Correct, the government does not give you rights.
The government enforces those rights.

So why is this at negative votes?

there are a few inaccuracies in this video but over-all..makes a pretty strong point.
our fore-fathers did not exactly agree on the size,powers and authority the federal government should have,quite the opposite see:the federalist papers.

so the statement that the original intent was for a small centralized government is inaccurate.

but the argument over the bill of rights is fairly accurate.
hence the terms "inalienable and god-given".

i think the term indoctrination is used appropriately here.
2nd graders should not be introduced to such ideologies and most certainly not in this fashion.get em while they are young!..reprehensible.

this is ideology vs reality.
this is power vs powerlessness.
this is power abusing young minds to create a submissive and unquestioning attitude towards authority.

while the ideology may be comforting and even noble..it is a delusion when compared to the reality.

a citizen must KNOW their rights in order to fight for them.because power will ALWAYS attempt to curb or outright take those rights away and if they are able to do that (and they HAVE in many cases) then those rights are..in fact..privileges.

the "free speech zones" example is perfect.that was from st louis RNC in 2004 (i think..im recalling from memory).see? they didnt "take" away your right to free speech,they just made you do it -------> over there.

which affectively neutralized any dissent,but hey..you still had your right to free speech,just neutered and ineffectual.

to even call this educational is an insult to teachers.
its indoctrination..pure and simple.

You're seemingly bothered by the semantic difference between "gives" and "grants" or "guarantees". Guarantees would have been a better word, but the idea that this is "indoctrination" in ...what exactly?...seems silly and totally reactionary.
Read "Miracle In Philadelphia", it gives a GREAT idea of what went on, along with tons of details mostly unknown.
EDIT: For instance, did you know that Ben Franklin was often carried in on a 'sedan chair' (or it's non-covered equivalent) carried by prisoners on 'work release'?!
While the bill of rights does use that wording, it's the government that secures those rights FOR you...or to say it another way, 'gives' you (security in them).
"Power", in the form of the continental congress, "Gave" you those rights (EDIT: by codifying them in our laws and our basic outline for government/governing). I say they are certainly NOT "god given inalienable rights" which is proven by the fact that many people do NOT have them around the world. If they were truly "god given inalienable rights", they could not be removed or ignored by anyone, could they?
It may be poor wording, but indoctrination? Come on. What are the Texas School Boards "history" text books then? Now THEY re-write history.

@newtboy
thats why i love you brother!
it is your optimism that i absolutely adore,sincerely.

notice my wording:ideology vs reality.

in the first part of my argument i actually agree with you,though we may use different terms.

i think we may be crossing lines due to verbiage.
when i say "power" i am referring to what is my opinion,a plutocracy,so my argument flows from that perspective.

sheldon wolin makes an excellent example but uses the term "inverted totalitarianism" in his book "democracy incorporated".

you are making an ideological argument that is based on rights SHOULD be protected..in theory,but i do not see play out in reality.if you look at the history of how rights have been obtained over the past 100 years alone you will see that not ONE was ever just offered by our government.each and every one has been hard fought (and died) for.

now moving on to your texas reference,well...i totally agree with you but that is revisionism not indoctrination,at least in the manner in which i am referencing that term.

when i say this video makes a case for indoctrination i say so with my subjective AND objective understandings.
subjectively:i believe that the onus is on the very person,institution or government to prove they have a right to said authority.
objectively:this video...although extremely over-simplified..makes its case that there is a concerted effort to get very young children to tacitly submit to a centralized authority.

now when we consider what education actually IS,and this is not the thread to truly dissect such a complicated and multi-faceted subject but suffice to say,as succinct as i can:
education is the teaching of abilities,to consume data and information in order to come to informed and well-thought out conclusions,to better understand our:world,society and the reality we reside.

to be taught the skills the dissect and disseminate complex problems and the ability to formulate questions which can push boundaries and challenge pre-conceived ideologies.

so with that definition in mind.
how can we be expected to view this than anything other than a ploy to get that young mind to tacitly submit to a central authority?

and this is for 2nd graders? these kids are 8 yrs old!

education should be giving kids the tools to challenge and question not blindly submit.we might as well call the government jesus the way this thing is being taught.

so if you look at a religious family and find how they "indoctrinate" their young children into the ways of the church,then you should have the exact same problem with this tactic.

because the tactics being used are identical.

I suppose that makes sense, but ignores the idea (one I certainly HOPE they teach) that OUR government (technically) derives ALL it's power from the consent of the governed. (If only it were the INFORMED consent...but we have what we have). If that idea is taught along with this one, and that the representative government is made of, and by the people, then there's no longer an issue. The government IS the people, so their rights flow from, and back to themselves, enforced by the government (which is them). No?

As for Texas, it is certainly indoctrination in my eyes, into the far right's revisionist history in order to make their present stances make logical/rational/moral sense. That's how I see it.

The government has proven that it has that right by it's creation in the first place. Our government is nearly unique in that it was created by consensus of all those involved in it's creation.

I see this as not so much a political ploy, but a slightly lazy, poorly worded, over simplified lesson, one that I hope will be clarified in later lesson plans, but not something to get upset over, when there are far more egregious lessons being taught....or not.
In second grade, you are still barely building a base of knowledge with which to question much. That kind of teaching is better suited for after middle school in my eyes, but I'm not an educator.

I down-voted it because the presenter was just annoying and looking for something to be offended over.

Also because, I don't really believe in the idea of "god given rights". Aside from the fact that I don't believe my rights have anything to do with something I don't believe in, the simple reality is that rights derive from societal values.

Most people today would agree that same sex couples should have the right to get married. But (in many cases) they can't.

Most people would say that the government doesn't have a right to unjustly spy on you. But they do anyway.

A few hundred years ago, there was an inalienable right to own slaves.

Rights are not some concrete physical law that underpins our existence, they exist because we as a society have decided they should. And as I said before, government is supposed to be the instrument that guarantees those rights are not violated.

I'm not sure I agree with this.

The constitution isn't a dead document. Every generation (except this current one) has passed amendments to it. I don't think there was ever a specific "inalienable right to own slaves" in the constitution. The framework for equality is always there. We just had to get to it as a nation. And we're still doing it. Maybe always will be.

Rights really are the things that can't be given through law. To twist your words to my understanding:

Rights are the concrete physical law that underpins our existence.

I agree with part of what you said. Rights are not things that are given through law, rights are enforced through law.

Remember that the US constitution is a relatively recent addition in the grand scheme of things.

If you talked to someone 50 years ago, they wouldn't have accept same sex marriage as a right.

If you talk to someone in 100 years time, they might be shocked that we didn't have the right to walk down the street without harassment.

The point is that rights evolve over time. They are not set in stone, society decides on them.

There are some rights that nearly everyone agrees on, and some that people disagree on.

As a society and a species, we try to uphold the rights we deem important.

@newtboy
now we are getting somewhere.

let us look at your first paragraph.notice anything?
ideology vs reality.
what you are proposing is the initial intent and ideologically i totally agree but even in your paragraph you concede to the truth,albeit a cynical truth.
(the referencing of the necessity if an informed public).which is only one aspect of a much greater whole which should be criticized and addressed.

understand i am not disagreeing with your assessments of the original intent.what i am pointing out is that what we have now is no where near a reflection of that intent,to which i have added that each right,privilege and dignity has had to be fought for and extracted FROM the government.

the government is "supposed" to represent the people.
it is "supposed" to protect and secure our rights.
but is that what we see play out?
i certainly dont think so.

the case is not exactly hard to make that the federal government no longer serves nor represents the will of the people but rather large corporate and monied interests.

though i will concede that revisionist text books can fascilitate indoctrination.

i am also not trying to make the argument this video is some political masterpiece of criticism.
it is a pandering,condescending,simple-minded piece of work BUT it is the criticism i admire.

i could go on for days on the failures of the public education system and it has very little to do with the teachers but rather the delivery system itself,which has become a machine which comodifies people into class categories.

henry giroux called it punishment creep.

school is not longer about education but rather about learning to obey.

quick story before i totally go off the rails and write you all a book:
i was subbing a history class for a friend and decided to teach shay's rebellion,since he was just completing america's war for independence and the rebellion is vital to understand the debate over federal powers.my friend was delighted with the idea but the administration was,less than enthusiastic.

the next day i was handed my third disciplinary notice and reprimanded for not following curriculum.which was bullshit because i was never given specific curriculum.

they wanted a babysitter...not a teacher.

i have not had a teaching gig since,because i didnt learn the lesson they are drilling into those kids brains.....obey.

sit down.
shut up.
and do what you are told.

do you truly think obedience should be the primary lesson learned at school?

Moving this video to Trancecoach's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.