Patriotic Education Despised By Elites

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
125,181
60,780
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
When the 60s radicals realized that they couldn't burn down the university,....they took it over.

Today, universities turn behave as though they were akin to Christian monasteries, the difference being that monasteries admitted that their intention was to Christians.
The universities aim to turn out Liberal automatons committed to ending the America that the Founders offered to the world.

Woodrow Wilson’s speech as president of Princeton:
“Our problem is not merely to help students to adjust to themselves to world life…[but] to make them as unlike their fathers as we can.”
Michael McGerr, “A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870-1920,” p. 111




1.Earlier views of American education:
"....idea of education, therefore, was moral and civic, not merely instrumental. ... if a state or community is to be good, its citizens must be good, so they aimed at an education that would produce virtuous people and good citizens.

a. It is striking to notice the similarity between Jefferson's ideas and those of a leader of the last great democracy prior to Jefferson's fledgling democracy. In 431 B.C., Pericles of Athens described the character of the great democratic society he wished for his community: A city "governed by the many, not the few," where in the "matter of public honors each man is preferred not on the basis of his class but of his good reputation and merit. No one, moreover, if he has it in him to do some good for the city, is barred because of poverty or humble origins."


2. ... two thousand years later, from the 16th through the 18th centuries, a different group of philosophers in Italy, England and France introduced a powerful new idea. Their world was dominated by ambitious princes and kings who were rapidly asserting ever greater authority over the lives of their people and trampling on the traditional expectations of individuals and communities.
In the philosophers' view, every human being was naturally endowed with three essential rights: to defend his life, liberty and lawfully acquired property.


3. .... values [of honor and democratic merit, of civic participation and self-sacrifice for community] have not disappeared, but in our own time they have been severely challenged. With the shock of the 9/11 terror attacks, most Americans reacted by clearly and powerfully supporting their government's determination to use military force to stop such attacks and to prevent future ones. Most Americans also expressed a new unity, an explicit patriotism and love of their country not seen among us for a very long time.





4. That is not what we saw and heard from the faculties on most elite campuses in the country, and certainly not from the overwhelming majority of people designated as "intellectuals" who spoke up in public. They offered any and all explanations, so long as they indicated that the attackers were really victims, that the fault really rested with the United States.

5. Yet many members of the intelligentsia decried the outburst of patriotism that greeted the new assault on America. The critics were exemplified by author Katha Pollitt, who wrote in the Oct. 1, 2001, edition of the Nation about her daughter wanting to fly the American flag outside their window after 9/11. "Definitely not," Ms. Pollitt replied. "The flag stands for jingoism and vengeance and war."



a. Such ideas still have a wide currency, reflecting a serious flaw in American education that should especially concern those of us who take some part in it. The encouragement of patriotism is no longer a part of our public educational system, and the cost of that omission has made itself felt. This would have alarmed and dismayed the founders of our country."
http://online.wsj.com/articles/donald-kagan-democracy-requires-a-patriotic-education-1411770193

American Power Democracy Requires a Patriotic Education
 
Has anyone explained to you that brevity is the soul of wit.


3. .... values [of honor and democratic merit, of civic participation and self-sacrifice for community] have not disappeared, but in our own time they have been severely challenged. With the shock of the 9/11 terror attacks, most Americans reacted by clearly and powerfully supporting their government's determination to use military force to stop such attacks and to prevent future ones. Most Americans also expressed a new unity, an explicit patriotism and love of their country not seen among us for a very long time.

Fair enough. And then Bush immediately took that as an excuse to invade Iraq, and when people didn't go along with everything he tried to do, he impugned their patriotism.

So you had absurd situations like Max Cleland, who had lost three limbs in Vietnam, being compared to Saddam and Bin Laden because he wanted to make sure that employees at the new DHS had collective barganing rights.
 
Has anyone explained to you that brevity is the soul of wit.


3. .... values [of honor and democratic merit, of civic participation and self-sacrifice for community] have not disappeared, but in our own time they have been severely challenged. With the shock of the 9/11 terror attacks, most Americans reacted by clearly and powerfully supporting their government's determination to use military force to stop such attacks and to prevent future ones. Most Americans also expressed a new unity, an explicit patriotism and love of their country not seen among us for a very long time.

Fair enough. And then Bush immediately took that as an excuse to invade Iraq, and when people didn't go along with everything he tried to do, he impugned their patriotism.

So you had absurd situations like Max Cleland, who had lost three limbs in Vietnam, being compared to Saddam and Bin Laden because he wanted to make sure that employees at the new DHS had collective barganing rights.
True. My University professors would have handed stuff like that right back to her to "cut the fluff out". Don't know why she thinks it makes her look smart by writing mini novellas using her zany made-up formatting :dunno:

BTW- thats where "tl;dr" came from ;)

as to the *cough* "OP"

beattie.jpg
 
I'm reminded of when Oliver Cromwell sat for a portrait, and he asked for the painter to paint him, 'Warts and all".

That's kind of how we should look at history. There's a lot of American history to be proud of. And there's a lot to be ashamed of.
 
I'm reminded of when Oliver Cromwell sat for a portrait, and he asked for the painter to paint him, 'Warts and all".

That's kind of how we should look at history. There's a lot of American history to be proud of. And there's a lot to be ashamed of.



"And there's a lot to be ashamed of."
OMG.


Your uncritical- and far from balanced- estimation of what should be taught....'warts and all"...is not what the Left is about.

It is the hatred of this nation....some of which I note you've picked up while dipping a toe into the study of history.



6. "Jefferson meant American education to produce a necessary patriotism. Democracy—of all political systems, because it depends on the participation of its citizens in their own government and because it depends on their own free will to risk their lives in its defense—stands in the greatest need of an education that produces patriotism.


7. The past half-century has seen a sharp turn away from what had been traditional attitudes toward the purposes and functions of education. Our schools have retreated from the idea of moral education, except for some attempts at what is called "values clarification," which is generally a cloak for moral relativism verging on nihilism of the sort that asserts that whatever feels good is good.


8. ...schools fled from the idea of encouraging patriotism. In the intellectual climate of our time, the very suggestion brings contemptuous sneers or outrage, depending on the listener's mood. There is no end of quoting Samuel Johnson's famous remark that "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel," but no recollection of Boswell's explanation that Johnson "did not mean a real and generous love for our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak for self-interest."




9. Many have been the attacks on patriotism for intolerance, arrogance and bellicosity, but that is to equate it with its bloated distortion, chauvinism. My favorite dictionary defines the latter as "militant and boastful devotion to and glorification of one's country," but defines a patriot as "one who loves, supports, and defends his country."

That does not require us to denigrate or attack any other country, nor does it require us to admire our own uncritically. But just as an individual must have an appropriate love of himself if he is to perform well, an appropriate love of his family if he and it are to prosper, so, too, must he love his country if it is to survive."
http://online.wsj.com/articles/donald-kagan-democracy-requires-a-patriotic-education-1411770193

American Power Democracy Requires a Patriotic Education
 
What is with the fucking numbering? Do you suffer from some kind of OCD?

Anyway, we live in a country that was founded on the genocide of the people who lived here first, followed by the exploitation of slaves and immigrant labor, and for a brief moment, you had attempts to correct these injustices.

But you really can't address the issues of racism, inequality, injustice without first understanding WHY they came to be.
 
What is with the fucking numbering? Do you suffer from some kind of OCD?

Anyway, we live in a country that was founded on the genocide of the people who lived here first, followed by the exploitation of slaves and immigrant labor, and for a brief moment, you had attempts to correct these injustices.

But you really can't address the issues of racism, inequality, injustice without first understanding WHY they came to be.





Once again you provide insight into a sick, indoctrinated mind....exactly what the Left's version of education produces.


Too bad you aren't wise enough to do your own research, and too weak to resist the propaganda.


"Anyway, we live in a country that was founded on the genocide....blah blah blah..."



There was no genocide.
 
What is with the fucking numbering? Do you suffer from some kind of OCD?

Anyway, we live in a country that was founded on the genocide of the people who lived here first, followed by the exploitation of slaves and immigrant labor, and for a brief moment, you had attempts to correct these injustices.

But you really can't address the issues of racism, inequality, injustice without first understanding WHY they came to be.

Once again you provide insight into a sick, indoctrinated mind....exactly what the Left's version of education produces.

Too bad you aren't wise enough to do your own research, and too weak to resist the propaganda.

"Anyway, we live in a country that was founded on the genocide....blah blah blah..."

There was no genocide.

Um, actually, there was. When you reduce a population from hundreds of millions to only a few million, that's called "Genocide".

And sorry, that's what I learned in CATHOLIC schools. Except they kind of soft-sold how their church was hip deep involved in it, or how the wonderful idea of shipping black folks to America to replace the Indians they were killing off came from a churchman,

Bartolom de las Casas - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Arriving as one of the first European settlers in the Americas, he participated in, and was eventually compelled to oppose, the atrocities committed against the Native Americans by the Spanish colonists. In 1515, he reformed his views, gave up his Indian slaves and encomienda, and advocated, before King Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, on behalf of rights for the natives. In his early writings, he advocated the use of African slaves instead of Natives in the West-Indian colonies; consequently, criticisms have been leveled at him as being partly responsible for the beginning of the Transatlantic slave trade. Later in life, he retracted those early views as he came to see all forms of slavery as equally wrong.
 
What is with the fucking numbering? Do you suffer from some kind of OCD?

Anyway, we live in a country that was founded on the genocide of the people who lived here first, followed by the exploitation of slaves and immigrant labor, and for a brief moment, you had attempts to correct these injustices.

But you really can't address the issues of racism, inequality, injustice without first understanding WHY they came to be.

Once again you provide insight into a sick, indoctrinated mind....exactly what the Left's version of education produces.

Too bad you aren't wise enough to do your own research, and too weak to resist the propaganda.

"Anyway, we live in a country that was founded on the genocide....blah blah blah..."

There was no genocide.

Um, actually, there was. When you reduce a population from hundreds of millions to only a few million, that's called "Genocide".

And sorry, that's what I learned in CATHOLIC schools. Except they kind of soft-sold how their church was hip deep involved in it, or how the wonderful idea of shipping black folks to America to replace the Indians they were killing off came from a churchman,

Bartolom de las Casas - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Arriving as one of the first European settlers in the Americas, he participated in, and was eventually compelled to oppose, the atrocities committed against the Native Americans by the Spanish colonists. In 1515, he reformed his views, gave up his Indian slaves and encomienda, and advocated, before King Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, on behalf of rights for the natives. In his early writings, he advocated the use of African slaves instead of Natives in the West-Indian colonies; consequently, criticisms have been leveled at him as being partly responsible for the beginning of the Transatlantic slave trade. Later in life, he retracted those early views as he came to see all forms of slavery as equally wrong.




And if I prove that there was no such "genocide," will you admit that you are clueless about history, and are no more than an America-hating oaf?
 
[
And if I prove that there was no such "genocide," will you admit that you are clueless about history, and are no more than an America-hating oaf?

Uh, no.

If you go to any university history department and tried to claim that we didn't genocide the Native Americans, they'd laugh you out of the room.


1.So you won't admit to those after I demolish the possible belief that you know any history?

Not too sure of yourself, huh?

2. "If you go to any university history department and tried to claim that we didn't genocide the Native Americans, they'd laugh you out of the room."

All you've just done is prove that what you consider a history department is a clutch of America-haters like you.
 
But please, it will be amusing to watch you move the goalposts.



1. The decimation of Indian populations stemmed only rarely from massacres or military actions, but the majority of Indian deaths came from infectious disease.There is the romanticized America-hating view that paints the settlers as barbaric, and the Indians as peaceful victims.

It is a myth that finds a home among America haters, who attempt to use slander of the settlers as a proxy for slandering today's Americans


2. Genocide means deliberate and systematic. As described by the UN Convention, Article II, it involves “ a series of brutal acts committed with intent to destroy, …a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such.”

No such thing happened.


3. Guenter Lewy (born 1923,Germany) is an author and historian, and a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts. In September 2004, Lewy published an essay entitled Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide ? in which he says [Ward] Churchill's assertion that the U.S. Army intentionally spread smallpox among American Indians by distributing infected blankets in 1837 is false. Lewy calls Churchill's claim of 100,000 deaths from the incident "obviously absurd".



4. During the 4 centuries following European entry into North America, Indian population fell. By the beginning of the 20thCentury, officials found only 250,000 Indians in the territory of the US, as opposed to 2,476,000 identified as “American Indians or Alaska Natives” in the 2000 census. Scholars estimate pre-Columbian North American population range from 1.2 million (1928 tribe-by-tribe assessment) up to 20 million by activists.



5. The only way one can claim the disease induced deaths of the natives was a "genocide" is by also attributing the deaths in Europe from the Black Plague as a genocide, as well.


Go ahead.....the plague began in Egypt....so you'll have to claim it was an Arab genocide.
 
[
1.So you won't admit to those after I demolish the possible belief that you know any history?

Not too sure of yourself, huh?

2. "If you go to any university history department and tried to claim that we didn't genocide the Native Americans, they'd laugh you out of the room."

All you've just done is prove that what you consider a history department is a clutch of America-haters like you.

I'm reasonably sure that you'll spam this thread with all sorts of racist websites that will try to deny history.

I mean, shit, there are websites that deny the fucking Holocaust happened. That's how seriously I will take anything you post, like a Holocaust denier.
 
But please, it will be amusing to watch you move the goalposts.



1. The decimation of Indian populations stemmed only rarely from massacres or military actions, but the majority of Indian deaths came from infectious disease.There is the romanticized America-hating view that paints the settlers as barbaric, and the Indians as peaceful victims.

....

Go ahead.....the plague began in Egypt....so you'll have to claim it was an Arab genocide.

You know what, you tried this shit on the other thread, I'm sure you have these crazy essays filed to cut and paste them, and they are still shit.

The fact is, people as early as the 16th century knew that white colonization was exterminating the natives. The afformentioned Bartolome de la Cases plead with the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V to put an end to colonization because some day, we'd all have to answer to the Sky Pixie for it.

A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


We can also talk about how Philip Sheridan authorized the slaughter of Bison in order to cripple the Plains Indians.

Bison hunting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

As the great herds began to wane, proposals to protect the bison were discussed. William F. "Buffalo Bill" Cody, among others, spoke in favor of protecting the bison because he saw that the pressure on the species was too great. Yet these proposals were discouraged since it was recognized that the Plains Indians, often at war with the United States, depended on bison for their way of life. In 1874, President Ulysses S. Grant "pocket vetoed" a Federal bill to protect the dwindling bison herds, and in 1875 General Philip Sheridan pleaded to a joint session of Congress to slaughter the herds, to deprive the Indians of their source of food.[9] By 1884, the American Bison was close to extinction.
 
But please, it will be amusing to watch you move the goalposts.



1. The decimation of Indian populations stemmed only rarely from massacres or military actions, but the majority of Indian deaths came from infectious disease.There is the romanticized America-hating view that paints the settlers as barbaric, and the Indians as peaceful victims.

....

Go ahead.....the plague began in Egypt....so you'll have to claim it was an Arab genocide.

You know what, you tried this shit on the other thread, I'm sure you have these crazy essays filed to cut and paste them, and they are still shit.

The fact is, people as early as the 16th century knew that white colonization was exterminating the natives. The afformentioned Bartolome de la Cases plead with the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V to put an end to colonization because some day, we'd all have to answer to the Sky Pixie for it.

A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


We can also talk about how Philip Sheridan authorized the slaughter of Bison in order to cripple the Plains Indians.

Bison hunting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

As the great herds began to wane, proposals to protect the bison were discussed. William F. "Buffalo Bill" Cody, among others, spoke in favor of protecting the bison because he saw that the pressure on the species was too great. Yet these proposals were discouraged since it was recognized that the Plains Indians, often at war with the United States, depended on bison for their way of life. In 1874, President Ulysses S. Grant "pocket vetoed" a Federal bill to protect the dwindling bison herds, and in 1875 General Philip Sheridan pleaded to a joint session of Congress to slaughter the herds, to deprive the Indians of their source of food.[9] By 1884, the American Bison was close to extinction.



You're done.

Dismissed.
 
With the shock of the 9/11 terror attacks, most Americans reacted by clearly and powerfully supporting their government

What if you closely examined the "news" account of the events of 9/11/2001
and found that beyond any doubt whatsoever it can be shown that there were NO radical Arab hijackers, no airliners used as weapons.... the whole scene was a LIE!
now what?

Not the least bit Genocide.....

OK, I gotta ask because the pix is of such low resolution, what is it?
 

Forum List

Back
Top