• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

PC proliferation on college campuses (formerly UNC students...)

PhDeac said:
No. American bias. K-12 history is taught from a US-centric perspective. Most college students probably think America invented democracy and capitalism too.

Most state education boards controlled by Republicans so liberal bias seems like a weird argument.
Click to expand...

No Ph, a liberal myth of the US is being taught throughout the educational system. Even worse this myth has over the last several decades systematically excluded rival interpretations. Being US-centric is a different issue.

Oddly enough, students, who believe out of ignorance that the America invented democracy and capitalism, are closer to the truth than those, who believe out of ignorance that the US was the only country to practice slavery, which is simply a complete falsehood. The US did play a key role in the development of democracy over an extended area and a large population. Earlier, no one believed that such a democracy could work, and the founding fathers had grave fears that democracy could not work in a country the size of the new United States and the federal system they devised is in part a response to those fears. The general consensus in Western civilization was that democracy could probably only work in relatively small intimate communities. American democracy has helped to change, or at least challenge, that view.

As far as capitalism is concerned, while the US did not invent capitalism proper, especially not commercial capitalism, it did play a major role in the development of modern industrial capitalism.

As far as state education boards are concerned, are you trying to make a case for political interference from above in teaching? When professions fail to police themselves properly, then those who financially support those professions will inevitably intervene. Currently, the teaching of history appears to be breaking down and promoting ignorance under an onslaught of liberal misinterpretation, which is increasingly intolerant and is unwilling to embrace dissent and a diversity of views.
 
I used to get emails about The Value of a Liberal Arts education.

Now I get notes about The Value of a Liberal education.

What's the difference?
 
sailordeac said:
No Ph, a liberal myth of the US is being taught throughout the educational system. Even worse this myth has over the last several decades systematically excluded rival interpretations. Being US-centric is a different issue.

Oddly enough, students, who believe out of ignorance that the America invented democracy and capitalism, are closer to the truth than those, who believe out of ignorance that the US was the only country to practice slavery, which is simply a complete falsehood. The US did play a key role in the development of democracy over an extended area and a large population. Earlier, no one believed that such a democracy could work, and the founding fathers had grave fears that democracy could not work in a country the size of the new United States and the federal system they devised is in part a response to those fears. The general consensus in Western civilization was that democracy could probably only work in relatively small intimate communities. American democracy has helped to change, or at least challenge, that view.

As far as capitalism is concerned, while the US did not invent capitalism proper, especially not commercial capitalism, it did play a major role in the development of modern industrial capitalism.

As far as state education boards are concerned, are you trying to make a case for political interference from above in teaching? When professions fail to police themselves properly, then those who financially support those professions will inevitably intervene. Currently, the teaching of history appears to be breaking down and promoting ignorance under an onslaught of liberal misinterpretation, which is increasingly intolerant and is unwilling to embrace dissent and a diversity of views.
Click to expand...

Some questions.

Do you really think students are being specifically taught that ONLY the US practiced slavery? Or are they just not being taught enough about other countries?

Which countries would you like students to know practiced slavery?

Do you think the fact other countries practiced slavery somehow justifies US race based slavery and its impact on our society? If not, why is it such a big deal? "He did it first" is the lamest excuse in the book.

One more thing. You make the case for American democracy and capitalism being unique and innovative. Do you not think the same case can be made for American slavery?
 
Last edited:
what the fuck were the israelites doing in egypt building those pyramids? vacation???
 
There's really not enough about Pesta's survey questions, methodology or sampling methods here to argue either bias.
 
Junebug said:
Forgive me if Haas, but Harvard cancelled the men's soccer team's season because the male soccer players were ranking, in boorish and vulgar terms, the female soccer players based on sex appeal. Can someone explain to me why this is an appropriate sanction?
Click to expand...

because Harvard wants to send a message that such behavior is abhorrent and unacceptable in 2016

pretty simple, really. next?
 
And "the season" in this case is 2 games plus whatever post season games if they made the tourney.
 
PhDeac said:
Some questions.

Do you really think students are being specifically taught that ONLY the US practiced slavery? Or are they just not being taught enough about other countries?

Which countries would you like students to know practiced slavery?

Do you think the fact other countries practiced slavery somehow justifies US race based slavery and its impact on our society? If not, why is it such a big deal? "He did it first" is the lamest excuse in the book.
Click to expand...


I don't know if they are being taught that. They certainly don't know much about the history of other countries or civilizations and need to be taught a lot more. History and literature are some of the few ways for us to learn from the experiences of others. If we limit ourselves to a single interpratation of history, we are doing little more than declaring that there is only one correct way to understand some great art object, or some outstanding example of literature, or a play. It's like willfully blinding ourselves.

Since slavery was practiced almost everywhere throughout most of history, I find this question rather strange.

Most communities that practiced slavery found a way to justify it, just as people have found ways to justify wars, killings, and all kinds of injustices, when they found the need to do so.

The big deal is that the modern liberal misinterpretation of history is fostering ignorance. You shouldn't waste your time and demean yourself by trying to justify such practices.

What other people have done or thought constitutes the factual matter of history. If you want to misuse history as grab bag of excuses, that's your problem.
 
Last edited:
The article I read about Harvard soccer said that this had been going on since 2012, and when told to "knock it off," it went underground and became worse. Sounds like Harvard is fed up with them. This is not the team's first strike re this. I think Harvard came down hard to send a final and clear message.
 
sailordeac said:
I don't know if they are being taught that. They certainly don't know much about the history of other countries or civilizations and need to be taught a lot more. History and literature are some of the few ways for us to learn from the experiences of others. If we limit ourselves to a single interpratation of history, we are doing little more than declaring that there is only one correct way to understand some great art object, or some outstanding example of literature, or a play. It's like willfully blinding ourselves.

Since slavery was practiced almost everywhere throughout most of history, I find this question rather strange.

Most communities that practiced slavery found a way to justify it, just as people have found ways to justify wars, killings, and all kinds of injustices, when they found the need to do so.

The big deal is that the modern liberal misinterpretation of history is fostering ignorance. You shouldn't waste your time and demean yourself by trying to justify such practices.

What other people have done or thought constitutes the factual matter of history. If you want to misuse history as grab bag of excuses, that's your problem.
Click to expand...

What makes a misinterpretation of history that focuses on the US a "liberal" one?

I'm not justifying anything. I'm trying to explain it to someone who is making a political deal out of a much larger issue. Your misinterpretation of my posts is neither conservative nor liberal. It is simply foolish.
 
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...cording-people-who-make-everything-about-race

This article should be a must read for board liberals who seem to think that everyone who disagrees with them is a racist:


"Activists today are clear-cutting vast swathes of civil society to make room for reason-free zones where feelings outrank facts — they call them “safe spaces.” And if they had their druthers, the entirety of the continent, if not the globe, would be one giant beanbag-chair-strewn realm of hugging and unapologetic whining. Seemingly every day there’s another story of a college campus caving into the notion that free speech and unhappy facts are racist. The election of Donald Trump, a man I could not have been more critical of, has turned the safe spaces into kinds of internal refugee camps where the weeping delicate flowers can wilt in terror.

I did not like how Trump talked about issues of race. Some of his most ardent supporters have views on race that I find abhorrent. But they constitute a tiny minority of his coalition. Just consider that if you subtracted from Trump’s column all of the voters who had also previously voted for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton surely would have won. If you think everything you don’t like is racist, then of course the election of a president you don’t like has to be racist. Here’s some free advice for all the liberals insisting that Trump was elected by racists: The more you say that, the more you help Trump.

I can understand why this is confusing. There’s a certain breed of guilty white liberal who actually enjoy being called racist, confessing their racial sins, and denouncing less advanced white people. The hot new term for this is “virtue signaling” — a way of communicating how enlightened you are. But there are a lot more white people out there who are not racist and therefore do not like being called racist or being berated about how their country is racist. They also sense that the “everything is about race” crowd is using race as a cudgel to silence critics and have their way. That sort of thing begs for a backlash. You can call it racist if you want — some people do with everything else — but it won’t play well outside the safe spaces."


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top