The fact that it took a gang of rightwing Kulturkampf commandos to kick Thomas Jefferson out of the State of Texas' history curricula makes me grin, seeing as how it was long the conservative position that liberal subversives were the ones trying to tear the great man down by endlessly harping on his slaveholding. The whole Texas educational brouhaha is really just further indication that the purpose of education is not to engage young minds, or whatever, but to inculcuate certain cultural biases and intellectual predispositions. Anyway, Matthew Yglesias' guest blogger, Dara Lind, doesn't seem to understand what the phrase "such as" means, i.e. that it's a synonym for e.g., which is by definition a partial list. In any case, it seems to me that the fact that the Black Panthers and Thoreau's civil disobedience make it into the curriculum at all is something worth praising, albeit while never forgetting that education is a fraud.
Her actual complaint is that while civic action by whites--the Boston Tea Party and Thoreau's tax dissent--are evidently painted in a positive light, the hoary, American-mythic tale of a deracinated and saintly Martin Luther King is going to be used to club out any notions about the importance of direct action in the Civil Rights struggle. Fair enough, except that I am yet young enough to remember my own high-school history, and this picture of King and the Civil Rights movement is not a departure from it. It is the normative, recieved, official history of that era. Rosa Parks was just tired, and all that. That doesn't make such bad history any less a target for mockery and derision, but the bad history itself is hardly novel. Meanwhile, if you can turn kids on to Thoreau's radicalism--and I, for one, think of Thoreau as one of our great native radicals--and then throw King at them, well, the dumb ones will draw no connections and not be harmed by it, but the smart ones will understand the lineage, and they may yet profit from an understanding that would otherwise be withheld from them.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Including, but Not Limited to . . .
Labels:
Edumacation
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
Well, good enough as far as it goes. I'm not sure that studying Jefferson Davis' inaugural address will prove fruitful, and I don't think that listing slavery as only fourth on the proximate causes of the Civil War is either honest or accurate, but there you have it. Also too and therefore, jamming the Official Baby Jesus Buttplug Version of the Grand Philosophy and Glorious History of America twixt the innocent cheeks of Texas youth seems a tad....gooberish. And we haven't even got to the science standards yet. Come to think of it, I'd rather not.
The fact that it took a gang of rightwing Kulturkampf commandos to kick Thomas Jefferson out of the State of Texas' history curricula makes me grin, seeing as how it was long the conservative position that liberal subversives were the ones trying to tear the great man down by endlessly harping on his slaveholding.
Honestly this just sounds so strange to me I almost feel as if I'm missing something.
Liberals have always liked Jefferson because of his position on the idea of a state religion.
Conservatives have always liked him because he was in favor of a weak central government.
Just saying "he was a hypocrite because of slavery" is a lot different from expelling him from the curriculum.
So is this some very strange, very theocratic cult that's taken over in Texas?
Fair enough, except that I am yet young enough to remember my own high-school history, and this picture of King and the Civil Rights movement is not a departure from it. It is the normative, recieved, official history of that era.
Translation. You're a privilaged suburban white boy.
There are these things called "inner cities" where we actually have whole schools named after Malcom X.
(note: These are the schools your boy Rand Paul wants to defund in favor of charter schools where unmarried female teachers will probably have to take a virginity test and assign McGuffy's Readers)
Get this. I actually had to READ MALCOLM X IN HISTORY CLASS.
And the teacher was a Polish American Republican and gun owner.
So I submit to you Mr. IOZ. There are more things in the public school system than are found your philosphy.
Lol. I grew up in rural, coal-patch Pennsylvania and went to a much poorer, more poorly equipped, more poorly staffed high school than almost any city school I've ever encountered. One of the prevalent biases of urban liberals is that poverty is a solely urban phenomenon that afflicts only racial minorities. It is, frankly, one of the reasons you guys just can't understand "right-wing" populism.
As for the rest of it, I refer you to the title of this post. But, you know, A for Effort!
a much poorer, more poorly equipped, more poorly staffed high school than almost any city school I've ever encountered.
so THAT'S what a private boarding school serves caviar in the lunch line looks like in the addled memories of a four year coke binge.
Lulz yes. I paid for it myself. With my TRUST FUND.
My impression is that naming things after famous civil rights activists (and ignoring the rest) and teaching of them in schools amounts to a token gesture. I'm guessing, e.g., activists who were assassinated by the FBI or sent into exile don't get much respect by the inner city curriculum; any more than their "redneck" counterparts did at my rural NV public high school.
By the way, I used to live a block from Malcom X Blvd in Brooklyn, where I routinely witnessed police stopping and searching residents (specifically young adult black males) for no apparent reason--a cop told me these searches without "probable cause" are legitimized by the War on Drugs. And, on the same block, was a public school (PS 81, I think) where kids were regularly hauled off in police vans. Thus, my own (limited) experience re: the inner city makes me skeptical of Anon 11:08's claims.
Just cuz:
The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative.
Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro's friend and benefactor; and by winning the friendship, allegiance, and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political "football" game that is constantly raging between the white liberals and white conservatives.
Politically the American Negro is nothing but a football, and the white liberals control this mentally dead ball through tricks of tokenism: false promises of integration and civil rights.
Fun stuff.
"Coal On Ice"
Instead of "X" I read IOZ. Perhaps I should say, I didn't read "X" so IOZ is mandatory?
You're my edumakshon.
Professional liberals amuse this humble blogoviator. They jump-skip to their triggers more earnestly and violently than their professional conservative counterparts - who, whilst being largely shit bums with little empathy, at least do their schtick with refreshing self-abandon. The pro conservatives hates, and cleanly. Vicious moral simpletons, surely, but they keep their good consciences clean with honest ignorance.
I prefer fascists and proto-fascists as adversaries, any day. They know the rules of this terrible game. Their hunger for the humiliations, lynchings, imprisonments and deaths of our ilk and kind is a welcome evolutionary pressure. Against maximalists like that, we at least can choose to live. They just want to destroy us, and we can shape our defiance accordingly.
Not so, the professional liberal, who isn't The Compleat Liberal unless he has a wanker to save and an academic to write him a permission slip. Constantly seeking justification, incessantly nattering about harm and rights and hazard, the pro liberal reveals the not-so-secret heart of her moral agenda: unmitigated terror.
The conservatroid may hate, and color his hate with ignorance and misunderstanding - but he's largely immune to the political variants of fear and self-loathing.
He'll take the shot, if he can, confident that Jesus loves him for it, or that evolution at least favors his stock better.
But the liberal? The liberal will punish and punish and punish until the whole fucking world is a prison for desire, until every friendship is suspect on account of the hidden motivations the liberal has, the motives he true believes infects all the sorry rest of us.
The liberal wants us to behave. And he thinks we don't notice that he's the one with the clip board, marking down our transgressions...
JC,
Like, chill, man. Have a swig.
Capt'n Obvious
Heh. I didn't write that with any tension. I'm already chill. But, I'll have to decline the drink. Driving my kids around today...
IOZ is being too kind to Dara Lind here. Dara is a dunderheaded fudger of truly Iglesian proportions.
Consider her attempt to manufacture a distinction here:
Students are expected to…analyze the effectiveness of the approach taken by some civil rights groups such as the Black Panthers versus the philosophically persuasive tone of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech and his “Letter from the Birmingham Jail.”
The Birmingham Jail letter is, of course, one of the great justifications of civil disobedience and social movement direct action in human history. So, where's the contrast here? The point here is so obvious, you have to wonder if this shining Yalie has ever read the Birmingham letter. From what she writes, it seems she may have simply heard somewhere that MLK was all smiles and talk, as opposed to meanies like X and the BPP.
And what does old Dara want us to be taught? That "direct action and civil disobedience can serve an important purpose."
OMFG! Talk about SOI-DISANT!
Direct action and civil disobedience are the main engines of democracy, if one bothers to ponder the basic facts for 30 seconds. Voting rights, labor rights, civil rights, ecology, cessation of the Vietnam torture, and, indeed, the Holy Constitution itself, that great expression of elite fear over Shay's Dirt Party -- all came from the street.
But they "can have a useful role," preaches Dara.
Need we mention that Iggy and Dara would hate nothing more than more genuine trouble in the streets, as it would certainly mean trouble to Zerobama and the Dimbots?
Fuck these professional liars and the Ivy League factories that make them by the gross.
MD
Anger shortens life. Relax.
And is this
Fuck ... the Ivy League factories that make them by the gross.
the pugent smell of sour grapes?
Capt'n O
Anon @ 11:08,
Congrats on being forced to READ MALCOLM X IN HISTORY CLASS. I'd like to applaud you on your ability to read subversive literature that your teacher puts on your desk. As a HS student living in privaleged (sic) white boy suburbia, I was quite grateful that nobody assigned Malcolm X and I had to do a lil digging on my own...for I'd probably have skimmed the Cliff Notes instead. If the sole thrust of your radicalness has to come from what a state board decides as public school education, I'd suggest you missed the point completely and we're better off as a society w/you just keeping the civil in disobedience. Really I'm just happy it wasn't assigned to all HS kids, b/c for at least an hour I killed with other white, drunk, stoned, & privaleged (sic) law school students who missed it. Sadly, I'm proud of having read Malcolm X, even though there's no way I could possibly understand what the fuck he was talking about, just like the fact that you may/may not have gone to a high school w/a metal detector doesn't make you hard. But fuck it, introspection can be a terrible thing.
On a final note, this seems to be a reasonably sensible post. My only quibble: I before E, except after C. The spelling curriculum is shit in coalsville. Not. Debatable.
- COT
Calmer than you are.
Cap'n, my grapes turned to raisins at some point.
Meanwhile, are you saying Iggy doesn't befriend dolts like Dara because she's a fellow soi-disant Ivy leader?
The Ivies aren't a total wreck. James W. Loewen, for instance, is a Harvard man.
Nevertheless...
The CliffsNotes on the Autobiography of Malcolm X are available at
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/literature/The-Autobiography-of-Malcolm-X.id-221.html
Did you write this post while drunk IOZ?
I'd follow up on the Mr. Fundamental quote you have pinned on the right side of your blog and run this mess through a cut up generator. It might help your writing's coherence.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1990797,00.html
I asked a French person what soi-dissant meant today. Then they told me. It was a letdown.
With my TRUST FUND.
Your soi-disant trust fund?
It's kinda funny...the stand-in linked back here with some sort of snark about your spelling -- at which point he/she was heckled into a retraction for her pedantry. I almost felt bad...
Speaking of direct action, without James Earl Ray Dr. King would have gone the way of Uncle Tom and Booker Washington. With the assassin's bullet came the street cred King had forfeited some time before, what with all that talk of peace, Jesus and cross-cultural inclusiveness as the ultimate goal. Malcolm X's bullet, on the other hand, tragically silenced a separatist hate-mongerer in his prime.
Inky - Lulz. Do you really think James Earl Ray killed King? King's own family members petitioned for his release.
And you obviously don't know much of King's later career... like when he fastidiously assailed US foreign policy.
Uhm,ah so King was basically Fifty-Cent.
Anon @ 2:11---
Was it Nation of Islam thugs killed MLK Jr. then as well as Malcolm X? Somehow, I knew it!
As to King's "later career", as you generously describe it, I'd consigned it to the same category as Gandhi's signal work keeping India united.
He was killed by the government dude... The King's won a civil court case in 1999 against the guy who was paid to organize the assassination. And you know why? Because he had turned his focus on US imperialism and actually had enough clout behind him to get something done.
Lucid---
King's death was an "Act of State", eh? I see this Mr. Peppers also represents Sirhan Sirhan, characterized as "another patsy". Apparently, Sirhan was Jack Ruby's lover, then went Criss-Cross with James Earl Ray after a viewing of "Strangers On A Train" arranged by Tommy Smothers on behalf of LBJ and Hubert Humphrey. Maybe there's still time for Peppers and Bill Ayers to do something for Leonard Peltier.
Full circle back to the subject of our Host Post. Forget these arch-conservative philistines in Texas for the moment. How can it be that the enlightened mod-progs in charge of history curricula in say Massachusetts or Minnesota still ignore the true and complete record concerning the beloved Dr. King's black ops assassination by military-industrial-complex stooges? After all, if it was good enough for Coretta, Reverend Wright, and Greg Palast....
Why shouldn't he. The physical evidence in that case pretty much clears Sirhan outright...
Anywho, I do take them to task all the time. Given all of the evidence available on the long and torrid history of '60's assassinations [including my heroes - the panthers] I really don't understand how any reasonable person can conclude they weren't direct operations by governmental agencies.
Inky, kindly Shut The Fuck Up. Really, you’re embarrassing.
Lucid---
I too respect the rigor of the "Pretty Much Clears Outright" standard, and it's hard to get more convincing than negative presumptions arising from an "I Don't Understand How Any Reasonable Person Can Conclude Otherwise" analysis. As long as we don't let too much of what we ourselves want or need to be true into the equation.....
Coldtype---
Forget not only the Texan Philistines but also Embarrassing Arch-Conservative Skeptics like me. Can you get on the horn to President Obama with your findings post haste? I'm certain that a Historic Prez like Obama, as well as his mainstream mod-prog acolytes in politics, media, and the academy, and last but not least our left-leaning public-school teachers nationwide, responsible for the King Personality Cult, all need to know about this earth-shattering scandal....yesterday. Maybe send out your links, eh?
Post a Comment