His reality is not my reality
Over in Classics, eol_nanelmoth has posted an interview between TAE and academic-turned-farmer-turned-academic-turned-social-commentator Victor Davis Hanson.
I'm fascinated. Prof. Davis seems to espouse a modern American version of the Victorian British "We are the true heirs to the amazingly successful, true, good, and just, and great Classical cultures" mentality. I thought it died after WWII.
Because I don't think a Classics community is an appropriate venue for political trollage, I'm posting my responses here.
(Interview text in italics, Zingerella in Roman)
TAE: What is your idea of a perfect curriculum?
HANSON: My curriculum is old-fashioned. It's a zero sum game, and there are only so many disciplines that will always exist: literature, mathematics, biology, hard science, foreign language, politics, philosophy. To make space, I would eliminate anything that has the word "studies" in it: ethnic studies, women's studies, cultural studies, American studies. That would free up about 25 percent of the current therapeutic curriculum.
Most of the new things that universities are trying to introduce are not academic subjects. They're just popular culture dressed up as learning. Not only are these not university subjects, but they come at the expense of time diverted from real education. For every hour a kid is in Chicano studies or environmental studies classes, he's not learning history or philosophy.
One wonders whether Hanson would recommend also eliminating Medieval Studies, Ancient Studies, Classical Studies, and Egyptian Studies?
There's a distinction here that Hanson doesn't make, or maybe it's a difference between the universities I've attended and the ones he's familiar with. In my universities "...Studies" was, as often as not, a programme, comprising courses from different departments. Thus, Ancient Studies is a collaborative programme drawing from the departments of Classics, Art History, and Near and Middle Eastern Studies, whose students study Latin and Greek, Classical literature, archaeology, egyptology, maybe philosophy, possibly middle Egyptian, Sanskrit, or Syriac. I fail to see how any of these counts as "pop culture," or prevent students from learning history or philosophy.
But this is only the beginning. It gets far more bizarre. Onward:
TAE: You are critical of both leftist utopianism and laissez-faire capitalism.
HANSON: My criticism of corporate America isn't that it's evil or anything so silly as that. Indeed it provides us [Which "us" would this be?] with affluence undreamed of in any earlier age. It's just that it's pretty unconservative. Whether it's rap music or two women kissing on prime time or the schlock of Mexican TV that increasingly dominates our airwaves here in California, it's usually not some left-wing conspirator who's behind it, but rather a big corporation making money by appealing to the lowest common denominator, without regard to cultural consequence or any effort to uplift. The arbiter of values is always profit. They don't realize that they can be a very radical, revolutionary force.
O.k., so I'm not certain who the "they" referred to in the last sentence is. Actually, I'm not even certain what point he's trying to make here. But, at the beginning," indeed, it provides us with affluence undreamed of in any earlier age" makes it sound like affluence is a good thing. Then, he comes down on the entertainment industry (I don't know how he got from "corporate America" to "the entertainment industry," really I don't), for pandering to the masses. But in order for corporations to acquire "undreamed of" wealth, they need to appeal to the broadest possible market. If a corporation aims merely to make a profit and enrich its stakeholders, then it can get by without enormous sales, but once we get to the "undreamed of" affluence, we're talking creating mass market demand, so that the masses will pay for your product, whatever it is.
(It's late. Am I being as incoherent as Hanson?)
TAE: You trace U.S. military power to the Greek traditions of discipline, rationalism, free inquiry, dissent, etc., and say that free citizens are history's deadliest fighters. I'm going to give you a list of some recent changes in Western attitudes and technology and ask you whether you think they'll have a significant impact on our ability to wage war in the future.
Free citizens are history's deadliest fighters? O.k., someone tell that to the Mongols, please (were the Mongols citizens? I don't think they had a structure for citizenship). Also, please mention it to the Austrogoths and Vandals.
[HANSON]I know lots of people are becoming skeptical about the war in Iraq, but I haven't heard any mainstream person say, "Let's leave the country." And I don't think they will-even though an American or two may be killed every other day for some time.
O.k., if any Americans are reading this, and have, at any point said that it would be a good idea for the U.S. to pull out, would you please mail this...individual, with a one-line message--"Dear Prof. Hanson, Let's leave Iraq. Signed XXX, Mainstream Person"? I don't know what how one establishes credentials as a "mainstream person." (I can't write such an e-mail, because my country's not in a war with Iraq.) I've heard any number of people say things like "We shouldn't have been there in the first place. We should pull out as fast as we can." And I'm not talking sandal-wearing, rope-smoking, tree-hugging, hygiene-challenged, tofu-eating, peaceniks, either. I'm talking computer programmers, academics, moms, editors, musicians, and navy personnel.
One defense [against threats from WMD in the hands of "parasitic societies who want to cherry-pick Western culture," "especially tribal or autocratic ones"] is to remember that terrorists don't work in a vacuum. Every terrorist group has to have money, institutional backing, some physical sanctuary. They have to have land inside some country. And those countries and institutions that provide land and capital to terrorists must be treated as synonymous with terrorists. Then deterrence can work, once we make it clear that we can be even more ferocious and unpredictable in a just cause than they can be in a cruel one.
Dude, have you so immersed yourself in the study of Classical history and philosphy, and in growing fruit that you've somehow missed the history most of the latter half of the twentieth century? Let's see...which country provided the Taliban with financial and military resources? Which country's pResident's family business has close commercial ties with the Bin Laden clan? Which country sold weapons to Iran?
And that's all within the past 30 years. So, tell me again, which country are we to treat as synonymous with terrorists?
O.k. That's a start. There's so much more there, that's so indicative of someone whose reality is not our Earth reality, and it's so late at night, that I'm just plumb out of snark, not to mention deeply freaked out. I'm certain you can find more to say.
Have at it, friends--I leave the floor to you!
I'm fascinated. Prof. Davis seems to espouse a modern American version of the Victorian British "We are the true heirs to the amazingly successful, true, good, and just, and great Classical cultures" mentality. I thought it died after WWII.
Because I don't think a Classics community is an appropriate venue for political trollage, I'm posting my responses here.
(Interview text in italics, Zingerella in Roman)
TAE: What is your idea of a perfect curriculum?
HANSON: My curriculum is old-fashioned. It's a zero sum game, and there are only so many disciplines that will always exist: literature, mathematics, biology, hard science, foreign language, politics, philosophy. To make space, I would eliminate anything that has the word "studies" in it: ethnic studies, women's studies, cultural studies, American studies. That would free up about 25 percent of the current therapeutic curriculum.
Most of the new things that universities are trying to introduce are not academic subjects. They're just popular culture dressed up as learning. Not only are these not university subjects, but they come at the expense of time diverted from real education. For every hour a kid is in Chicano studies or environmental studies classes, he's not learning history or philosophy.
One wonders whether Hanson would recommend also eliminating Medieval Studies, Ancient Studies, Classical Studies, and Egyptian Studies?
There's a distinction here that Hanson doesn't make, or maybe it's a difference between the universities I've attended and the ones he's familiar with. In my universities "...Studies" was, as often as not, a programme, comprising courses from different departments. Thus, Ancient Studies is a collaborative programme drawing from the departments of Classics, Art History, and Near and Middle Eastern Studies, whose students study Latin and Greek, Classical literature, archaeology, egyptology, maybe philosophy, possibly middle Egyptian, Sanskrit, or Syriac. I fail to see how any of these counts as "pop culture," or prevent students from learning history or philosophy.
But this is only the beginning. It gets far more bizarre. Onward:
TAE: You are critical of both leftist utopianism and laissez-faire capitalism.
HANSON: My criticism of corporate America isn't that it's evil or anything so silly as that. Indeed it provides us [Which "us" would this be?] with affluence undreamed of in any earlier age. It's just that it's pretty unconservative. Whether it's rap music or two women kissing on prime time or the schlock of Mexican TV that increasingly dominates our airwaves here in California, it's usually not some left-wing conspirator who's behind it, but rather a big corporation making money by appealing to the lowest common denominator, without regard to cultural consequence or any effort to uplift. The arbiter of values is always profit. They don't realize that they can be a very radical, revolutionary force.
O.k., so I'm not certain who the "they" referred to in the last sentence is. Actually, I'm not even certain what point he's trying to make here. But, at the beginning," indeed, it provides us with affluence undreamed of in any earlier age" makes it sound like affluence is a good thing. Then, he comes down on the entertainment industry (I don't know how he got from "corporate America" to "the entertainment industry," really I don't), for pandering to the masses. But in order for corporations to acquire "undreamed of" wealth, they need to appeal to the broadest possible market. If a corporation aims merely to make a profit and enrich its stakeholders, then it can get by without enormous sales, but once we get to the "undreamed of" affluence, we're talking creating mass market demand, so that the masses will pay for your product, whatever it is.
(It's late. Am I being as incoherent as Hanson?)
TAE: You trace U.S. military power to the Greek traditions of discipline, rationalism, free inquiry, dissent, etc., and say that free citizens are history's deadliest fighters. I'm going to give you a list of some recent changes in Western attitudes and technology and ask you whether you think they'll have a significant impact on our ability to wage war in the future.
Free citizens are history's deadliest fighters? O.k., someone tell that to the Mongols, please (were the Mongols citizens? I don't think they had a structure for citizenship). Also, please mention it to the Austrogoths and Vandals.
[HANSON]I know lots of people are becoming skeptical about the war in Iraq, but I haven't heard any mainstream person say, "Let's leave the country." And I don't think they will-even though an American or two may be killed every other day for some time.
O.k., if any Americans are reading this, and have, at any point said that it would be a good idea for the U.S. to pull out, would you please mail this...individual, with a one-line message--"Dear Prof. Hanson, Let's leave Iraq. Signed XXX, Mainstream Person"? I don't know what how one establishes credentials as a "mainstream person." (I can't write such an e-mail, because my country's not in a war with Iraq.) I've heard any number of people say things like "We shouldn't have been there in the first place. We should pull out as fast as we can." And I'm not talking sandal-wearing, rope-smoking, tree-hugging, hygiene-challenged, tofu-eating, peaceniks, either. I'm talking computer programmers, academics, moms, editors, musicians, and navy personnel.
One defense [against threats from WMD in the hands of "parasitic societies who want to cherry-pick Western culture," "especially tribal or autocratic ones"] is to remember that terrorists don't work in a vacuum. Every terrorist group has to have money, institutional backing, some physical sanctuary. They have to have land inside some country. And those countries and institutions that provide land and capital to terrorists must be treated as synonymous with terrorists. Then deterrence can work, once we make it clear that we can be even more ferocious and unpredictable in a just cause than they can be in a cruel one.
Dude, have you so immersed yourself in the study of Classical history and philosphy, and in growing fruit that you've somehow missed the history most of the latter half of the twentieth century? Let's see...which country provided the Taliban with financial and military resources? Which country's pResident's family business has close commercial ties with the Bin Laden clan? Which country sold weapons to Iran?
And that's all within the past 30 years. So, tell me again, which country are we to treat as synonymous with terrorists?
O.k. That's a start. There's so much more there, that's so indicative of someone whose reality is not our Earth reality, and it's so late at night, that I'm just plumb out of snark, not to mention deeply freaked out. I'm certain you can find more to say.
Have at it, friends--I leave the floor to you!