I was so excited to take my first college history class (I took History of the Gulf War but even my teacher confessed that it was more of a government class) at MHCC this term. History of Western Civilization. Upon buying my book, I rushed to the school library to browse through it. When I read the preface I was disappointed to read the main author's credentials:
"Judith G Coffin received her Ph.D. in modern French history from Yale University. She has taught at Harvard University and the University of California, Riverside, and is currently associate professor of history at the University of Texas President's Associates' Award for Teaching Excellence. Her research inerests focus on the social and cultural history of gender, mass culture, slavery, race relations, and colonialism. She is the author of The Politics of Women's Work: The Paris Garment Trades, 1750-1915." (Western Civilizations Vol A)
Of course I get a book with a female author who's interests are gender, slavery, race relations, and colonialism. I'm sure this will be a fun term of learning how horrible the men of the west are. In fact, the tone is set in the introduction when the author tries to belittle the old teachings of the history of the west with her new reformed PC approach:
"Historians today are keenly aware of hw much such an account leaves out. It slights the use of force and fraud in European expansion. It also ignores the sophistication, dynamism, and humanity of the many cultures it sidelines. By neglecting the crucial importance of Byzantium and Islam, it even gives a misleadingly narrow account of the development of European civilization."
It's sad that highly regarded teachers are trying to diminish Western Civilization's exceptionalism. Sigh...gonna be a tough term.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have been gathering information to do a research project on the education system. What I have found is rather interesting. I will complain on the broader education system. The education system from grade school on up is a big rip off and part of an indoctrination system designed to inculcate people with beliefs that are inimical to and the exact opposite of the beliefs that make up the foundations of Western civilization and which were/are necessary for a free civilization. There is a big lie that one needs a degree from one of these indoctrination centers to be successful. Most people just automatically assume that they will never be sucessful without a degree. This is false and not true. Sure a degree is useful and necessary it one wants to go into a technical trade such as a doctor, lawyer, engineer, accountant, and etc. There is also the factor that leads some to go to college for the sheer pleasure of learning and having knowledge. But a lot of people are going to college that should not be there and are going with false beliefs in the usefulness and efficacy of a degree to bring them success and happiness in life.
ReplyDeleteAlso colleges are ripping off people financially. Education is a huge bubble and student debt will reach 1 trillion soon and is one of the next economic bubbles to burst.
Back to your text book and the issue that it illustrates. Stuff like this should disgust and offend you. These colleges have a captive auidience that is forced to take these Core classes that are for the most part a bunch of crap and have no educational value what so ever. This is basically extortion: they force you to take these classes that are designed for the purposes of brainwashing you. So you are paying and wasting your time to listen to a bunch of shit. (I know this from taking several classes like world african history. The teacher did not use the book and made up his own material and used it to preach a back to africa and afrocentrist crap.) This should really anger people.
One of the reasons politicians are wanting to increase the access to colleges by people and increase enrollment is so that they will have to sit through this brainwashing.
The sad fact is that most of the people in these classes just passively absorb these lies and distortions of fact. This influence on the future population will have a corrupting and harmful effect for freedom.
Classes like these are designed to lead their students to "preconceived ideological conclusions, rather than developing the student's ability to analyze issues so as to reach independent conclusions". "Inside American Education" Sowell. Another great book to read especially for those that will send their kids to the public education system. Also read Ayn Rands "The Comprachincos of the Mind" this is a bootleg version I googled. http://74.6.238.254/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=ayn+rand+the+comprachicos&fr=ytff1-&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=ayn+rand+the+comprachicos&d=4898449011638741&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=6926ae,39f1b9c7&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=PV5Bv6bunEI6IP72S0J93w--
The very man touted as the founder of modern education John Dewey was a communist who visited the Soviet Union and observed their schools and praised it. One observer noted that Dewey's progressive schooling ideals were being implemented 150% over their in Russia. One of the facts that Dewey observed and praised was that "Our special concern here is with the rôle of the schools in building up forces and factors whose natural effect is to undermine the importance and uniqueness of family life. It is obvious to any observer that in every western* Dewey probably means gruppa, Russian for group." http://ariwatch.com/VS/JD/ImpressionsOfSovietRussia.htm\
"In consequence, to anyone who looks at the matter cold-bloodedly, free from sentimental associations clustering about the historic family institution, a most interesting sociological experimentation is taking place, the effect of which should do something to determine how far the bonds that hold the traditional family together are intrinsic and how far due to extraneous causes; and how far the family in its accustomed form is a truly socializing agency and how far a breeder of non-social interests. Our special concern here is with the rôle of the schools in building up forces and factors whose natural effect is to undermine the importance and uniqueness of family life. It is obvious to any observer that in every western country the increase of importance of public schools has been at least coincident with a relaxation of older family ties. What is going on in Russia appears to be a planned acceleration of this process. For example, the earliest section of the school system, dealing with children from three to seven, aims, in the cities, to keep children under its charge six, eight and ten hours per day, and in ultimate ideal (although far from present fact) this procedure is to be universal and compulsory. When it is carried out, the effect on family life is too evident to need to be dwelt upon—although at present even in Moscow only one-tenth of the children of this age are in such schools. Nor does the invasion of family life stop at this point in dealing with young children." http://ariwatch.com/VS/JD/ImpressionsOfSovietRussia.htm
ReplyDeleteJohn Dewey praised the Soviet System.
which professor is actually teaching the class? Is it Milliken? If so, tell her hello for me. She's freaking brilliant, is very strict with people in class (which you never see in school), and is relatively open for comments.
ReplyDeleteOhh yeah, I whole heartedly agree with Jeff about the absolute worthlessness of the liberal arts structure. I believe that all federal funds supporting education should strictly be for the sciences and the sciences only. We can help out a lot more people with middle and lower income get real jobs and do real work.
Well, at least you will get a good exposure to the other side. Probably not a view well-represented on the RTP&GG blog. Just remember to palate-cleanse with VD Hanson's Why The West Has Won after you're done.
ReplyDeleteAnd remember, you're after the grade. Spouting back what they want you to say is acceptable.
Also, I'm mostly in agreement with you Jeff, and I'd extend that even into the Professional degrees that you & Melkor mention, except that those degrees act as a screen to keep people out of the professions. The degrees are a stepping stone, but, it's the paper they give you that's important, not the information you receive. Like I've said in the past, I got a Master's Degree in Communication & Radar, and didn't even know how a telephone worked when I graduated. It trained me to do hard core theoretical design, not the practical design that 90% at least of engineering is all about.
ReplyDeleteBut, I couldn't have gotten my job without that paper! So there is some value in that. And certainly the training in how to write, and sheer brainwork and pressure required to get through the classes was a useful experience.
But, I'll tell you what the best training for professional writing was: Officer Traning School, where they did their damnedest to force us to present information and take responsibility directly and clearly. The opposite of Bureaucrateze.
People learn what they're interested in without prodding from schools. If you're interested in being an engineer or doctor, you will devour the information. Universities will help certainly, but the individual is who guarantees or denies the individual's success.
College is useful, sometimes necessary, but way too expensive for the limited knowledge it imparts.
On the other hand, I couldn't have gotten the job I have, the value of which is very high, without my degree(s)...
I agree with Melkor on government funds for any liberal arts. The sciences are what matters. Business classes seem to be leaning towards liberal arts as they tend to emphasize more on ethics. I understand ethics are important. An ethics class could be short and sweet though with a quick run down of the ten commandments. Boom. Ethics class over.
ReplyDeleteMy business leadership class had an exercise the first day and we all said what we would do if we were Obama. I wanted to blow my brains out when I heard what people said. "Financial aid for everybody! Bring our troops home! End all wars! No more discrimination!" People said these exact things.
I am reading Thomas Sowell's book "Inside American Education: The Decline, The Deception, The Dogmas". The book is graphic as it states that American public schools are using the same techniques that communist nations like Maoist China used to brainwash people and gives specific examples. I don't know whether Sowell is over stating the problem and if I should take what he is saying seriously. What he states can easily cause a strong emotional response against public schools. It sounds less crazy than Ayn Rand's "The Comprachicos Of The Mind" but they both say similar things, but Sowell uses actual examples. Some of the examples used by Sowell backs up John Dewey's support for schools undermining the authority and influence of the parent.
ReplyDeleteIn Sowell's book about the techinques used to brainwash people and more specifically Isolation and Cross-Examination, "Isolation from peers is only part of the process[brainwashing]. In one way or another, students must also be emotionally isolated from the support of parents. Some psychological-conditioning programs have the children sit in a circle, called a 'magic circle', where everything that is said there is confidential. Some programs explicitly tell children that they are not to tell their parents what is said or done. Moreover, as will be seen later, the undermining and discrediting of parents is a recurring theme in the most disparate programs--whether called 'sex education', 'transactional analysis for tots,' or called by many other labels . While it is parents who are undermined directly, it is the child who is thus isolated to face the brainwashing alone." pg 43
I wonder if people that have been through public school would even be able to know if they were brainwashed? It is analogous to a fish not knowing that it is wet as it lives in the ocean. I can personally remember experiencing events that Sowell describes as "brainwashing".
I like this quote from Rand's essay about drugs. I know from the people I have known that drugs are seen as a "cool", "Hip", and "mind expanding". Being against drug use is not simply a matter of "religious fervor" as it goes much deeper than that which is just an oversimplification as most people don't branch back out things to their various branches.
ReplyDelete"The most damning refutation of the theories of all the hippie-activist-Marcusian hordes is the drug-glazed eyes of their members. Men who have found the right way of life do not seek to escape from awareness, to obliterate their consciousness and to drug themselves out of existence. Drug addiction is the confession of an unbearable inner state. Drugs are not an escape from economic or political problems, they are not an escape from society, but from oneself. They are an escape from the unendurable state of a living being whose consciousness has been crippled, deformed, mutilated, but not eliminated, so that its mangled remnants are screaming that he cannot go on without it. The phenomenon of an entire generation turning to drugs is such an indictment of today's culture—of its basic philosophy and its educational establishment—that no further evidence is necessary and no lesser causal explanation is possible. If they had not been trained to believe that belonging to a pack is a moral and metaphysical necessity, would high-school children risk the physical destruction of their brains in order to belong to a pot-smoking "in-group"? If they had not been trained to believe that reason is impotent, would college students take "mind-expanding" drugs to seek some "higher" means of cognition? If they had not been trained to believe that reality is an illusion, would young persons take drugs to reach a "higher" reality that seems to obey their wishes, except that they are smashed on pavements in attempting to fly out of windows? If a trained pack of commentators, sharing the same beliefs,. did not glamorize the obscene epidemic of self-destruction—by means of such estimates as "idealistic," "revolutionary, … new life-style," "new morality," "drug culture"—would the young have any cover left to hide their own deep-down knowledge that drug addiction is nothing but a public confession of personal impotence?"
Damn, that is freaking spot on.
ReplyDeleteIt's a good and interesting quote. I don't think it can blanket cover all Americans or humans that do drugs though. I think generally there is a lot of weight in her argument though.
ReplyDeleteThe "higher reality" "revolutionary lifestyle" "mind expanding" things are played out reasons for people to use drugs. What if someone does a drug because it feels good? Is doing something because it feels good damning? Does someone doing something because it feels good need much explanation? Do you feel good when you workout? Does education have the same affect on people who enjoy a "runners high" from endorphins?
Like I said, I tend to agree with your point Jeff.
Here is an excerpt from my Business Leadership book called: Learning to lead.
ReplyDelete"Will waves of "baby boomers" struggle through the final years of their lives without adequate healthcare?
Iill our courts portect the rights of dissenters, minority populations, and the powerless to speak for themselves?
Will private-sector leaders finally cleanse their organizations of greed and malfeasance?
Will elected officials develop governmental regulations that create and sustain economic viability?
Will hundreds of thousands of impoverished laid-off employees and minimum-wage workers find satisfying and useful employment?
Will restitution be made by the banks, insurance companies, and other entities that mishandled funds and dispossessed hundreds of thousands of people from their homes, depriving them of their dreams?
Will our children be safe from battles in distant lands, as well as from neighborhood gangs at home?
Will our grandchildren have a world where tigers still stalk prey and glaciers are more than a memory?
It is our hope that this book will enable you to become a lifelong learner who can successfully lead efforts to find solutions to these troubling problems."
Your statement says a lot about you Toejamm and sums of the attitude of this generation of people that emote as opposed to think. We as a society have been taught that if something feels good then we should do it. Doing something because it feels good is not a good enough reason for doing something in and of it self. Doing hard core drugs is addictive and people are usually hard core drug users that do those drugs. There is a difference between drinking a few drinks or maybe even smoking a little grass every so often and being a drug addict or one that constantly takes drugs to make themselves not feel. I think the quote is referring to the latter.
ReplyDeleteI think reality is the one that does the damming for people that do things like hard core drugs or unrestrained sex solely for the reason that it feels good. Having unprotected sex with many people because they have no internal restraining force, morals or ethics, that prevents people from doing an activity solely based on the fact that it feels good does not change the fact that individuals and society are the ones that pay a price that must be incurred for such activity: babies that must be paid for usually by society as a whole for people that does such an activity. In the case of drugs, the person addicted to hard core drugs have their lives ruined because they can't function properly without being drugged out all the time. These people go down that path in part because they have been told that we should do what feels good, but doing that can be a trap. I can't really respond to your statement well in a short comment, that would require a long reply going into philosophy. Finish reading "The Closing Of The American Mind".
Maybe you can be the leader of the future communist/state-captialist America and world of the future. I think you are on top of the glacier problem.
ReplyDeleteThe baby boomers are fucked because of the very leadership that your book promotes: government intervention and activity in the private sector.
The 17% unemployed are going to be with us for a long time according to the Fed and are the new underclass that will become government dependents that fates are tied to how well the government can plunder the productive people.
Bad government regulations are the main reason the economy in on the rocks and is sinking. So maybe you can promote good regulation that reduces the government's footprint in the private sector.
Our children have been sold into slavery to the world with all of this massive debt.
Wow, ToeJamm, from that list of items, it seems that this is not a Business Leadership class, but a Liberal Ethics class. I can't say that they're training anybody to be a business leader.
ReplyDeleteRegarding drugs, I more or less disagree with what Rand is saying. ToeJamm got it right. Rand is arguing against the reasons (better word is excuses) hippies gave for taking drugs. They were exploring alternate realities, getting in touch with their id, I dont' know, lots of bullshit reasons. Replace the word 'drugs' with 'alcohol' (just another drug) and that whole argument falls apart. People do/did drugs because it felt good and was exciting. Peer group pressure is part of it too I'll concede.
People always have and always will do it because it feels good. Is that a good thing? No. It's just a thang, baby.
Well Jeff, now you are changing your argument/point. I was talking about drugs. Now you changed it to "Hard Core Drugs". You basically affirmed my comment and came up with a new complaint.
ReplyDeleteI know. I emailed my teacher saying that the author has very subjective comments considering the scope that Business Leadership should have.
ReplyDeleteReally, these two classes presented here seem to exemplify everything we bitch and moan about regarding Academia. Mind blowing.
ReplyDeleteAnd you have to pay money for that! Or someone does anyway.
On the drug issue, I am not changing my or the Rand's point. It is clear who she is addressing expecially when you read the whole 30 pages or even a couple of paragraphs before the quote, section V. It is referring to hippies that were [and are] the products of today's education system that use drugs because of their tortured minds and those that want a "Higher Reality". http://74.6.238.254/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=ayn+rand+the+comprachicos&fr=ytff1-&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=ayn+rand+the+comprachicos&d=4898449011638741&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=6926ae,39f1b9c7&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=PV5Bv6bunEI6IP72S0J93w--
ReplyDeleteWhen I make some comments, I assumed that you have read what I have linked so as to have an intelligent conversation.
And Bud-D said "Replace the word 'drugs' with 'alcohol' (just another drug) and that whole argument falls apart." I know for a fact that some people especially alcholoics get drunk because of inner ineptituteds or other problems. (Again this is not people that have a few drinks.) Why do people repeadetly get drunk? Why would being drunk be considered a better state of mind than being sober? Probably because their sober state of mind in not that good of a state of mind for them. Also some people get drunk so as not to feel anything. Because they can't handle the responsiblity of being conscious. And others get drunk because it feels good, can't control how much they drink, or because everybody else is doing it and it is a way to socialize.
The whole point of conflict between what we are saying is in your heads do to not reading the whole thing in context. We are shooting past each other. Hopefully our particles that we are shooting can collide with each other and combine to make a spark. Like what happens in the center of starts.
And your leadership course shows how you class is about indocrination or brainwashing and not preparing you for being a real leader.
ReplyDeleteJeff, most people use recreational drugs of some kind. Certain individuals don't, and some religious groups like Mormons don't. I'm not sure if Muslims tolerate other drugs like opium or are as intolerant to other drugs as they are to alcohol. I'm not sure that that intolerance makes them better as a society. I respect the Mormon religion, and maybe their resistance to alcohol is a part of the reason they do well, so there's a chance you have a point there.
ReplyDeleteBut I think Rand is trying to find a philosophical/psychological reason for or against heavy use of drugs, when the reason is more medical/psychological. I think the alcoholic's life may be wreck because he has a body/brain that is easily addicted to things, I don't think it's the other way around, that his life is a wreck and therefore he becomes addicted.
As far as the question: why turn to alternate realities, what's wrong with your real life?: Why do you read a book? Why do you go on a carnival ride? Why do mountain climbers make risky climbs? People are in search of thrills, of alternate realities in all sorts of ways. And humans have used drugs for recreation since before we were even human. Apes do it too. Don't know how widespread in the animal kingdom that is. I know when we were in Montana, a freight train full of corn or wheat derailed, and the grain sat there and rotted/fermented. The bears loved eating it and getting drunk.
This is something that living things do: enjoy pleasurable things. Or exciting things. It's not some great criticism of society or individuals unless they become addicted to it. Whatever it is! Like wrecklessly risking your life over and over on the side of a mountain!
On religions take on drugs. My guess would be that widespread drug usage thousands of years ago could have made civilization impossible so that is why the restraint on doing drugs came about. Religion being a very good mortar that holds a civilization together with a standardized social norms. These people that think in heaven heaven they will be getting drunk or high are wrong from a Biblical perspective. There will be no drug users or as it is called in the English sorcery.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of what you say. Referring back to Rand's statement, it was describing why in Rand's mind why during the 60's drugs use became wide spread and why the hippies used them. Drug use before the 60's was not no where near the level that it was during the 60's and on. This was a phenomenon and salient charaterist of that time period. What happened during the 60's? A cultural revolution that has its roots going back long before the 60's which was the culliumination of that philosophical revolution that started with Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, and many others and which marked a major change in people's worldviews. This change was disseminated through the education system. The main topic of the essay is the education system and what it lead to: hippies and their drug addiction. Why did the peak of this cultural change coincide with a rise in drug use? I think that was the answer Rand was making about why the widespread usage of drugs occurred during this time. I don't think the essay was referring to all drug users or those that do it for "fun".
And on drugs being a form of escapism or recreation, I think the fact that reading a book and getting a high from some mind altering drugs are of such a difference in degrees that the two can't really be compared. A fact reflected in our laws which regulates drugs and not book reading or other forms of non-drug highs. Music is like a drug, but its effects are not as pronounced and don't cause you to loose control of your mind and body. People have always and will always do drugs. And most drugs are addictive and therefore lead to addiction, whether it be alcohol or any other drug.
And on your point, "I think the alcoholic's life may be wreck because he has a body/brain that is easily addicted to things, I don't think it's the other way around, that his life is a wreck and therefore he becomes addicted." I think it is both reasons that cause people to do drugs and become addicted. People with wrecked lives or stress in their lives are more likely to become drug users. Anybody that does crack will get addicted regardless of their personality. Does this mean that everybody that became a drug addict or does drugs because they had a wrecked life? I would say no, but after becoming addicted to drugs their lives are probably wrecked. Maybe they just wanted to experiment, have fun, or peer pressure. The cause to drug addiction are many and varied and it is almost impossible to make any accurate generalizations due to the large and varied group of people that have drug addictions or problems.
"The cause to drug addiction are many and varied and it is almost impossible to make any accurate generalizations due to the large and varied group of people that have drug addictions or problems."-Jeff
ReplyDeleteThis quote is basically what I was trying to say in the beginning. When I first read the Rand quote, it seems to be generalizing a little too much. (couldnt read her entire essay because it wasn't correctly linked/cited). I'm glad we could all come together on this tangent.