|
July 10, 2004
Now, that's what I call blaming the victim.
Yesterday on NPR I heard an interview with the co-author (Dana Lindaman) of a book about textbooks called History Lessons. They've excerpted passages from history textbooks around the world that treat of America and Americans in some ::ahem:: interesting ways. Entertaining was the portion from North Korea which called Americans "the bastards" who crossed the border into "our republic" after plotting invasion and jumping around like maniacs. But something interesting happened. Lindaman was asked whether the book had new signifcance after 9/11, and he had the nerve to be a spineless relativist. One of his purposes in writing the book was to teach kids to think "critically," which means teaching kids that there is no such thing as a fact, but only the ideology with which your parents and politicians wish to indoctrinate you. Once kids in American schools got past their disbelief that other countries would tell such lies about us, they began to question whether our textbooks lie to us. And this is good, and has significance after 9/11, because -- as Lindaman informs us -- we (America) need to understand that we leave a very large footprint abroad, and we don't think about it when we walk away. By reading his book, we might just come to understand why people hate us. Up till that point Lindaman seemed to suggest that it was the ideology of state-generated or state-supported textbooks, but then asked us to understand the rest of the world's reaction to our ignorant footsteps. And that's unconscionable. Especially after he acknowledged that the U.S. is anomalous in being the only country in the world which does not dictate history curriculum, and that textbooks in the U.S. are black and white in dealing with historical fact, while textbooks in France, for example, (which conform to national curriculum standards) contain many shades of gray in efforts to avoid blame for supporting or aiding the Nazis. Dana Lindaman is a grad student at Harvard in Romance Philology, so it's no surprise that his take on history is really the same old cultural studies song and dance that wants to have it both ways: to lay claim to truth through "readings" of the "narrative" of history while denying the possibility that traditional historians can report facts. His assessment was plainly based in the soup of modern theory, but the advantage traditional history has over theory -- and will always have over theory -- is that it begins with an immense body of documentary evidence and seeks to reach a conclusion. Theory begins with a conclusion and offers novel interpretations of the world to justify that conclusion. It's what keeps academic journals filled and pads many a CV on the road to tenure. But what do I know? I'm only a classical philologist. posted by Dennis on 07.10.04 at 12:59 PM
Comments
If there's one thing my pappy taught me, it's never trust a classical philologist. Pappy was a bit weird like that. Beck · July 11, 2004 01:22 AM "I was informed that I could believe the (often ignorant) powerless." I would think that the ignorant & powerless would be the very last people one can believe. They would be most concerned with maintaining their pride and amour-propre, in the face of the facts of their existence, i.e: excusing to themselves why they ended up ignorant, powerless and oppressed, and justifying their condition by evading any blame for it. I'm not trying to be Neitzschean here, it just makes sense to consider the testimony of the powerless and oppressed with more than a grain of salt. Demetrius · July 12, 2004 12:20 PM It is indeed necessary for us to understand what people REALLY feel about us, and why they feel that way. This does NOT mean letting them blame us for all that is wrong with their societies. Nor does it mean assuming that the people who scream at us most passionately - or kill the most innocent people - are, by definition or default, "representative" of "their" people. It means informing ourselves about what's going on outside our borders, listening to their complaints, and judging which are valid and which are crap. Raging Bee · July 13, 2004 09:56 AM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
The deconstructionists drove me out of Slavic Philology. I couldn't believe how much analysis and verbiage and grant money was spent to demonstrate that people can use the gift of language to, well, tell lies.
The most radical followers of this line of thought seemed to believe that everyone lies all the time, even when trying to tell the truth. The communists called this "false consciousness." Naturally, when I pointed out that if I accepted the notion that no one can be believed, it follows that I cannot believe the deconstructionists, I was informed that I could believe the (often ignorant) powerless.
If the powerful always lie (I call this the Prevaricator's Corollary to Deconstructive Theory), why should I trust any political activist who aspires to public office?
Such thought corners itself. What I don't understand is why the salary money is spent on such thinkers and so few rational academics are to be found in Humanities Departments.