about DCs and Communism and Socialism and AAM ?

[jammyjamiejimmy]

I've named changed for this:

I come from a very very left wing family, working class family (we are talking communist GP, DPs with secret service records, phones where tapped in the 70s, DPs big into socialist groups and political stuff in 60's and 70s. [also very big in anti-apartheid] etc) .
DH comes from a normal Labour voting family

My two eldest (they are in different years) have just started this term to learn about Russian revolution, Stalin and Vietnam War. And the eldest started doing Socialist authors eg Bernard Shaw, Priestly etc. And daughter started to learn about Apartheid in RS.
Both have come home saying all this stuff about how horrible/hiddeous communism and socialism is. Also learning some stuff about Apartheid and AAM that I feel/know is wrong eg about British stance etc.

I want them to make up their own choices about such things.

But some of these things they are saying, go against everything I believe in.
I want them to have the facts but they don't seem to be learning them (DS seems to think that Marxism and Stalinism are one in the same). But equally if they turn around and truely believe this then I want them to do so with the true facts.

Don't think either of them have yet gaged just how Left we as parents and as a general family how political we all are.

Also DD was telling DMum about some of the stuff AAM did and how the Govt reacted and I know she got very upset (She lived in S.A during apartheid and has a criminal record in UK due to her involvement with AAM) -Some of the stuff DD said is fact but I know DMum (and DDa and me) feels misses the point.

AIBU to not like this?
And what do I do? - Sit them down explain facts, family history?
Or do I just leave it?

You have probably told them more about it all than you think. But you should explain it to them. - after all it has made them who they are
could you get your DMum to talk to DD about AAM? - if DD knew family background about it she would probably think it is cool her granny has a criminal record about it etc.
Guessing you grew up in 70's? so remember phone tappes, the police etc - if you grew up being told not to talk about centain things on phone could that be stopping you from really telling them stuff? But really you should explain it. Even if it as basic as telling them the difference between marx and stalin (maybe quote Marx himself who said communism would never work in Russia)
Explain the time that Shaw and the rest of the fabians came out of why they where important.
If they have not get them to watch/read An inspector Calls. But if they are doing priestly they are probably doing it already.
Have you any things about your GP involvement with communism? and about why people found that in 20's and 30s (guessing that is about the age of your GP - maybe use Mosley's lot as an example).
Maybe use creation of NHS and Nye Bevan - as they probably understand the NHS.
Oh and maybe use Spanish civil war with foreign volunteers eg orwell. presuming they are of an age to have heard/read some orwell.
Basically there are ways of doing it that give it a bigger context than just exams and facts (but you probably know that).

Make sure they know they are not under survailance from govt - which if you tell them about phone taps depending on what they are like/age they may get worried about.

"hardly anybody comes out of [apartheid and the anti-apartheid movement] looking like angels"

Yes, it would be unfair to go on about the crimes of white rule and the West's support for them, when the Soweto schoolchildren were just as bad really, if you think about it. Best to just gloss over the whole thing and explain how happy everyone in SA is now...

Winnie Mandela comes out of it smelling like roses of course

Time for a chat regarding family history. Ask them to reserve their personal judgements whilst you talk, this is their history too. They may have a negative opinion now, they may keep that, its their right, but with more information, reading and study they may change their views.... regardless of personal opinion, your family's history may help them in their own historical studies and secure a better grade.

You don't have to preach your views, but you are well placed to explain anything they don't quite understand.

Say if you're studying theology and your dad is a vicar but you're atheist, you can still learn from your father.

Missing the point much karmabeliever?

What point? Did she and her supporters behave like angels? Or did she order the kidnap and murder of children under the guise of protesting against apartheid?

Or are you saying that it is okay for some people to violent murderers, so long as the cause is good. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

should say 'to be' violent murderers.

I would be tempted to explain that with anything historical people will interpret facts in a different way. Then buy them books/give them articles, etc that present things from a different viewpoint. Emphasise that they must decide how they interpret facts, but explain your views if they ask.

Don't go on about your views though as unless they ask they will just experience this as a lecture.

still missing the point I feel

I think I got it perfectly well, thanks.

still missing the point I feel

Not sure I got your point either in that case

Get karmabeliever to explain it to you then Whatmeworry?

I think that what Someonesnotinbed is indicating is that it is okay to kidnap, torture and murder a 14 year old and that 'necklacing' is a legitimate tool to use, so long as you feel you have a cause. If I'm wrong and Winnie Mandela and her supporters didn't do those things and indeed, behaved like angels (convictions for fraud aside), then I take it all back.

I think this illustrates the point for the OP - that everyone has their own perspective. Facts are facts though

If you want to pick the worst examples on either side then I'm sure that there are a few 'facts' about the behaviour of the SA police involving electrodes on genitals etc that need to be brought up.

The behaviour of individuals within a group doesn't detract from the fact that that group were opposing a horrific regime.

Something to show your DD

No it doesn't, but the original point was that neither side comes out of it looking like angels. That remains true, no matter who did it first. The majority of the ANC advocated using violence during their campaign. Arguably, if the opposition to an horrific regime, is doing equally horrific things, then there comes a time when there is little difference between the two. I don't think that because someone else did it first is a justification or reason. The end doesn't justify the means imo.

The behaviour of individuals within a group doesn't detract from the fact that that group were opposing a horrific regime

But by that logic rendition and torture and Guantanamo et al are also OK, as we are fighting a "War on Terror" against Evil People. Or conversely, blowing the Twin Towers was OK as they were fighting a war against the Unjust, Perfidious West?

My view is that the behaviour of individuals within a group is not mitigated by the fact that they Have a Cause.

I don't think it's mitigated by the fact that they have a cause. I do think that the behaviour of individuals fighting for the cause doesn't detract from the merit of the cause itself. Their behaviour taints them not the cause.

The behaviour of individuals within a group doesn't detract from the fact that that group were opposing a horrific regime.

Failure to recognise wrongs done in it's name leaves festering resentment, suspicion and and hatred, that can later come back to haunt all sides, subtly in the form of seperatism, openly in the form of terrorism.

I'd say you need to teach your children to look at all views, and think for themselves, and recognise that history is always complicated and often leaves out or twists whatever doesn't suit it.

dont really understand why you dont discuss ur political views with ur kids - after all they may be the only people u can influence politically!!!!

I think it removes any moral high ground. If it is only one or two individuals who behave badly, it is easier to disassociate them from the cause. If it is the majority who support violence or if the individuals are quite high ranking within the oppositions organisation and they are not removed from a position of influence as soon as they start advocating violence, then I believe their behaviour taints the cause. They have removed the thing that made them better than their oppressors.

I don't think it's mitigated by the fact that they have a cause. I do think that the behaviour of individuals fighting for the cause doesn't detract from the merit of the cause itself. Their behaviour taints them not the cause

My original point was that no side comes out of these sort of things looking like angels, which is true if you assume all murders are equal - but are you arguing that the merit of the cause mitigates the murders, tortures etc done in its name? The end justifying the means as it were?

It may make them bad people but it doesn't make opposing a vile system any less valid.

It may make them bad people but it doesn't make opposing a vile system any less valid

Both Al Qaeda and The War against Terror believe they are opposing Vile Systems. Does that make them and their actions valid?

'are you arguing that the merit of the cause mitigates the murders, tortures etc done in its name? The end justifying the means as it were?'

No. Not at all.

I'm arguing that the abhorrent behaviour of people fighting for a cause doesn't necessarily mean that the cause itself is wrong. Opposing apartheid was a good thing to do.