Asguard said:
tiassa what do you think the solution is? i dont mean to try and get a libral culture but to try and make a culture that conciders other views rationally and can then make an informed decision and if that decision is that tax cuts for the ritch is a good idea then good but at least the decision was informed and not about ignorance.
The one I conceive of will take longer to complete than paying off the national debt. In the United States, at least, I'd like to see what happens when we stop treating education as a burden and undertake it as a responsibility we gladly invite for our own benefit.
Should you force feed language studies (as in issue studys not nessarally studys OF a language), debating and cultural studies onto students?
In the same way that we force-feed mathematics, sure.
is the way history is taught in schools the problem (i know here that there was a big thing going around a while back that no one even knew the first PM of australia and that all the history taught in schools was either greek, middle ages or american history and not our own).
The educational progression in the United States typically ingrains historical snippets as fundamental myths, and only then gets around to critical thinking. History is taught almost as a religion, which is one of the reasons we hear of liberal conspiracies at universities. Despite the important role played by the Cold War in shaping the modern United States and its sociopolitical and economic ideologies, few Americans are aware that we've actually invaded Russia before. "Elitism" was the cry when people said, "Wait a minute, why are we having a federal holiday in the name of a guy who killed half a million people cruelly?" Because he discovered America. Well, no, he didn't. But his expedition and documentation are vital to the course of American history. But does he warrant the status of, say, "Veterans' Day"? Thanksgiving? Well, the outcry against Thanksgiving focused on the paradox created by myth. The holiday has survived, and the myth is well-broken. An excuse to drink beer, watch football, and eat excessively? Hell, sure, I'll take it. Just don't make it about b@llshit.
Apparently, refusing pretense and myth is "elitist".
Apparently, wondering why one part of the culture takes some time every year to pour salt on the wounds of another culture is unacceptably high-minded.
Holidays aren't the only victims of historical myth. Take the Schwarzkopf cycle from Iran to Iraq, and all it still brings us today in flag-draped boxes and desert graves. Because American history is a patchwork of myths stitched together by jingoistic duress, Americans seem to have a problem grasping fundamental processes of history. Events and processes seem removed from one to the next; it is hard for the average American to follow the simplest description of the cycle:
• Topple elected Iranian PM (Schwarzkopf, Norman H.)
• Support tyrant Shah for fuel prices and against Soviet influence (Cold War)
• See Shah toppled by revolutionary cleric who resents U.S. for its meddling and support of the tyrant
• Remove Iraq from terror-sponsor list
• Begin supplying Iraq, assisting in its invasive war against Iran and its revolutionary cleric
• Supply weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein's regime, which is known to use the things
• After war ends, continue to support Iraq
• Fail to advise Iraq against military action
• Respond to Iraqi military action (Schwarzkopf, H. Norman)
The essential idea is that the U.S. plays Pilate when it has even more blood on its hands than the Roman governor. But instead of disputing whether or not the interpretation of the facts, or even the facts themselves, are correct, the first reaction is, "How does the one relate to the other? I don't get it. You're not making any sense. This is the sort of intellectual dishonesty that makes 'liberal elites' so repulsive."
It's a difficult conundrum. If we work backwards, the symptoms show themselves even more clearly:
"Why are we at war in Iraq?"
--Because Iraq presented a threat.
"What threat?"
--Weapons of Mass Destruction.
"But they weren't there."
--That's okay because Saddam was a bad guy.
"Why does this bother us now when it didn't before?"
--What do that mean?
"Well, Saddam was a bad guy when we gave him the Weapons of Mass Destruction that aren't there anymore."
--What does that have to do with anything?
"Well, it sort of points to the idea that justifying the invasion by saying 'Saddam was a bad guy' is just as bogus as the WMD."
--How does it say that?
"In the 1980s, when we took Saddam off the terror-sponsor list in order to support his war against Iran because we didn't like Ayatollah Khomeni, he was a bad guy then."
--What does that have to do with anything? Why are you living in the past? Quit living in the past.
"But your foundations for war are gone."
--No they're not. Saddam presented a threat ....
"I thought we just covered why that wasn't true."
--.... And he was a bad guy.
"What was the reason for our policy shift toward bad guys?"
--What policy shift?
"That now we don't like them."
--When did we ever?
"When we gave them weapons and other material assistance in order to carry out their crimes."
--When did we do that?
"In the 1980s, when ...."
--Stop living in the past. Why are you living in the past?
"Never mind."
--What does that mean? Why are you liberals all so elitist and snobby?
Working backwards, the discussion rarely actually reaches the historical part. That Saddam held power in part because of U.S. assistance is apparently irrelevant to the methods of his preservation. That our support for Saddam is part of an ongoing historical story that has yet to play out is irrelevant. After all, we owe Saddam for 9/11.
Never mind, of course, that Saddam appears to have had nothing to do with 9/11.
Aldous Huxley wrote in 1925 or '26 that the British had no need for history. What he meant is that a free and prosperous nation pays less attention to history than an oppressed people, who are prone to exaggerate and distort history into political legends for the purpose of fighting oppression. Huxley noted the Kosovars and the Irish at the time. The lesson still holds true: Americans in general see little or no use for history. Part of this is the cynicism that comes with realizing the basic history one is taught is, in fact, bogus beyond the mere fact that history is a lie agreed upon. Part of this is simple sloth: thinking is hard work for many Americans. (Which explains in part their sympathy with George Bush's sniveling during a presidential debate.) And thinking takes time, and since time is money, people should think about money instead of history. (After all, Americans work rather quite hard, to the point that the average voter doesn't have the energy to read the voter's guide, or the average Christian hasn't time for the philosophical and historical details of the Christian heritage. (While something so culturally obscure as the paucity of
sola fide is something most Christians overlook whether they accept the theory or not, it is often surprising to find out how many Christians don't know their women are supposed to cover their heads and remain silent in church, or who don't know that rejection of the nuclear family is something the religion has in common with Communism.)
And that's why Americans don't seem to learn from history as well as we ought to. We must remember that the operating IQ of the average American comes down when asked to think in concert with others. One way to think of it is "mob mentality"; another is "letting enough of the gene pool catch up". There are people in our society who are legitimately unable to keep up with things because they are, for various reasons beyond social policy or other human control, not smart. Yes, politicians in general and liberals especially ought to be able to communicate with the "lowest common denominator", but much like Christianity, conservative politics strives to grow that subset in order to exploit it. So even if we excuse the natural decline of the individual amid the mob, there is still the issue of how the entire tone of politics sounds pitched toward the worst and least intelligent of our society. The 2004 campaign sounded on the one hand, like pro wrestling and to the other like a chorus of screaming ninnies. (The Democratic gubernatorial primary up here saw a spat about archaic and obscure policies of a candidate's college sorority. Really, we let Bill Clinton go on smoking pot. I actually hold the notion of any sorority in such contempt that, for me, the idea that one was racist thirty years ago really doesn't bother me to any notable degree.)
• • •
I pause here to recall a fine Australian film, Jocelyn Moorhouse's
Proof, which raised a thematic issue that can be summed up with a simple question: "
Is it wrong to lie to a blind man?"
Or, as the American version of the lesson goes, "
How do you confuse Hellen Keller?"
We need not carry over the metaphor of blindness; while some find it apt, others find it highly offensive. Whether that offense is to those who are literally blind or those who are accused metaphorically of blindness is unclear. The lesson is Biblical, as well:
"Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'
"Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'
"Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'
"Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
Matthew 25.34-46
In this context, we need not carry over the metaphor of sickness, or even imprisonment. It is well enough to reflect on the general moral of the story in the same context as Moorhouse's leading troika, or, as the quotation at the beginning of these remarks has it, "
to try and make a culture that considers other views rationally and can then make an informed decision".
The fundamental question, then, is one of motive.
A man confesses his ignorance, declares his need to know. One response would be to inform him. Another would be to exploit him. There are interpretive differences in American politics, to be sure, but it is the conservative politic that would seek to exploit that ignorance beyond the conventions of salesmanship.
Kerry points out that X jobs are lost under Bush, but is quoting a private-sector number. Bush counters that the number is significantly less, but his number includes new federal jobs. If the question at hand is the health of the private-sector economy, Bush's counterpoint has no real relevance. This is the kind of distortion and deception that is common in American politics. And yes, there has been plenty of vitriol and slander and libel in American political history. But the seeming escalation of conservative exploitative rhetoric reflects the transformation of what is reviled--e.g. the dishonesty of politics--into a proud art form.
Hence the elections appear to be fought over the last ten years of history, unless, of course, there's a 30-year grudge on the line. And it should be pointed out that the recollection of that given decade is spotty in and of itself.
• • •
American liberalism, additionally, is most recently defined by the Reagan era, only some sixteen years removed. Definitions of the word "liberal" can be found that
include laissez-faire economy; liberalism
opposes communism and socialism: these points of liberalism are archaic in the general American outlook. Rather than stressing its opposition to communism and socialism, American liberals have bought into the Liberal = Red theory and run with it. We tend to see a different socialism and communism, though. Rather than identifying with any existing socialist or communist structure, liberals in the U.S. cling quietly to the unseen ideal expressed at the end of a political evolution by communists, or the overarching nobility of Oscar Wilde's "Soul of Man Under Socialism". In this, partially because of issues of history and interpretation, and mostly because liberals are human and subject to communication failures, many Americans are unable to separate the botched communism of a Soviet Union dedicated to a Cold War from the theoretic ideal. Explaining the difference requires too much detail: if it ain't simple, it ain't right. The Soviets were communists and Americans were capitalists, and damn the actual definition of either.
Nonetheless, the aspects of communism and socialism seized upon actually turn an encyclopedic discussion of liberalism on its ear:
Since liberalism also focuses on the ability of individuals to structure a society, it is almost always opposed to totalitarianism, and often to collectivist ideologies, particularly communism and, in some cases, socialism.
Wikipedia
Since liberalism also focuses on the ability of individuals to structure a society ....
It must be a litany of mine: Conservatism starts from a presumption of "I"; Liberalism starts from a presumption of "we". One acknowledges the individual alone, one acknowledges a society composed of individuals.
History teaches that certain social projects--roads, education, &c.--
are properly the business of a government in the interests of the people. Thus, as Democrats and Republicans do not compose the whole of American society, we should not be surprised to find libertarians who need the occasional reminding. And then there are those libertarians who actually do oppose public schools, roads, &c. They're a different question entirely. But we've seen the questions asked of libertarian advocates here at Sciforums:
Do you oppose public schools? Public roads?
And yet the conservatives would have us believe that cognitive dissonance and even hypocrisy are unique to liberalism and the Democratic Party. Since the rebuttal is made clear by a reasonable study of history, however, one wonders what chance that rebuttal has despite its clarity and strength.
Especially given that it is "elitist" to ask people to be aware of the factors involved in those issues about which they opine at the ballot box. Did millions of voters in eleven states wake up and decide, "I'm going to oppose the U.S. Constitution today"? No. They simply don't seem to be aware of the connection. It is "elitist" to ask them to comprehend the Constitution they appeal to and desire to amend.
• • •
The solution is most definitely not to put the curriculum in the hands of parents any more than putting a child's medical care in the hands of a parent. It is no more elitist to look to the science of education than the science of the human body. Those occasions whereupon parents express a desire to control the curriculum are marked most distinctly by the demand to insert superstition. One infamous quote from the
Politically Incorrect years of Bill Maher came from either one or another rock star past his prime: "My father taught me everything I know about sex. Thankfully, he was a gentle man."
The solution requires time and, like many solutions in the U.S., an entire generation sacrificed. Given the nature of American politics, though, I think it's about a five-century plan. I must come up with something a little better, you understand. But the best plan I can think of is merely patient, accurate education, constantly developed to reinforce the qualities that give such value to the relationship between individual and society. I'm not so worried about "tax cuts for the rich" being perceived as a good idea. If the culture is educated enough, such silly ideas will be promptly and properly shot down or ignored.
A clear fault of communism as an historical institution is that it tends to require a more complicated outlook, and that was never fostered under the Soviets. Communism has the potential to work under the nigh-impossible goal that everyone understands their place in society. The same can be said of American "capitalism": trickle-down only works if the wealth is allowed to trickle down. And that's a tough sell. Longtime readers of
Doonesbury might remember an interesting episode when J.J. was commissioned to paint the interior of Donald Trump's "yacht". Such excessive diversions played some role in the failure of trickle-down, which has seen the wealth distribution gap grow instead of shrink.
It would work if only the people at the top of the pyramid understood the full potential. However, those folks seem to operate according to different priorities. Instead of addressing problems within the culture and society, they choose to insulate themselves.
I don't know how to accelerate the solution. Any solution seems to require a greater portion than historical precedent suggests possible to go forward in good faith. Creating that groundwork is especially difficult in an age when even the voters won't be honest to themselves or others.
I'll stop now.
