You must log in or register to comment.
Now do homeownership, maternal mortality, hospital satisfaction, murder rates, suicide rates, reforestation efforts, wind/solar/water energy generation, and green technology development!
: Yeah but…this system allows some “unworthy” people to not die, so it’s clearly an authoritarian failure.
Clearly this means the evil see see pee is stealing our literacy.
It’s worse, they’re forcing people to be literate. This is cultural genocide on an industrial scale with see see pee wiping out the culture of illiteracy!
they just keep genociding slow trains and poverty and illiteracy, when will their evil regime stop
Small aside, China hasan extensive regular speed train network. Trains are still rather fast, but obviously slower than HSR. It is very beneficial to have both, as the slower trains are quite a bit cheaper. China has a large population, and many people take the regular train, even with standing tickets. These trains move a lot of people and are an important part of the transit system. Sometimes it feels like an inter-city metro since you can take trains at any time to any city.
You’re welcome
Ok i thought for sure this is bullshit, but apparently not:
Four in five U.S. adults (79 percent) have English literacy skills sufficient to complete tasks that require comparing and contrasting information, paraphrasing, or making low-level inferences—literacy skills at level 2 or above in PIAAC (OECD 2013). In contrast, one in five U.S. adults (21 percent) has difficulty completing these tasks (figure 1). This translates into 43.0 million U.S. adults who possess low literacy skills
I didn’t believe it until I started working. Now if you asked me what the literacy rate is I’d say sub-50%. I’ve met so many people who literally cannot read. As in, they’ve clearly been taught what the letters are and how to sound them out, but following a list of instructions based on those letters is completely impossible for them.
Your assessment is probably closer to the truth. 54% of American adults have a literacy below sixth grade level link and some of the people you’ve met probably are considered barely literate yet counts towards the 79%.
A curious statistic I’ve found while reading up on this is that 77% of African Americans have moderate or high reading proficiency while only 65% of white Americans qualify as such. A statistic that you’ll never see racists mention (and libs for those that somehow fit outside the venn diagram)
I haven’t done any research on this, but my gut says it’s because black people are more likely to live in urban areas with at least the basics of public education. Whereas white people comprise more rural areas. Not saying living in a rural area makes you illiterate, like I grew up in a small town in the woods, but it does mean there’s just less of everything, including education. More homeschooling too among white people.
Could also be that white people take education less seriously because they don’t feel threatened by a hostile job market. Did your readings say why there’s a disparity between demographics?
It was just a cute factoid that I noted, so I didn’t look further into the claims.
Your theory could be correct. Another reason I suspect is that due to racial biases and different job market situation arising from the urban/rural divide, black Americans are forced to be more literate in order to survive compared to the average white American.
Yeah, living here I would not be surprised in the slightest if it was 50%
I hate to rain on y’all’s parade, but the US measure of literacy is much more stringent than China’s. America is counting literacy as the ability to use print materials like brochures and manuals fluently, the rest of the world just bases literacy on the ability to read a handful of test sentences in a controlled testing context. That’s the reason that America appears to have gone down as well, they switched literacy measures. The 79% measure is people who are “at or below level 1 literacy”, meaning it counts people who met level 1, people who didn’t meet level 1, and people who couldn’t even take the test at all because of a language barrier or disability. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019179.pdf
I’m all for dunking on America but the apples to apples here would be comparing America’s 96% (just excluding those below level 1) to China’s 97%. Historical materialism requires a true material basis to work.
yeah, fair points
deleted by creator
Half of it is I guess. But the dramatic rise of literacy in China is still noteworthy.
Do Cuba too!
Fun fact: the world bank prevented Cuba’s literacy program from being widely adopted because they feared it would be a gateway for people to start reading socialist literature and start revolutions
The US attempted their own program, but it was plagued with inefficiency because it was run by a bunch of NGOs with little collaboration with each other or the people they were supposed to teach (compared to Cuba which made students and workers of all financial and literacy backgrounds teach each other).
Later on the capitalist program was examined and the people in charge of it admitted that had they just gone with Cuba’s model, most of the inefficiencies wouldn’t have existed and their goals would’ve been met much faster.
deleted by creator
Not a book but here’s some sources I used when writing about it previously:
Seara Rey, Kian. “Rosa Hernández Acosta on the Cuban Literacy Campaign.” JSTOR Daily, (2021). https://daily.jstor.org/rosa-hernandez-acosta-on-the-cuban-literacy-campaign/
(This first one is especially interesting as it’s an interview with someone who taught during the literacy campaign)
Leiner M. (1987) The 1961 National Cuban Literacy Campaign. In: Arnove R.F., Graff H.J. (eds) National Literacy Campaigns. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0505-5_8
Boughton, Bob, & Durnan, Deborah. “Cuba’s Yo, Sí Puedo. A Global Literacy Movement?.” Postcolonial Directions in Education 3, no. 2 (2014): 325-359. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289310152_Cuba's_Yo_Si_Puedo_A_global_literacy_movement
Boughton, Bob. “Back to the Future?: Timor-Leste, Cuba and the Return of the Mass Literacy Campaign.” Literacy & Numeracy Studies 18, no. 2 (2010): 58-74. https://doi.org/10.5130/lns.v18i2.1898
Herman, Rebecca. “An Army of Educators: Gender, Revolution and the Cuban Literacy Campaign of 1961.” Gender & History 24, no. 1 (2012): 93-111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0424.2011.01670.x
Griffiths, Tom G. & Williams, Jo. “Mass Schooling for Socialist Transformation in Cuba and Venezuela.” Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 7, no. 2 (2009): 30-50. http://www.jceps.com/wp-content/uploads/PDFs/07-2-02.pdf
Kempf, Arlo. “The Cuban Literacy Campaign at 50: Formal and Tacit Learning in Revolutionary Education.” Critical Education 5, no. 4 (2014): 1-20. https://doi.org/10.14288/ce.v5i4.183269
Artaraz, Kepa. “Cuba’s Internationalism Revisited: Exporting Literacy, ALBA, and a New Paradigm for South–South Collaboration.” Bulletin of Latin American Research 31, no.1 (2012): 22-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-9856.2011.00645.x
Lorenzetto, Anna, & Neys, Karel. “Report on the Method and Means Utilized in Cuba to Eliminate Illiteracy.” UNESCO. 1965. http://www.maestrathefilm.org/activos/educators/Lorenzetto UNESCO Study.pdf
McLaren, Peter. “Guided by a Red Star: The Cuban Literacy Campaign and the Challenge of History.” Journal of Critical Education Policy Studies 7, no. 2 (2009):52-65. http://www.jceps.com/wp-content/uploads/PDFs/07-2-03.pdf
deleted by creator
well the stats come from the chinese government, are you just going to trust their stats? they’re probably lying about the numbers, don’t be so gullible!1!!11
This is the final refuge of the person that uses Chinese stat’s to prove Uigher genocide through some sort of numerology
It’s the ultimate response. “Everyone who disagrees with me is lying” is a perfect way to always be right about everything, after all, if someone else disagrees, that’s just because they’re pretending to.
final refuge
Very often the first and only one.
west good east bad. you can see that i’m very intelligent.
Those Chinese students are probably only studying so hard because soldiers are pointing machine guns at them at all times.
There is no way US literacy in the 1950s was anywhere near 90% unless you excluded marginalized and minority populations.
Excellent point, and that’s likely exactly how they counted it.
Think about it. In the 1950’s, a lot of people couldn’t afford a radio. Reading was the only way to entertain yourself at home. There were plenty of dime novels and pulps. Schools might not have had things like microscopes, but even the worst places could buy books the other schools were getting rid of.
By the 50’s it was extremely customary for most homes to have a TV and at the VERY LEAST a radio if they weren’t very well off. Radios were dirt cheap.
You’re making the 50’s sound like the 1920’s.
Radios were dirt cheap.
By my understanding, the materials were (and are) so inexpensive that building radios was actually a fairly popular hobby back then. An AM radio with decent reception is pretty simple to make.
You can build your own AM radio in less then an hour with a large metallic object (car, bike, large piece of scrap metal, basketball pole), some aluminum foil, a small piece of copper, a battery, and any sort of speaker.
It’s a pretty common childhood science experiment where I am to build functional jerryrigged radio.
But you are right, building functional AM radios was and is pretty common for how cheap the components are. Plus I’m pretty sure I can still go to a store and buy a small working radio for less then 20 bucks.
Jeez TV only arrived in South Africa in 1976. And some delusional people actually think the old government was good lmao
Woof, TV’s were already a popular concept before WW2 in the US, but their development was halted by the war. However once the war ended, television exploded in popularity with the establishment of a dedicated signal network, and it was a staple item in almost all homes by the mid/late 40’s.
The South African regime was good if you were a Boer emerald mine owner. If you were anyone else? Not so much.
TV’s were already a popular concept before WW2 in the US
“In 1945, there were probably fewer than 10,000 sets in the country. This figure soared to about 6 million in 1950, and to almost 60 million by 1960” -“Television.” The World Book Encyclopedia. even that 6 million is hardly a “staple” in a country of 151 million
Yes, but don’t forget that you usually had 4-8 people per household, if not more, so its not like everyone is getting their very own individual television.
Also I wasn’t saying that television was massive, I said the concept of them were and there was immense research and development into the technology. Effort that was redirected because of the war. There was great interest into the technology and as soon as production was shifted from military to civilian goods, the number skyrocketed.
“In 1946, 7,000 TV sets were sold; in 1948, 172,000 sets were sold; and in 1950, 5 million sets were sold. In the year 1950 per the United States Census, just under 20 percent of American homes contained a TV set, but by 1960 the figure had reached 90 percent.” -Encyclopedia Britannica.
Fewer then 97% of China are fluent in English.
I rate this 5 Pinocchios.
😄
Also, Chinese script, even simplified Chinese, is significantly harder to master than English. I for example can speak Mandarin fluently (as a Chinese person in Canada) but can barely read or write it, and no you don’t just “pick it up” if you can speak it because there is zero correlation between the spoken language and written script, it’s all memorization of every single character. I would have to actually take classes or something to learn to read and write Chinese, which I am definitely considering doing.
Actually, English is technically my second language since I was born in China (long story, left as a young child so wasn’t my choice), and after having learned English and become fluent in both reading and writing it, I keep asking myself “how the hell can you be fluent in speaking English and not be fluent in writing it? If you know how to say a word you know 90% of how to write it unlike Chinese.”
So, sorry anglophones, even if China had the same literacy rate as the US, it would still be more impressive (not of the intellect of Chinese people or any racial bullshit like that, but the effectiveness of their education system and socialist ideology, which English speakers are fully capable of implementing as well with no excuse not to.)
Even I the anglophone am jealous of Cyrillic-script languages. Phonetic languages, where you say what you see, sound so convenient. Even worlds like anglophone have dumb gimmicks like ‘ph’ = ‘f’. The grass is always greener on the other side.
But even then, illiteracy often also means they can’t read basic English, so it’s not even them misspelling weird words like… ‘misspelling’ and ‘weird.’, a large proportion of the USA would seriously struggle to understand our conversation [see replies to this]. And when our alphabet is 26 symbols (52 including capitals) with 10 digits and a handful of necessary punctuation symbols, Chinese script is off by magnitudes.
And having seen some documentaries interviewing people in my country overcoming adult illiteracy, you realize this includes clearly intelligent people who within weeks could begin reciting their own small written speeches, who were often just neglected by the education system and then too embarrassed to seek help or reveal their inability.
some Romance languages have one-to-one phoneme-letter relations as well (e.g. Spanish, but not Fr*nch)
Most Germanic languages, too, are spelled phonetically. English is sort of the rare exception in that family.
Hi, I wanted to encourage you to learn to read and write Chinese. Don’t push it off for later, go start looking for courses now! 我相信你可以的，加油。
I’ve been learning Mandarin for the past year and a half or so, it’s definitely challenging. Learning to write in particular is incredibly challenging since learning to recognize the characters is an easier task than remembering all the strokes you have to make. My plan is to just use pinyin as input and just skip learning to write. English doesn’t even begin to compare in terms of complexity.
Chinese literacy isn’t only characters. First, all children learn to read Pinyin. THEN they get taught classical characters.
Chinese also has probably the most number of idioms and double meanings out of any language, most of which date back hundreds to thousands of years and are formatted for the time, basically the equivalent of if little snippets of Shakespearean were still in common use mixed in with modern English.
Remember that Western claim that Xi Jinping had banned idioms as a way to control Chinese people, a la Newspeak? Anyone who knows Chinese should know just how ridiculous that claim is, you’d have to ban Chinese language in its entirety to do that.
Literally no native speaker of chinese considers Pinyin a real writing system. The latin alphabet barely works for Latin and its modern descendents, let alone a tonal analytical language in another language family. You’re just another illiterate expat who’s bitter at your inability to learn Chinese. Fuck off back to reddit.
That actually explains so much about the US
:but-at-what-cost:
By linear extrapolation, one may conclude that China will reach its goal in 2025, while the US will only reach its goal in 2539
What goal is America striving for, 0% literacy? Lmao
Jesus Christ, those stats for the US are just depressing
Can someone fill me on the terms “homeless” vs. “unhoused”? Why is the latter being used more now?
Standard lib response of “We won’t actually change anything but we will change a word and act like it is a bigger deal than actually helping with your problems.”
iirc the term “homeless” imply being a complete social outcast, while those people are in fact part of society often with jobs, families, friends etc. The only thing they lack is the physical house, therefore unhoused.
But as other posters noticed, the shift is also a liberal platitutide instead of action.
The shift wasn’t initiated by liberals though, they are quick to adapt to new phrasing though if it means not having to take action that cost money as austerity rules supreme.
Yeah idk where it originated exactly, but the term itself suggest it was coined by someone actually having some empathy and brains, while liberals are famously lacking on both departments. Ultimately Engels is as always correct about the libs “These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves.”
My take is it really doesn’t actually do much (except perhaps reduce the sense of blame in the term homeless - i.e. unhoused implies they should be housed).
However chuds hate it because of that implication, therefore critical support for the semantic shift.
Thanks
to a significant extent, it’s the euphemism treadmill, but the usual argument i have seen is that homeless implies an inherent/permanent state of being while unhoused implies a more temporary one.
Technically people who are couch surfing, sleeping in tents in campgrounds, or sleeping in garages or caravans are homeless as are people living in crisis accommodation. “Unhoused” lowers the statistic to just people without a roof over their head.
Houseless is a way to make homeless people roll their eyes and stop listening to you. If you want an excuse to not do effective work, then its as easy as using that term.
For a couple of years now I have been working at a shop in a very, very impoverished and rough part of my city that is predominately occupied by low income minorities. I hope this doesn’t come off condescending but it took me a while to realize that a not insignificant number of our customers struggled to read the menu and price, info ect about products we had. I feel bad even for being a bit frustrated in the past by this, and we do our best to accommodate everyone and make them feel welcomed now I like to think anyway. But this is certainly a widespread issue that is rarely discussed or understood especially by those who reside only in wealthier areas or what not.
