Collegiate History

[President Camacho]

I've taken several history classes recently and I've noticed something pretty disturbing. The focus of History has shifted to give added attention to lesser civilizations, religions, and women's history. Anthropology has shifted to include added focus of women's roles within her society. The shift has been so great that the attention of students is drawn effectively away from what, I feel, should be taught. It's as though Pluto is being taught before discussion of the Moon ever takes place. It makes no sense. You discuss the Moon and then you discuss Pluto. Why? Because there is loads of information on the moon, the moon has been discussed to death and the material to be relayed is generally agreed upon, and IT IS THE MOON IT IS RIIIIGGHHT THERE!!!

So views like mine need to be beaten into the dirt by forcing my attention on small civilizations and exploring women's roles to the point where Pluto eclipses the Moon.

Case in point:

During the time dedicated for the rise of the Achaemenid (Persian) Empire and the rise of the Greek polis - we talked about India, its caste system, religion, and what that ultimately meant for women.

WTF who cares?

I asked my instructor why the focus was on this part of the world when the most exciting (opinion, I know, but I feel most people would agree with me - as it's also the most relevant to western history) action was taking place in Persia and Greece.

This isn't even the worst part about it. The worst is that the entire Peloponnesian War, Alexander's conquest of Persia and Egypt, how his empire was divided, and the rise of Rome, is ALL in one small chapter of the book!!!! This is college today????

And to assign that reading but then talk about India and how women were treated....??? The beginning of Western Civilization is totally ignored! I thought this was amazing!!

What do you think? Tragedy or Progress?

[Dexter]

Completely agree, that's been going on for a while now. It's politically incorrect to talk about dead white men, even though for better or worse they were the drivers of Western history. By all means you should learn about how ordinary people lived in different times, and different cultures, but that's not what these courses are doing -- they are pushing an agenda.

[DWill]

Boy, Comacho, you're up against it. It's not a lot different n the study is literature. The discussion seems to get parochial, about hierarchy and power and things I think of as extra-literary. It's like specialization of sorts, but I think your point is a good one that you shouldn't go into specialties until you've learned about the most central and, well, most obvious aspects of the subject. The word "balkanize" comes to mind regarding academia, all sectioned off into little territories, each of which thinks it's on the cutting edge.

Part of this involves an argument as to whether history should be presented macro or micro. Here I can see value to both ways, but it still makes sense to zoom in after a while rather than start right at that level.

[Robert Tulip]

The Gramscian long march through the institutions has so much seized academia that they do not know their arse from their elbow.

"Critical thinking" has come to mean Marxist pseudo-revolutionary posturing against western heritage. I'm all for learning about the subaltern oppressed, but it should be in the context of why the winners won. The current hair shirt in academia is that everything west is evil.

[President Camacho]

I agree with all three posts. I think this IS an agenda.

I agree that the 'winners' should be discussed first because they usually have had the most impact on history! It's a blast talking about them because their success usually coincides with monumental achievements and great battles! That's what makes history soooo much fun. It's nice to talk about lesser civilizations but only after the biggest, most significant movers and shakers of history have been talked about. Ethnocentrism aside, even eastern Asia and the people of the Steppes have had more of a historical impact than the Indians.

I feel bad for my classmates who have missed out on one of the most exciting times in History: The Persian invasion of Greece and Alexander the Great's conquests. What a shame.

[oblivion]

Pres, what exactly was the response your instructor gave you to that question?

I've noticed this in Germany as well. Two cases: the first one being a course in feminist poetry. I (had to take this course....was required!!) found myself amongst a group of very opinionated women using this as a platform to address their views (as did the professor). Fine, right? no. Not one single one of them even knew what poetry was about. They couldn't analyze even the most simple poem, could not give a definition of poetry and when it came right down to it, couldn't even define feminism, for that matter. Turns out neither the prof nor the other students actually had any interest in poetry and certainly didn't want to learn anything about it. A complete waste of time.

The second case in point is a course on monastic history where we discussed--obviously--at some point the Domenicans. We ignored the whole monastic order, their contribution to the founding of universities, their monastic architecture, almost everything. What we DID discuss, however, was a brief description of their role in the Inquisition which was followed up immediately by the development of the persecution of witches (3 centuries later), why Christianity is anti-feminist...............you get the idea. And what did this have to do with monastic history?

[President Camacho]

My question and my stance on the issue wasn't addressed except by one classmate who STRONGLY disagreed with me and defended, not the material and the curriculum, but pliant and tolerant attitudes. I wasn't going with the grain... I was being a nuisance. I get that alot! hahaha

Some people, I think, see someone who is trying to stand up for unpopular views and takes an opportunity to vent on them... JUST DRINK THE KOOL-AID!!!!

College is something people pay for in order to have access to higher paying jobs. Most of the classes they take - they could give a rats azz. The colleges know that and hell everyone knows that. Sometimes though, there are people who want to take a class to learn (what?!?!?!?), and when they don't get their money's worth they feel cheated. They find no succor because college isn't meant to teach you - it's meant as a magic 'ticket' for a better seat in life- when you complain about the material, people look at you like you're a complete a$$hole.

[geo]

From the 1940s to the 1960s, the so-called New Critics dominated American criticism. They looked primarily at the formal elements of a work of literature—the intrinsic elements such as plot, character, metaphor, symbolism, imagery, etc.

Since then, critics have begun to look at the extrinsic elements of a work, including gender, new historical psychological, biographical, Marxist, and deconstructionist (which I've never really grasped very well). You have to realize that the academic community is rather insular. Most of the audience members for literary criticism are others in the academic community. So naturally much of the focus of modern literary research is going to latch on to these extrinsic elements since that's what's in vogue these days. Camacho is right that it has become fairly ridiculous. Although some works do lend themselves very well to a feminist analysis. I also think the historical context is essential for many texts such as those by Shakespeare and Milton.

One of the stories my class reads is Joyce Carol Oates' Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?" And then I have them read Joan Easterly's essay, Shadow of a Satyr essay which takes a mythological approach to the story. The essay is very well written and fun to read, but I point out the inherent absurdity of the essay's thesis—that Arnold Friend in the story is more like the mythological Greek satyr than Satan (which is the subject of another famous essay). Such speculations are inherently absurd. Arnold Friend is an ambiguous character and cannot ever be identified as any one specific entity. I think it's good practice for students to try their own hand at making such arguments, as long as we don't take these things too seriously. There's a lot of frankly absurd psychological-based essays related to Hemingway's supposed penchant for androgyny. Our textbook contains a satirical critical essay arguing that the guy who stops by a wood on a snowy evening is actually Santa Claus.

Stephen J. Joyce, grandson of James Joyce, at a 1986 academic conference of Joyceans in Copenhagen, said “If my grandfather was here, he would have died laughing . . . Dubliners and A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man can be picked up, read, and enjoyed by virtually anybody without scholarly guides, theories, and intricate explanations, as can Ulysses."

And he questioned whether anything is added to the legacy of Joyce's art, by the 261 books of literary criticism stored by the Library of Congress. He said: Academics are "people who want to brand this great work with their mark. I don’t accept that."

Joan Easterly's Shadow of a Satyr:

http://shadow-satyr.blogspot.com/

[DWill]

My hero Emerson counseled, "Never read a book about a book." I'm sure that would include an essay as well. I'd disappoint him, as I like to read critics sometimes.

[DWill]

My question and my stance on the issue wasn't addressed except by one classmate who STRONGLY disagreed with me and defended, not the material and the curriculum, but pliant and tolerant attitudes. I wasn't going with the grain... I was being a nuisance. I get that alot! hahaha

Some people, I think, see someone who is trying to stand up for unpopular views and takes an opportunity to vent on them... JUST DRINK THE KOOL-AID!!!!

College is something people pay for in order to have access to higher paying jobs. Most of the classes they take - they could give a rats azz. The colleges know that and hell everyone knows that. Sometimes though, there are people who want to take a class to learn (what?!?!?!?), and when they don't get their money's worth they feel cheated. They find no succor because college isn't meant to teach you - it's meant as a magic 'ticket' for a better seat in life- when you complain about the material, people look at you like you're a complete a$$hole.

Y'know, maybe it's a good thing that lately the experts are questioning the economic value of just having the piece of paper testifying to graduation from college. So many grads with the papers have no job and no great prospects. I feel incredibly sorry for them, but if they went through the 4 years only to enhance their employability, they went for the wrong reason. They should have skipped the stuff they didn't care about and gone for technical training instead. They'd be happier, too, with well-paying jobs. If history and the rest bores them, they're not college material, the way I see it. Leave college for those who care about real learning.

Very few 18-year-olds are ready to go to college, anyway (again, the way I see it).