It is the accepted practice that after numerous tests and re-tests, a hypothesis or a guess (in a layman’s term) becomes a law.
What about prolonged observations about a certain issue? Can’t those prolonged observations about a certain issue showing certain results be accepted as facts in the absence of tests or studies conducted?
When that issue has produced only a certain form of results for decades, can’t those prolonged observations be accepted as verifiable truths in the absence of tests or studies conducted?
When certain issues are subjected to tests and re-tests, threatening to reveal contrary and embarrassing results concerning the majority of a population, wouldn’t the entity called the government of the day try its level best to stop such tests from taking place?
Thus, the same results about a point in question gathered after prolonged observations in the absence of tests or studies conducted over a period of time can be accepted as verifiable truths.
Even governments can work hand in glove with parties that advance particular interests to alter the results of studies pertaining to any endeavour related to man’s progress in order to conceal the shortcomings of certain sections of their population. The results of these studies may also be used by these governments to advance the suitability of a course of action for the greater good of the country as a whole in the future. Governments can tamper with the outcomes of studies conducted on certain issues to legitimise their stranglehold on the various vocations affecting the citizens’ livelihood. That is the brutal truth.
Learning any language involves its four skills.
A person competent in any language should also exhibit the SUBTLETY OF THOUGHT to express his feelings and ideas to the greater population of the world.
I define subtlety of thought as “one’s ability to give an intelligent account of a matter from all angles honestly in order to deal with all the parts that make up the whole”.
Honesty is vital in any argument or debate. If parties in an argument or a debate are not honest at the outset in admitting any shortcomings with a view to rectifying them immediately, then that argument or debate is an exercise in futility. There will be no progress made at all where the matter is concerned. Things will remain stagnant forever or they will get worse.
We need to realise that not ALL environments are the same. We also need to realise that the learners whom we teach in one environment are not the same kind of learners in other environments. There are many other factors that come into play about certain races in the world.
Characteristic as an adjective means “being or revealing a quality specific or identifying to an individual or group”. The synonyms are distinctive, peculiar or specific.
Characteristic as a noun means “something that marks or sets apart”. The synonyms are feature, point or trait.
Certain races display certain characteristics.
One of it is INTELLIGENCE. Some races show quickness of understanding, and therefore have an upper hand over other races in certain disciplines on earth. Look around the world. What do we see? Can’t we see that some countries are developed and some countries are still in the third-world category? Not ALL members of the human race are capable of learning anything, anywhere. Perhaps, their environments lack the necessary infrastructure with the competent manpower or their environments are ravaged by war. Hence, some races need the structured manner to learn something valuable for their future. They can’t just jump to the complex without knowing the simple.
Another is the INCLINATION TO WORK. Some races are very hardworking. On the other hand, there are races who lack the will to work. Despite all the incentives given to toil and prosper, some races are still lazy to work. The degree of intensity to work varies considerably among the races of the world.
Not ALL members of the human race are the same in terms of characteristics, and so they don’t possess the same degree of qualities required for certain vocations.
An example will show this clearly.
When many students gain admission into universities for tertiary studies delivered in the medium of instruction called English, they are expected to show competence in English as well as subtlety of thought. After graduation, they don’t possess competence in English and they are at a total loss in expressing their thoughts clearly upon any subject-matter with confidence. Why is that so? How did they prepare their assignments in universities? What benchmark did the university authorities use to mark their students’ assignments? HOW DID THEY EVEN GRADUATE?! Is the profit-motive the only criterion for the public and private universities of a country? These “graduates” are herded into the public and private sectors of an economy. And some governments even spend a lot of money to train and re-train these “graduates” in their respective economies. HUH?!
My observations are not those of an anthropologist. My observations are those of a layman watching ordinary events pertaining to ordinary people in their everyday lives.
When a person possesses competence in a language in all its FOUR skills along with the subtlety of thought to express himself clearly in the spoken and written forms of that said language, he can truly claim to be proficient in that said language.
As such, if anyone wants to learn a language, he must bear in mind the time, effort and money (in some instances) involved to attain proficiency in the said language.
But when a lot of resources of various kinds have been put in place by an entity called a government to improve the proficiency and use in that said language of a population with no tangible results using MANY approaches over a period of decades, what does it mean?
Naturally, the blame must fall on the people who teach and learn that said language.
Naturally, these people may not just be suited to teach and learn that said language at all.
Am I a racist for telling the truth?