African parenting and the effects of hitting children

[Kessy Wa Kilimanjaro]

Spanking Children & Mental Health: Punishment Linked To Disorders Later In Life

Spanking Linked to More Aggression in Kids

The Influence of Corporal Punishment on Crime - The Natural Child Project

The single most important principle that is needed in Africa today is the non-aggression principle. If one was to gain anything from this thread it is this. This principle is very fundamental in shaping what kind of relationships an individual will have and if this principle is applied objectively by a whole nation of parents to their children it is guaranteed to shape how rational and peaceful a nation will be.

The principle asserts that aggression is always an illegitimate encroachment upon another individual's life, liberty, or property. The principle also asserts that the attempt to obtain from another via deceit what could not be consensually obtained is also a form of aggression. For example, the NAP prohibits the initiation of force by one individual or group of individuals against another individual or group of individuals.

The initiation of force on children, whether through words or actions is the most fundamental cause of hostility in ones outlook of the world and their actions and thoughts towards others. The common African thought however would have most think that if you spare the rod you spoil the child. Unfortunately African parents are the beginning cause of most if not all forms of aggression, irrationality, incompetency in government, and violence taking place in the continent.

Every rational human being would agree that even the vilest leaders in history such as Hitler had parents in the beginning of his life. The reality is parents shape the way an individual views of other human beings, their property and whether or not that person has empathy and sympathy or hostility and hate towards people he or she is in conflict with.

A great example of the effects of using aggression to discipline would be Hitler. It is recorded history that Alois Hitler, Adolf's father, beat him mercilessly whenever he made a mistake. The reaction towards the argument that any hostility towards children leads to violent and unhealthy minds is usually the defense that, “well, my parents hit me and I turned out just fine”, or “I think some kids nowadays just misbehave and they don't listen and it’s because we don't hit them enough”, or even the parents who claim they don't hit they “spank” and not to forget the ones that don't hit but yell or verbally abuse.

The truth is that the effects of hostile parenting don’t just show in the use of violence but also in how an individual’s views relationships with others, how an individual views justice and how it should be obtained, how confident an individual is in the relationship with their parents and their relationships with others, how anxious an individual is, how successful an individual is, how critical one’s thoughts are and how an individual views others individual rights.

The reality is that you don’t shape a child’s discipline through any of these methods. These methods are usually used by parents who are either lacking in knowledge, reacting out of anger, come from abusive households, are intellectually lacking or lazy and most of the time culturally or religiously confined to the use of force as a form of discipline which in itself is ignorant.

The observation that has led me to this conclusion is based on the time I have spent in Tanzania, and the encounters I have had with Africans outside of Tanzania. The reality is that from listening to African speak on how they determine what is right and wrong and observing their view of the reality of human interactions, any intellectual will come to the conclusion that there lacks a fundamental philosophical background in modern African thought. This is not to claim that there was never a form of philosophical thought among Africans but that as of today critical thinking in the areas of parenting, education, government policy making and social endeavors there is a dire need for an objective moral principles to guide the actions of people in African societies.

To understand why this is the case one has to understand the causation of modern African thought. To the best of my knowledge I can propose that modern African thought is a result of post-colonial ideals and African traditions and beliefs that manage to survive the sprawl for Africa and then were intertwined with the colonizers religions and thought to form what is today's popular African thought. This is what I suppose is the case and whether it is true or not isn't important for the sake of the argument that am making.

The argument here is that modern African thought is based on fallacies and false assumptions coupled with hostile relationships that lead into the initiation of force that we can observe in today's Africa. The initiation of force in this case is not simply limited to Militant Islamic groups that range from the west of Africa all the way to the East, but also applies to the parents, teachers, leaders and the different social groups or mobs that act in the most barbaric ways in the name of justice.

 

[Kifyatu]

Spanking YES, senseless Beating NO.

I read this article with great apprehension due to its condescending tone . All I see is these Africans... savages... beating children senseless... how primitive... they need to be civilized... etc. Yes, this is what I hear from this article.

Let us look at the CIVILIZED world:
Americans, Britons, French, Dutch, Belgians, Germans, Chinese, Russians, you name them, have exacted violence on the world throughout history and continue to do so. Is this violence a result of childhood beating of these leaders? From America (Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Bush(father), Clinton, Bush(son), now Obama) have waged and continue to wage wars-of-choice (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, etc.) upon the innocent and the weak of this world. Have these leaders been beaten by their parents when they were young? The answer is NO.

Aggression is always an outward projection of power.
It doesn't matter if you were beaten as a child or not, if you find yourself in the position of power there is a tendency to abuse it by violence upon the weak. A well-raised child with gentle parents/caretakers and was not beaten but is hired as a prison guard as an adult will find himself/herself using violence on prisoners. A child growing up with violent parents but becomes homeless as an adult and has to line up in a soup kitchen begging for food will be very humble. Violence by individuals often is triggered by circumstances where projection of power is needed to achieve something. It has nothing to do with childhood spanking.

Often in a society children learn from adults. If adults resolve their differences by violence (father hitting mother, two men fighting over a woman, bullies getting their ways by violence, etc.) the child will be violent when he/she grows up. It has nothing to do with his childhood spanking. If a country is a police state (USA) and dispenses violence (shooting innocent people, police brutality on a specific group e.g., black, mass incarcerations) the rest of the society will follow suit. Nothing to do with childhood upbringing.

Now, I agree that senseless beating of a child without explanation is not good. It turns this child into a timid (no confidence) adult. This is what we see in many African countries. Adults in the presence of authority (especially white men) tend to be timid. They lack confidence in expressing their opinions because of their childhood experiences with unreasonable/unpredictable punishments from violent parents. This is the reason why I say "spanking YES but senseless beatings NO".

A good spanking is done at a very tender age. This establishes a hierarchy between a parent and a child. You just have to do it a few times to instill on the child the idea that spanking is an option if they misbehave. The rest of the time you just have to stare at a misbehaving child for it to correct its behavior.

Unhealthy Parenting in the West:
I have seen these pampered kids embarrassing their mothers in supermarket isles making a scene and all the mother has to say is "Jimmy please... stop it... you will get a timeout when we get home... no more video games for you mister... and so on". I am telling you, if that boy was me and the lady was my mother, just one look from her would have stopped me on my tracks and I would have shut up immediately. This is because that look would have told me that the next thing would have been a good spanking (of course this would have been in Africa. In the so-called CIVILIZED countries probably Child Protective Services would have given my mother hell for disciplining me).

 

[Kessy Wa Kilimanjaro]

Spanking YES, senseless Beating NO.

I read this article with great apprehension due to its condescending tone . All I see is these Africans... savages... beating children senseless... how primitive... they need to be civilized... etc. Yes, this is what I hear from this article.

Let us look at the CIVILIZED world:
Americans, Britons, French, Dutch, Belgians, Germans, Chinese, Russians, you name them, have exacted violence on the world throughout history and continue to do so. Is this violence a result of childhood beating of these leaders? From America (Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Bush(father), Clinton, Bush(son), now Obama) have waged and continue to wage wars-of-choice (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, etc.) upon the innocent and the weak of this world. Have these leaders been beaten by their parents when they were young? The answer is NO.

Aggression is always an outward projection of power.
It doesn't matter if you were beaten as a child or not, if you find yourself in the position of power there is a tendency to abuse it by violence upon the weak. A well-raised child with gentle parents/caretakers and was not beaten but is hired as a prison guard as an adult will find himself/herself using violence on prisoners. A child growing up with violent parents but becomes homeless as an adult and has to line up in a soup kitchen begging for food will be very humble. Violence by individuals often is triggered by circumstances where projection of power is needed to achieve something. It has nothing to do with childhood spanking.

Often in a society children learn from adults. If adults resolve their differences by violence (father hitting mother, two men fighting over a woman, bullies getting their ways by violence, etc.) the child will be violent when he/she grows up. It has nothing to do with his childhood spanking. If a country is a police state (USA) and dispenses violence (shooting innocent people, police brutality on a specific group e.g., black, mass incarcerations) the rest of the society will follow suit. Nothing to do with childhood upbringing.

Now, I agree that senseless beating of a child without explanation is not good. It turns this child into a timid (no confidence) adult. This is what we see in many African countries. Adults in the presence of authority (especially white men) tend to be timid. They lack confidence in expressing their opinions because of their childhood experiences with unreasonable/unpredictable punishments from violent parents. This is the reason why I say "spanking YES but senseless beatings NO".

A good spanking is done at a very tender age. This establishes a hierarchy between a parent and a child. You just have to do it a few times to instill on the child the idea that spanking is an option if they misbehave. The rest of the time you just have to stare at a misbehaving child for it to correct its behavior.

Unhealthy Parenting in the West:
I have seen these pampered kids embarrassing their mothers in supermarket isles making a scene and all the mother has to say is "Jimmy please... stop it... you will get a timeout when we get home... no more video games for you mister... and so on". I am telling you, if that boy was me and the lady was my mother, just one look from her would have stopped me on my tracks and I would have shut up immediately. This is because that look would have told me that the next thing would have been a good spanking (of course this would have been in Africa. In the so-called CIVILIZED countries probably Child Protective Services would have given my mother hell for disciplining me).

Sentimental claims are not arguments.
You first make the claim that I am using a condescending tone. It would be great if you could quote the part that I did use a condescending instead of just claiming its what you hear from this article. How does one exactly hear from an article. I am very sure that you read an article.

Your assumptions.
Your first assumption is that this is a comparison of civilizations. You then name multiple western leaders and claim that you are sure there was no initiation of force in their childhoods. The claim that these leaders weren't hit as children would require proof and not just your assertion that is based on intuition. To claim that it is these leaders who wage the wars and not the money and private interest that controls them, is to be naive of the state of western leadership. All western leaders have special interest that influences their decisions and therefore whatever war they wage is going to result in profits for whoever backs it.

Your second assumption is that these western examples are civilized worlds. They are merely worlds with a good amount of civilized people. In reality what you have pointed out are government officials and they work for the state. The state claims to be civilized but it is the most immoral institution of coercion throughout history. The state initiates force to take property from people in the form of Taxation. It believes it is justified in deciding how people should live their lives.

No evidence.
First you make the claim that it doesn't matter if the child was hit or not but you fail to show any studies supporting this. One has to be very emotionally invested in the subject matter to make such an absolute claim without any reasoning or evidence.

You also have to be oblivious to the thousands of books written by psychology experts and the multiple academic studies that have been done by the likes of Murray Straus that show the effects of all kinds of hostility against children whether it be, hitting, spanking or yelling at them.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131211103958.htm

Inconsistency in your arguments.
You then go on to contradict yourself by first stating that aggression is always a projection of power. In the next few paragraphs that follow that statement you state that aggression establishes a hierarchy between the parent and the child.
I assume that you think a projection of power and establishing a hierarchy are different. In fact they are the same acts. To establish a hierarchy is to show dominance over another being because you assume that you're justified by your strength. To project power is exactly the same thing. They are both immoral. The relationship between the child and the parent shouldn't be hierarchical. Dominating people doesn't result in healthy relationships but instead in fear, anger and resentment.

Spanking yields no results or benefits.
You try to differentiate senseless beatings from spanking children. The rational approach to this will show why they are both objectively immoral and irrational. When you claim that spanking is to instill discipline you disregard that discipline is a cognitive ability. Cognitive abilities can only be gained from intellectual stimulation. Studies by IQ specialists such as James Flynn prove that children who are read to and intellectually challenged with reason act with much more empathy. Whether you call it spanking or a light tap it doesn't help the child so why do it.

10 Reasons Why You Should Read to Your Kids

More assumptions.
Another assumption made by people who are for coercive hostile parenting is that anyone who opposes the use of force thinks that the example you put out of mothers in supermarket isles is how parenting should be done. This isn't the case. Those passive aggressive parents are just as bad as aggressive coercive parents. The argument here is that parents should form rational healthy relationships with their children, should not put their children in a position where the child will act out and should always reason through their decision instead of acting out of anger and whims. A child acts out in a supermarket simply because it is not the child's problem but the environment that gets the child anxious. All those things the child sees but the mother says it cant have. The child becomes bored or angry and throws a fit just as they do on planes and in classes that they are bored in. It is the parent, the teacher or the environment that fails to stimulate the child intellectually that is to blame.

There's no such thing as a good spanking.

 

[kui]

Interesting subject.
With a quick read, looks like Africa has been somewhat stereotyped in here but, for most part this's exactly what's going on.

(huu ni ukweli mchungu) ...
"The reality is that you don’t shape a child’s discipline through any of these methods. These methods are usually used by parents who are either lacking in knowledge, reacting out of anger, come from abusive households, are intellectually lacking or lazy and most of the time culturally or religiously confined to the use of force as a form of discipline which in itself is ignorant."

Kifyatu mkuu I agree with your 'spanking yes, senseless beating no'. I believe In a little spanking not too much (if they push harder)
But also wonder if there's any evidence or, if it's a guarantee a child will come out as the best kid ever, if you spank them.

In children's tender minds any form of discipline is translated as some sort of aggression, (we're bigger than them, stronger than them, intimidating and we're denying them of their favorite things) so imagine beating or hitting a child.
We see it as a discipline,... they see it as a (20 feet high, 1000 pounds) giant trying to harm them.

 

[Kifyatu]

Sentimental claims are not arguments.
You first make the claim that I am using a condescending tone. It would be great if you could quote the part that I did use a condescending instead of just claiming its what you hear from this article. How does one exactly hear from an article. I am very sure that you read an article.

Just read your article man. If you don't see the parochial attitudes in the entire document then you must be in a worse state of mind than I thought. The entire article reeks of superiority overtones of "me good, you bad". Pathetic. Don't grand stand here and ram your western parenting ideals down our collective throat as an absolute truth. That in itself is condescending.

Your assumptions.
Your first assumption is that this is a comparison of civilizations. You then name multiple western leaders and claim that you are sure there was no initiation of force in their childhoods. The claim that these leaders weren't hit as children would require proof and not just your assertion that is based on intuition. To claim that it is these leaders who wage the wars and not the money and private interest that controls them, is to be naive of the state of western leadership. All western leaders have special interest that influences their decisions and therefore whatever war they wage is going to result in profits for whoever backs it.

Are you saying that Barack Obama, raised by grand parents was whooped senseless as a child that is why he is waging wars in Syria? Give me a break. The private interests (Rothschilds, Wall Street, Israel lobby, etc.) money is the power that corrupts a mild-mannered Obama to utter such words like "Assad must go, or Israel has the right to defend itself after the genocidal massacre of Gazans in the Summer of 2014". What he does as an American president has nothing to do with what his grand parents did to him as a child.

Your second assumption is that these western examples are civilized worlds. They are merely worlds with a good amount of civilized people. In reality what you have pointed out are government officials and they work for the state. The state claims to be civilized but it is the most immoral institution of coercion throughout history. The state initiates force to take property from people in the form of Taxation. It believes it is justified in deciding how people should live their lives.

My point exactly. Violence is a societal projection of power down to an individual. Nothing to do with spanking.

No evidence.
First you make the claim that it doesn't matter if the child was hit or not but you fail to show any studies supporting this. One has to be very emotionally invested in the subject matter to make such an absolute claim without any reasoning or evidence.

I don't need any study to give witness to my life experiences. I have spent many decades on the face of this earth and I don't need a 3-year Ph.D. study to teach me what I have lived for more than half a century as an adult. I give myself as that supporting evidence.

You also have to be oblivious to the thousands of books written by psychology experts and the multiple academic studies that have been done by the likes of Murray Straus that show the effects of all kinds of hostility against children whether it be, hitting, spanking or yelling at them.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131211103958.htm

You may drop all the names you want but you will not sway me on this. Scholars in search of tenures keep producing these studies and a few years later they are recanted. I am sure you must know of studies from Asia (Tiger moms) and their methods of parenting. China now is eating everybody's lunch academically and financially. Bad parenting huh?

Inconsistency in your arguments.
You then go on to contradict yourself by first stating that aggression is always a projection of power. In the next few paragraphs that follow that statement you state that aggression establishes a hierarchy between the parent and the child.
I assume that you think a projection of power and establishing a hierarchy are different. In fact they are the same acts. To establish a hierarchy is to show dominance over another being because you assume that you're justified by your strength. To project power is exactly the same thing. They are both immoral. The relationship between the child and the parent shouldn't be hierarchical. Dominating people doesn't result in healthy relationships but instead in fear, anger and resentment.

Listen man, it makes no sense to instill on a child that there is no hierarchy in the family just to find himself or herself employed as an adult and has to obey bosses orders. Or a child who thinks she will never be spanked and the moment she turns an adult and runs afoul of the law is sent to jail where he is horribly treated by the law and fellow inmates. If the society was gentle, give criminals non-violent second chances then I will go with you on no spanking. Violence is not taught by spanking. It is taught by how the society behaves - that is where children learn to be violent, not the parental spanking.

Spanking yields no results or benefits.
You try to differentiate senseless beatings from spanking children. The rational approach to this will show why they are both objectively immoral and irrational. When you claim that spanking is to instill discipline you disregard that discipline is a cognitive ability. Cognitive abilities can only be gained from intellectual stimulation. Studies by IQ specialists such as James Flynn prove that children who are read to and intellectually challenged with reason act with much more empathy. Whether you call it spanking or a light tap it doesn't help the child so why do it.

10 Reasons Why You Should Read to Your Kids

Spanking, not out of malice but disciplining, does yield results as long as it is done right and infrequently. Don't school me about morality. Is it moral when minorities are falsely arrested, brutalized, and given long term sentences for no apparent reasons at all. If I have to spank my child to dissuade him from forming a bad habit that may lead to his undoing as an adult in this unfair legal system, I will do it in a heartbeat.

You talk of cognitive abilities and intellectual stimulation, I guess as opposed to disciplining, as if they are mutually exclusive. No no no my friend. First thing is to establish a relationship with your child. From age 0, this child knows nothing of this world. So, up to the age of 5 or 6 it should be clear to the child that the parent knows more that it does and that there will come a time when it will have to listen and take direction from the parent. If you do your job right and justly, there will be no further need of spanking after age 6. Between age 0 to 5 you can establish a routine for reading, playing, household chores, etc. Beyond age 5 you can continue with this intellectual stimulating routines established earlier without any need for spanking. As a matter of fact, even at that early age you don't have to spank them if they can be shaped into the family routines by giving directions only.

I will give you my own example. I have three sons who are now grown up and they have families of their own. When they were young (0-5) the first born learned that lying in our family is a no-no. I spanked him once for lying and assured him that however bad the mistake he made was, he will not be in trouble if he tells us the truth. But if he lies, and I find it out, then he will get another spanking. The boy never lied to us again and, I think he told his younger brothers about the family policy and I never had to spank any of them again. One spanking around age 5 for the first born and it stopped that bad behavior for all of them. I just noticed that my grandchildren never lie to me (I think).

More assumptions.
Another assumption made by people who are for coercive hostile parenting is that anyone who opposes the use of force thinks that the example you put out of mothers in supermarket isles is how parenting should be done. This isn't the case. Those passive aggressive parents are just as bad as aggressive coercive parents. The argument here is that parents should form rational healthy relationships with their children, should not put their children in a position where the child will act out and should always reason through their decision instead of acting out of anger and whims. A child acts out in a supermarket simply because it is not the child's problem but the environment that gets the child anxious. All those things the child sees but the mother says it cant have. The child becomes bored or angry and throws a fit just as they do on planes and in classes that they are bored in. It is the parent, the teacher or the environment that fails to stimulate the child intellectually that is to blame.

There's no such thing as a good spanking.

Listen to yourself talking. How many children do you have and what are their ages? I like reading textbook on parenting 101 too but if I have to do my parenting all over again, I would not change one bit.

Final note: Not all children need spanking to correct their bad behavior. But spanking should never be removed off the table as an option.

 

[Kifyatu]

Interesting subject.
With a quick read, looks like Africa has been somewhat stereotyped in here but, for most part this's exactly what's going on.

(huu ni ukweli mchungu) ...
"The reality is that you don’t shape a child’s discipline through any of these methods. These methods are usually used by parents who are either lacking in knowledge, reacting out of anger, come from abusive households, are intellectually lacking or lazy and most of the time culturally or religiously confined to the use of force as a form of discipline which in itself is ignorant."

Kifyatu mkuu I agree with your 'spanking yes, senseless beating no. I believe In a little spanking not too much (if they push harder)
But also wonder if there's any evidence or, if it's a guarantee a child will come out as the best kid ever, if you spank them.

In children's tender minds any form of discipline is translated as some sort of aggression, ( you're denying them of their favorite things) so imagine beating or hitting a child.
We see it as a discipline,... they see it as a, 20 feet high, 1000 pounds giant trying to harm them.

Mkuu kui we all know that criminals will not attempt any act if they see a police car (authority figure) in the vicinity. They don't do their mischief because they know the consequences.

A child is not a criminal but does not know wright from wrong. So if in the past you spanked him for misbehaving that is all you need. I must stress that the child ought to have been told why he was being spanked. This registers in his mind that bad behavior is not tolerated.

Trust me, that one spanking is all that is needed. Next time he tries some other mischief all you have to do as a parent is to just look at him and say "we don't do that - it is not good" and the child will stop. This guy Kessy Wa Kilimanjaro talks of spanking as if it is a routine melee beating of a child 24/7/52. That is child abuse not disciplining.

 

[Kessy Wa Kilimanjaro]

Interesting subject.
With a quick read, looks like Africa has been somewhat stereotyped in here but, for most part this's exactly what's going on.

(huu ni ukweli mchungu) ...
"The reality is that you don’t shape a child’s discipline through any of these methods. These methods are usually used by parents who are either lacking in knowledge, reacting out of anger, come from abusive households, are intellectually lacking or lazy and most of the time culturally or religiously confined to the use of force as a form of discipline which in itself is ignorant."

Kifyatu mkuu I agree with your 'spanking yes, senseless beating no. I believe In a little spanking not too much (if they push harder)
But also wonder if there's any evidence or, if it's a guarantee a child will come out as the best kid ever, if you spank them.

In children's tender minds any form of discipline is translated as some sort of aggression, ( you're denying them of their favorite things) so imagine beating or hitting a child.
We see it as a discipline,... they see it as a, 20 feet high, 1000 pounds giant trying to harm them.

Thats my whole point. To children all those actions illicit fear, anger and resentment. Instead of taking things that are harmful from the children why not keep them out of the child's site in the first place. Instead of spanking children for acting out why not entertain their intellect so they don't act out in the first place. To the child they are essentially trapped in your control which they did not choose. The reality is its to the parents responsibility to keep the child out of harm's way not harm them when they get in danger.

 

[datz]

mhhhhh

 

[Kessy Wa Kilimanjaro]

Mkuu kui we all know that criminals will not attempt any act if they see a police car (authority figure) in the vicinity. They don't do their mischief because they know the consequences.

A child is not a criminal but does not know wright from wrong. So if in the past you spanked him for misbehaving that is all you need. I must stress that the child ought to have been told why he was being spanked. This registers in his mind that bad behavior is not tolerated.

Trust me, that one spanking is all that is needed. Next time he tries some other mischief all you have to do as a parent is to just look at him and say "we don't do that - it is not good" and the child will stop. This guy Kessy Wa Kilimanjaro talks of spanking as if it is a routine melee beating of a child 24/7/52. That is child abuse not disciplining.

I don't know where you're from but you obviously haven't observed all criminals in the world. You can not make a broad statement such as criminals will not attempt any act if they see a police car (authority figure) in the vicinity. You obviously haven't heard of the thugs in Chicago. Knowing consequences don't deter violent action. Intellect does. You don't see individuals who are highly intellectual and educated pursuing a life of crime. This is not to say they don't commit crimes but when they do these are due to psychological causation or are corporate crimes.

Hahah and what if that one time spanking doesn't work. More spanking? I assume you're making this claim with the assumption that all children are going to misbehave and therefore all children need to be started out with the indoctrination of spanking because that is the only way they will understand real life consequences.

You also state that the child ought to have been told why he was being spanked. In this case lets use the example of a child who has acted out aggressively whether physically or verbally. The parent in this case spanks the child and says "don't use aggressive force". It doesn't take a philosophy expert to understand why that is such a contradiction of the parent's own principles. The parent is using force to discipline the child not to use force.

 

[Kessy Wa Kilimanjaro]

Just read your article man. If you don't see the parochial attitudes in the entire document then you must be in a worse state of mind than I thought. The entire article reeks of superiority overtones of "me good, you bad". Pathetic. Don't grand stand here and ram your western parenting ideals down our collective throat as an absolute truth. That in itself is condescending.


Are you saying that Barack Obama, raised by grand parents was whooped senseless as a child that is why he is waging wars in Syria? Give me a break. The private interests (Rothschilds, Wall Street, Israel lobby, etc.) money is the power that corrupts a mild-mannered Obama to utter such words like "Assad must go, or Israel has the right to defend itself after the genocidal massacre of Gazans in the Summer of 2014". What he does as an American president has nothing to do with what his grand parents did to him as a child.


My point exactly. Violence is a societal projection of power down to an individual. Nothing to do with spanking.


I don't need any study to give witness to my life experiences. I have spent many decades on the face of this earth and I don't need a 3-year Ph.D. study to teach me what I have lived for more than half a century as an adult. I give myself as that supporting evidence.


You may drop all the names you want but you will not sway me on this. Scholars in search of tenures keep producing these studies and a few years later they are recanted. I am sure you must know of studies from Asia (Tiger moms) and their methods of parenting. China now is eating everybody's lunch academically and financially. Bad parenting huh?


Listen man, it makes no sense to instill on a child that there is no hierarchy in the family just to find himself or herself employed as an adult and has to obey bosses orders. Or a child who thinks she will never be spanked and the moment she turns an adult and runs afoul of the law is sent to jail where he is horribly treated by the law and fellow inmates. If the society was gentle, give criminals non-violent second chances then I will go with you on no spanking. Violence is not taught by spanking. It is taught by how the society behaves - that is where children learn to be violent, not the parental spanking.


Spanking, not out of malice but disciplining, does yield results as long as it is done right and infrequently. Don't school me about morality. Is it moral when minorities are falsely arrested, brutalized, and given long term sentences for no apparent reasons at all. If I have to spank my child to dissuade him from forming a bad habit that may lead to his undoing as an adult in this unfair legal system, I will do it in a heartbeat.

You talk of cognitive abilities and intellectual stimulation, I guess as opposed to disciplining, as if they are mutually exclusive. No no no my friend. First thing is to establish a relationship with your child. From age 0, this child knows nothing of this world. So, up to the age of 5 or 6 it should be clear to the child that the parent knows more that it does and that there will come a time when it will have to listen and take direction from the parent. If you do your job right and justly, there will be no further need of spanking after age 6. Between age 0 to 5 you can establish a routine for reading, playing, household chores, etc. Beyond age 5 you can continue with this intellectual stimulating routines established earlier without any need for spanking. As a matter of fact, even at that early age you don't have to spank them if they can be shaped into the family routines by giving directions only.

I will give you my own example. I have three sons who are now grown up and they have families of their own. When they were young (0-5) the first born learned that lying in our family is a no-no. I spanked him once for lying and assured him that however bad the mistake he made was, he will not be in trouble if he tells us the truth. But if he lies, and I find it out, then he will get another spanking. The boy never lied to us again and, I think he told his younger brothers about the family policy and I never had to spank any of them again. One spanking around age 5 for the first born and it stopped that bad behavior for all of them. I just noticed that my grandchildren never lie to me (I think).



Listen to yourself talking. How many children do you have and what are their ages? I like reading textbook on parenting 101 too but if I have to do my parenting all over again, I would not change one bit.

Final note: Not all children need spanking to correct their bad behavior. But spanking should never be removed off the table as an option.

They are not superior overtones but arguments of a superior method. If I wrote an article about how the steam trains are an inferior method of travel compared to electric trains would that be me using a superior tone or just stating a proven truth. I am pointing to a model of parenting that has predictive capabilities that are consistent. It has proven to work better than coercive parenting.

Again you misrepresent me to appear as if I have a bias towards western ideas. In reality the term "Western" encompasses a lot more than what I am arguing for and is too broad to use against my argument. The argument is that the western thought that has been put through scrutiny from the time of Greek philosophers to the present day has lead to the non aggression principle which has proven to be consistent and has yielded results in the form of peaceful civilizations. (By civilizations I mean the people in them not the actions of the government)

You state that violence is a social projection of power and has nothing to do with spanking. You fail to understand that my argument is not that; All violence is a result of spanking, but instead; Spanking is counterproductive towards the growth of a child's empathy, cognitive and negotiation skills and the lack of these skills results in violence. Not all individuals who lack these skills end up committing mass acts of violence but the only reason they don't is because they are acting out of fear and not out of rational thought. There are studies that show individuals lacking in these skills also end up having unhealthy relationships, addictions and anxiety.

You've just proven what I am saying by disregarding the expert studies done on this matter. You have a bias because you are are emotionally invested in this topic and are ready to disregard the data. Imagine a doctor basing his prescription to symptoms based on his subjective experience. That would be lunacy. The reality is that subjective experience doesn't validate you to practice your views on other individuals regardless of whether or not they are your children. Subjective experience also doesn't stand as truth or fact in an objective argument. You have a bias to agree with your views and that's why you need to challenge them and provide reasoning and evidence not just sentimental claims.

From your responses I can understand that your view of the family relationship is misconstrued. The family relationship is about safety, security and a healthy foundation for all individuals in a civilization. It is not about asserting dominance. If it was, then in that case all husbands that hit their wives are justified because they are instilling the hierarchy in their wife. To assume that it is a hierarchy is to presuppose that there are individuals in the family structure that are better than others and are therefore justified in mistreating others.

You also keep making this broad correlation towards criminals and misbehaving individuals due to the lack of spanking while at the same time accusing me of making too broad of a correlation when I correlate spanking with violence. As if all individuals who misbehave, do so because they weren't spanked and so they don't understand the hierarchy of society. Once again society is not a hierarchy. Society is the concept that is used to group all individuals that share a form of thought, ideas, and trade. Society is about negotiations. If children are raised up to simply obey unjustified society officials they will eventually resent them. If children are raised to negotiate with society officials and come to a conclusion in which both parties voluntarily gain something then you'll have a peaceful world.

You speak of society as if it is its own entity. Society is made up of individuals including the parents and children. Society doesn't teach anything because it is a concept. Society is the collective popular thought, attitudes and reactions of the majority of a civilization. If a society is violent it is because the individuals in it are violent. This means that from the upbringing, to the genetics, environment, popular thought and cultures in between all contribute to the violence. In this case I am pointing out one of those negative aspects which is an upbringing of hostile parenting.

No one is trying to school you on morals or school you on anything for that matter. I am simply stating my case, making arguments, and counter arguments to your claims. You seem to view any rebuttals as demeaning. I assume that you don't come across a good amount of people who disagree with your views.

You also claim that minorities are falsely arrested. This is a subject that requires a lot of data since minorities could mean anyone who is south American, African American, Armenian American, Chinese American, Italian American, Taiwanese American, Irish American e.t.c. One would also have to be specific about the particular place because even in America the laws vary from state to state. You don't even bother to mention that the minorities you talk about are the ones in America. Then you say if you have to spank your child to prevent them from forming a bad habit that will result in his undoing in an unfair legal system you'd do it in a heartbeat. Is it his bad habit that leads to his undoing or the unfair legal system. You again fail to be consistent.

You then write that you need to establish a relationship with the child between certain ages and that spanking is necessary in between those ages. You also claimed to disregard studies but to make a statement of actual age ranges implies that you actually conducted a study yourself and found this out. Is it possible for you to point out how exactly you would know that those ages are the right time to spank even if it is once and are you sure that spanking was the only form of hostile parenting on your children's life. If not are you sure it had no affect on your children's cognitive abilities.

Your examples of your children behaving after you spanked one of them is the result of fear. Fear does not benefit children's cognitive abilities, negotiating skills or empathy. Fear instead results in resentment. You depict bad behavior on children as a result of their own malicious intentions but you've also made the claim that they are shaped by their society which would mean that the bad behavior was not a result of their own intention. Which one is it.

You claim that spanking should never be removed but so far from your writing all you've argued for is that it enforces hierarchy, and deters a life of crime, two claims that I have shown to be false. Therefore if spanking has no benefits and if there are much more productive alternatives, then spanking should be an act of the primitive past.

 

[kui]

Mkuu kui we all know that criminals will not attempt any act if they see a police car (authority figure) in the vicinity. They don't do their mischief because they know the consequences.

A child is not a criminal but does not know wright from wrong. So if in the past you spanked him for misbehaving that is all you need. I must stress that the child ought to have been told why he was being spanked. This registers in his mind that bad behavior is not tolerated.

Trust me, that one spanking is all that is needed. Next time he tries some other mischief all you have to do as a parent is to just look at him and say "we don't do that - it is not good" and the child will stop. This guy Kessy Wa Kilimanjaro talks of spanking as if it is a routine melee beating of a child 24/7/52. That is child abuse not disciplining.

If I'm am not wrong, Kessy Wa Kilimanjaro is based on 'Prevention is better....theory, which I think is the best way to go if you invest a lot in it, for your children's well-upbringing.

But mkuu, when you suggest that spanking should not be removed off the table as an option, I hope you're not speaking in support of spanking in schools as well?!...
Cause that's a big NO!

 

[kui]

Non aggression principle in Africa,...we have a very long way to get to this. Mention this to groups of people from the northern part of our country, on which being aggressive to their significant others (of all the people! ) is the way of showing affection. If you bring this subject up they'd think you're speaking in tongues.

When it comes to our children, there was an argument same as this, and majority of people refused to go with the fact that there's alternative ways to discipline our kids other than hitting them. Too bad this's all we know.

To top all that, we usually end up blaming them for being 'problems' forgetting that we, as parents, play a huge role in shaping our children's behavior.
But I think the main problem is time, I don't think we spend enough time with our kids to make sure they engage themselves in constructive activities and stay away from trouble, they're on their own most of the times and as a result they end up learning(God knows what) from strangers.

 

[Kessy Wa Kilimanjaro]

Non aggression principle in Africa,...we have a very long way to get to this. Mention this to groups of people from the northern part of our country on which being aggressive to their significant others (of all the people! ) is the way of showing affection. If you bring this subject to them they'd think you're speaking in tongues.

When it comes to our children, there was an argument same as this, and majority of people refused to agree with the fact that there's alternative ways to discipline our kids other than hitting them. Too bad this's what we know.

To top all that, we usually end up with blaming them for being 'problems' forgetting that we, as parents, play a huge role in shaping our children's behavior.
But I think the main problem is time, I don't think we spend enough time with our kids to make sure they engage themselves in constructive activities and as a result, they end up learning(God knows what) from strangers.

I believe that there's enough African intellectuals who are tired enough to ignite something. Situations such as those where culture dictates truth are what will either prove to be the last stand against rational thought or lead us back to barbaric tribal ways. Everyone is seeing the capabilities of a rational society. With the power of our modern communication abilities it will only be a matter of time until the right ideas reach a good amount of people. Even in Africa.

I believe a revolution is coming. This isn't going to be a bloodbath but a war of Ideas and it all starts with our friends. If you share this article with your friend and change their form of thought and they share it and so on, imagine what a difference that will make.

And for those who cant reason show them the facts. Show them the civilizations that have developed due to these principles. All the Scandinavian countries for example. The information is out there you just have to share it with them. You understand the most fundamental principle of civilizing human beings which is that it all begins with relationships. The relationships you have with your family, friends and neighbor even strangers. Use those to practice and pass on these ideas. I am sure that alone will make a big difference.