There is a huge difference between pushing your kids to overcome their current limits and forcing them to do something they do not enjoy at all.

There is indeed a difference between giving a slight push and "forcing" which is what TFA is talking about.

Kids tend to want to partake of their own initiative in activities that are 1) physical, and 2) that they see adults themselves do.

Hunting in wilderness is a good example; so are sports, cooking, crafts, etc.

But unfortunately not all important activities that kids need to learn to become well adjusted adults in our modern societies fit those 2 criteria.

Point 2) can be hacked to an extent by modeling the behavior yourself - eg kids who see adults read books are more likely to want to read themselves.

Or staring to smartphone. Then, suddenly, we are surprised why our kids do same.

Oh, I am obviously a racist, by glorifying indigineous teaching methods.

But otherwise can you show, where this is documented? The natives tribes where I have some knowledge, don't force their kids to learn in the sense that is talked about here. No need to - the whole culture is about becoming a good hunter (for male individuals). So indeed lots of peer pressure, but no individual forcing.

> Oh, I am obviously a racist, by glorifying indigineous teaching methods.

No, by calling people "savages", a pejorative, based on their ethnicity.

Much like how it would be racist to call people "enslavers" based on their ethnicity, or "cotton pickers" based on their ethnicity.

Erm, english is not my first language, but I believe, savage stands for uncivilised person.

So exactly what I wanted to talk about, when referencing "natural education".

I did not talk about any ethnicity at all.

It's considered super racist but also awkwardly old fashioned anyway even if it weren't just the former.

Ok, seriously. I did not talk about any ethnicity at all. How exactly can I made a racist statement here?

Or were you simply trying to say, for you the term "savage" is strongly connected to racists and therefore inappropriate to use?

Calling indigenous people "savage" in English is almost universally considered racist.

Well, or just in your bubble?

Besides, I called arbitary savage people savage. No concrete person that might feel insulted. And savage .. is not an insult in my bubble anyway btw.

Like you said, you're not a native English speaker.

Talking about a specific ethnicity is not required to be racist in English. If a person were to use the word "Nazi" to describe any person who lives in an area that was Nazi-controlled in 1942, this would be roughly equivalent in terms of the connotation and in terms of the reasonable indignation the recipient might feel.

Furthermore, if you didn't have a specific ethnicity in mind, then when you're going off about "natural education", what you're really saying here is "all groups of people that are part of a group I consider 'uncivilized' are the same".

Or alternately, if ethnicity isn't what you're using as your basis for calling groups of people and their children "uncivilized", what is?

"Or alternately, if ethnicity isn't what you're using as your basis for calling groups of people and their children "uncivilized", what is?"

Culture.

And this debate is equally fascinating and frustrating.

I simply spoke of generic nomadic uncivilised hunters.

And not at all in a bad way, just to illustrate a point. Because to my knowledge yes, nomadic hunting cultures do have similarities. Education seems to be one of those.

Feel free to provide counter examples.