that which is prohibited by law - as cocaine use and production are - according to Oxford University at least. But the likes of Ladybird know better dan dem man! Why else put it in a silly analogy. So back to 'special cases' - and this is where Ladybird's apparent ignorance of legal matters is telling. Whilst there is a thing called a ban, law can create separate permissions for doing the opposite of what would normally be illegal. These instruments are called 'licences' or 'special licences'. For all intents and purposes bans remain in tact, alongside special licences. Special licences do not negate a ban. They create a lawful exception.

I take issue with the captioned sentence above, to demonstrate the nonsense that is spouted in a very convincing way to average people who don't know the intricacies underlying what might appear to be a simple analogy. Simplicity is the tool that bends small minds. To Ladybird this way of delivering a point may appear natural and based on common sense. That's the danger in what may appear appealing in common sense.

"I leave it up to the forum’s resident contortionist to use his time (if he deems it necessary) to do the research, to present the 'head on rebuttals' that he feels are necessary to advance the discussion, to where I don’t know, because the only thing his head is butting on right now, embedded as it is, where it is, is the fecal matter that "excrementitiously" taints his view and colours his rants".

Those who make assertions, where ever they were first made, are burdened to provide proof. Whether A, B, or C drew blood first is irrelevant. My name is George Bush den - believe it and because you can't prove me wrong? Oh come on. Then I should send you all off to prove that I am not George Bush? No - the logic of average sensible people is that if you make an assertion you back it up with evidence. What the one called Ladybird has done is to make an assertion, albeit elsewhere at another site - when s/he get wind of it and is challenged quite squarely, now runs for cover and throws suggests that it is up to others to prove the assertions wrong. No - that is devoid of a basic level of common sense. I repeat that Ladybird's assertions were first made elsewhere about 'breaking children arse' - the burden will rest with Ladybird regardless of my or anybody else's opinion.

However, the running for cover is quite obvious - yuh know, the - 'Ah eh ha' time tuh was'e' - sort of attitude, With a load of return abuse that was well predicted. This is clear evidence that the opinions are baseless and arose from an empty vessel making a lot of noise.

The above is a typical Trini mentality - but it is often seen in other parts of the world. Especially to the parts where Trini's export their mentalities. I purposfully ruffled the person, and the substance of the material proferred, to see what would come forth. Well it was like striking an empty vessel i.e. more sound than light. A person of greater intellectual and maturational development would have stuck to their point and not be so distracted by interpersonals. So now Ladybird will do/has done the traditonal monkey dance - yuh know; dee twis' ass, cheups and walk off - dat is so stupidly associated with West Indianess [Which BTW West Indians tend to like, so no apologies to those who are so tarred. Interestingly many West Indians dislike V. S. Naipual and have called him varous names].

Types like Ladybird are mostly obessed with their own image. When you confront the issues they spout, they cleverly slide responsibility elsewhere and do the 'duck and run'. It's simple really. When a person makes assertions and has no real substance or foundations to their assertions, they must do a 'duck and run' or cuss and walk orf.

I predict based on the above analysis that Ladybird will probably return to hurl more abuse and to add new adjectives. But know now, that all that is just defensive nonsense to cover up a lack of any real knowledge or expertise. Or we'll probably hear dat Ladybird has better things to do. Note carefully though that Ladybird has wasted her own time already. Why? Because it would have been simpler to carpet me with the evidence - and truly educate anyone who was reading this. What could be easier if the supporting evidence existed for Ladybird and was shared with others?

We await your further expletives Prof LadyBird. So tell we nah Prof, which part of dee USA, Cyanada (aka Canada) or Englan' (aka England) yuh do yuh big studies - an now yuh feel yuh reach, yuh come out to lump big words into long sentences with quarter-baked rubbish? [Any guesses why ah arks LadyBird dat that question? Watch and you will see.]

-------------------

LadyBird
6 years ago

As was expected, more excrementitious rants and robust mental farts coming from the direction of the Skipper. He has just tortured us with another long gaseous emission of convoluted logic and phenomenal ignorance that insult and assault our collective intelligence.

The Skipper wrote quite mistakenly:

“So far it is clear that there is an actual ban on the use of cocaine and that there is now no visible evidence for 'legitimate pharmaceutical uses and medicinal benefits' of cocaine. Ah sorry fuh yuh eeef you still living in the dark ages and believe dat "dey does use cokeeen to deaden dee nerves by dee dentis'". Dey don't. Trus' meh on dat one nah.”

That was the sum total of his long diatribe.

But I’m so sorry Skipper, I have been personally issued a legal prescription by a Canadian doctor in his Mississauga, Ontario office for “one ounce of pure cocaine” which I took to the pharmacy next door to be filled to correct a nose bleeding condition . But don’t take my anecdotal example about the pharmaceutical uses and medicinal benefits of cocaine.

Let’s hear from:

Wikipedia



"Cocaine (benzoylmethyl ecgonine) is a crystalline tropane alkaloid that is obtained from the leaves of the coca plant. The name comes from "coca" in addition to the alkaloid suffix -ine, forming cocaine. It is both a stimulant of the central nervous system and an appetite suppressant. Specifically, it is a dopamine reuptake inhibitor. Because of the way it affects the mesolimbic reward pathway, cocaine is addictive. Nevertheless, cocaine is used in medicine as a topical anesthetic, even in children, specifically in eye, nose and throat surgery. Its possession, cultivation, and distribution are illegal for non-medicinal and non-government sanctioned purposes in virtually all parts of the world.

Cocaine as a local anesthetic

Cocaine was historically useful as a topical anesthetic in eye and nasal surgery, although it is now predominantly used for nasal and lacrimal duct surgery. The major disadvantages of this use are cocaine's intense vasoconstrictor activity and potential for cardiovascular toxicity. Cocaine has since been largely replaced in Western medicine by synthetic local anaesthetics such as benzocaine, proparacaine, lignocaine/xylocaine/lidocaine, and tetracaine though it remains available for use if specified. If vasoconstriction is desired for a procedure (as it reduces bleeding), the anesthetic is combined with a vasoconstrictor such as phenylephrine or epinephrine. In Australia it is currently prescribed for use as a local anesthetic for conditions such as mouth and lung ulcers. Some ENT specialists occasionally use cocaine within the practice when performing procedures such as nasal cauterization. In this scenario dissolved cocaine is soaked into a ball of cotton wool, which is placed in the nostril for the 10-15 minutes immediately prior to the procedure, thus performing the dual role of both numbing the area to be cauterized and also vasoconstriction. Even when used this way, some of the used cocaine may be absorbed through oral or nasal mucosa and give systemic effects.

Some parts of Europe and Australia allow processed cocaine for medicinal uses only."

And from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, long considered the world’s most authoritative reference work, we have the following:

"Among the earliest modern pharmaceuticals were the anesthetics; morphine was first used in about 1804, ether in 1842, chloroform in 1847, and cocaine in 1860. The first known and generally used local anesthetic was cocaine, an alkaloid extracted from coca leaves obtained from various species of Erythroxylum. In the 1880s cocaine was first introduced to the field of ophthalmology for anesthetizing the cornea; later it was used in dental procedures. Cocaine was the only known potent local anesthetic until about 1900, when the much simpler compound benzocaine was introduced. The closely related local anesthetic procaine followed early in the 20th century."

Therefore, the cocaine analogy stands in spite of the uninformed ramblings of the geriatric. There is no outright ban on the production and use of cocaine. Both are still allowed for medicinal purposes. Maybe you should have used the search words “legal uses of cocaine” before vomiting your uninformed bile all over us.

And likewise,as I wrote earlier, you do not ban corporal punishment because of its potential for abuse. You legislate against its abuse.

BTW, try to get over your childhood abuse.

Addendum:

Even the Oxford University Web Page that the Skipper references acknowledges the limited use of cocaine today.

It says and I quote:

"Cocaine was first extracted and identified in the mid-19th century and was then used in patent medicines and tonics to treat a wide variety of symptoms - real or imagined. Because of its stimulating effect, many people in the late 19th century took cocaine, even though some doctors recognized that users quickly became dependent. It later found common usage as a local anaesthetic for minor surgery but this role today is fairly limited as synthetic anaesthetics are more widely used. Cocaine has no other medicinal application.

Ah Buoi, dis reeding and not properly unnerstanding disorder!

Poor Skipper!

------------------

Captain Walker
6 years ago

Wikepedia is wrong. You are wrong. You are clutching at straws to justify your position. Prof yuh couldna' gih we a li''le somet'ing more authoritative.

I knew you would find some obscure reference to justify your case.

Dey have chupid people out dey who know and believe dat staring into dee sun is medicinal too.

And dey have people who are as determined as you in believing that the earth is still flat. And dey have evidence for dey beliefs too!!

Thankfully your references are obscure, ill-informed and out of date. Cocaine production is illegal the world over - as far as I am concerned. It is only produceable under special licences which does not negate a ban.

Your quotation of Britannica is clearly misleading and out of context - but you doh t'ink so, or know so.

"Cocaine has since been largely replaced in Western medicine by synthetic local anaesthetics such as benzocaine, proparacaine, lignocaine/xylocaine/lidocaine, and tetracaine though it remains available for use if specified.

This is very incorrect. Cocaine is no longer used as an anaesthetic. It's sythetic analogues are legal and bear little resemblance to the addictive and damaging effects of cocaine.

Your will remain happy that you have won! For you it is a personal victory. In the eyes of a silent majority who eh have time to waste, they know exactly how misinformed you are.

Your ignorance is invincible - as invincible as a nut case in St. Ann's madhouse believing dat he is dee King of Englan'.

Childhood abuse? I eh know bout it. Tell me more oh learned Professaaaah - about meh own business.

You cyah see dee wood from dee trees. You t'ink dis is ah argument about cocaine. You poor soul. Gord go help yuh - ah hope.


------------------------

LadyBird
6 years ago

LadyBird concludes this exchange.


Skipper,

You have lost focus of the argument initiated by your good self. But I guess aging does that to some of us. You made cocaine the focal point of our exchange by going off on an irrelevant, rambling tangent to discredit an analogy that simply sought to make the point that you don't ban the legitimate use of something, be it corporal punishment, cocaine, automobiles or guns, simply because of the potential for their abuse or misuse in the hands of irresponsible individuals and criminals, but instead, you legislate against that abuse/misuse.

But if nothing else, at least the excrementitious rants and robust mental farts that you have so mercilessly unleashed on us have reinforced age old contentions that education does not confer intellect but merely seeks to inform what may be available in an individual and that sending a donkey to university will not change him into a thoroughbred stallion. All you end up with is an educated jackass.

Au revoir, Skipper, no hard feelings, and good luck with the proctologist.

Ouch!!


-------------------------

Captain Walker
6 years ago


Oh yuh come back to show we yuh foul vocabulary.

So ahm yuh forget tuh tell meh about meh childhood abuse, man - t'ings me eh even know 'bout. Prof yuh real good.

Thanks for proving my point that you do think it is an argument about cocaine. Since you confess to being on dee stuff, yuh sure it eh addle yuh brain? Nah...how it go do dat? ;)

The production of cocaine is banned. Banning it needed no coniseration of it supposed medicinal effects of ages ago - because there is no to do that. Special licences exist to permit the production and use of cocaine - as I mentioned before. These special licenses do not negate the fact that cocaine production is illegal. Cocaine has no medicinial or health benefits that are practically useable in the modern world. Yes there are a few rare exceptions - to all rules. But with cocaine the numbers of people requiring cocaine for some therapeutic use is so small it requires no consideration whatsoever in banning it, because those uses and persons treated are taken care of by special licenses. BTW even wikipedia says that production of cocaine is illegal - yuh forget tuh show dee crowd dat bit or what? Convenient eh.

You continue to clutch at straws because you clearly see that your woolly thinking and headline intelligence of the core issues has been exposed. Now you are intent only on defending your ego.

For anyone who is looking in on this notice the issues that Prof Ladybird has failed to address.

Notice the use of foul stock words and phrases, a tendency to hurl abuse, a disrespect and disregard of lawful principles, inability to see the wood from the trees, concretisation of the issue, making wild assertions about other peoples business that are outside of any reasonable range of knowledge.

This is the kind of person you would trust with an opinion on 'breaking children arse'. Well if you do my name is Robert Redford. [Watch now what the Prof will do with that].

Yeah - dey have all kinda big mouth people who do courses in psychology, escape to America etc, read up internet rubbish, who can push together fancy words and eh know what dey mean. They are called charlatans. Do not be fooled.

On the issue of corporal punishment - notice that Ladybird is so distracted by the need to hurl abuse that no authoritiative reference (not even wikipedia crap) has been proffered in support of the case for it.

Prof, yuh sure dat coke eh addling yuh brains?


----------------------

LadyBird
6 years ago

"On the issue of corporal punishment ..... no authoritiative reference (not even wikipedia crap) has been proffered in support of the case for it."

Valid Empirical evidence, Skipper! Valid empirical evidence based on extensive first hand observation and practice and the real life testimony of those who follow the straight and narrow. No scientific evidence has ever been produced, and take it from me, it can never be produced and it will never be produced to discredit the immemorial truism that the judicious use of corporal punishment as an instrument of parental discipline and as an aid to responsible parenting, administered purely as an act of tough love works.

Yes Sir, Skipper. When you break a child’s arse for gross indiscipline and break it good, it works.

And usually you don’t have to do it more than once.