I was reminded of the book, History That Never Happened: A Treatise on the Question, What Would Have Happened If.....? It was written by Alexander DeMandt, a German historian. I have often said I would like to teach a course on historiography. (But there are two roadblocks. I don't want to do the paperwork and I'm pretty sure I couldn't get any students to take such a course.) The book is quite pedantic, but I would still require it for reading in my historiography course. It offers a number of ideas well worth pondering.
I'm not talking about "fake history." (Ha Ha Ha!) That's stuff that everyone is taught, but never really occurred. I'm thinking about Washington and chopping down the cherry tree, the apple falling on Newton's head, Paul Revere's "ride," Nero fiddling while Rome burned, and the like.
I (and DeMandt) don't mean things like these. Rather, I mean, as DeMandt's title suggests, things that could have happened if...... Here are some examples. The possibilities are not unrealistic, but with a little tweak here or there could very well have come to pass.
Someone today told me of a new book out about a failed (obviously) assassination plot against George Washington. This led me to thinking about DeMandt's book. What if Washington had been assassinated during the Revolution? Where would that have left us, left the US? I am pretty sure there wouldn't have been a US, although I don't have a crystal ball. Of the three or four major factors in the Americans winning their independence, Washington was certainly one of them. Yet, had he been killed......
Perhaps not so dramatic, what if Abraham Lincoln had won the US Senate seat from Stephen Douglas in 1858? It was a tight race. In fact, a historian later surmised that had US Senators been elected by voters instead of chosen by state legislatures (The 17th Amendment was not added until 1913.) in 1858, it is likely Lincoln would have been the winner. Would Lincoln have been satisfied with a seat in the US Senate, so much so that he'd not have considered running for the Presidency two years later? Would he, in learning the ropes in the Senate, not have had enough time to prepare to be a Presidential candidate? After all, the Cooper Union Address won him the Republican nomination and, hence, the election. If he was in the US Senate, it was probable he wouldn't have come to Cooper Union. So then, imagine the Civil War, the institution of slavery, and more without Abraham Lincoln.
How different history would have been had the piece of shrapnel that hit Hitler's thigh had hit a foot two higher or the mustard gas attack to which he was subjected had taken far worse than it did. What if, at the Battle of Marathon, the "favored" Persians had defeated the Greeks? Think of the consequences if Charles "the Hammer" Martel had not defeated the Muslim Umayyad armies at the Battle of Tours/Poitiers in 732.
There are many, many other examples we can find. Of course, getting students to read such a book might be problematic. It's hard enough to get them to read history that did happen! But the lesson is this. Our choices have consequences, some far more significant that others. The outcomes of events have consequences, too. We need to be careful in what we decide. We need, perhaps, to try to imagine the results of a decision. What will possibly happen if we do this? What will likely happen if we do that? It's yet another reason why we should study history.
I'm in a rush this weekend, so please forgive any typos or other mistakes.
Sunday, March 24, 2019
Saturday, March 16, 2019
Ranking Presidents
I recently came across several more evaluations/rankings of Presidents. They were similar, but did have some differences.
This, I think, would be quite a task. The very best and very worst would be easy or at least easier. Differentiating between, say, Truman and Eisenhower would be tough. And the more I learn/older I get, my views change, too. For instance, I'm no longer a big fan of T. Roosevelt--he was a progressive who planted the early seeds of Big Government and, for all of his popularity, he was an egotistical jerk.
My first two, in this order, are Lincoln and Washington, with no likely rivals. I think my reasons have been made abundantly clear. (That some, just a couple, of rankings didn't have Abe and George as the top two befuddles me. Such rankings immediately lose their legitimacy with me.) As noted, I like Truman and Eisenhower. John Adams (Daddy) and Reagan are in the top eleven or twelve, too. I also think a lot of Coolidge and not just because he is also a Lord Jeff. For me, unless faced with situations like those countenanced by Lincoln and Washington, mostly less is more. Madison and Monroe deserve some recognition as well.
The absolute worst include Buchanan, Carter, Harding, and A. Johnson, maybe a few others. I'd have to separate my prejudices to try to be fair to Nixon (I don't like him), Clinton (I don't like him), Obama (I don't like him), L. Johnson (I don't like him), and a few others. Perhaps naively, I still think that character matters. (For instance, I can't be convinced to vote for "the lesser of two evils." "Evil" is "evil.") I'm not sure the current historians/political scientists (mostly teachers/authors) separate their political beliefs from their personal views in their evaluations. How else to explain their perpetually low ranking of Coolidge and high ranking of Kennedy? (One ranking had JFK in the top half dozen citing only two assets, both of which made me laugh. He was assassinated and he was the first Roman Catholic President.)
We can eliminate W. H. Harrison and J. Garfield, who were in office far too short to evaluate. But how to tell the difference between Van Buren, Fillmore, Cleveland (actually pretty decent), Taft (also not too bad), Bush (Daddy), etc.?
I'm not a fan at all of Wilson, a racist/bigot besides being an arrogant progressive. Jackson is very problematic for a lot of reasons. If we count only Jefferson's first four years, he'd be in the top five. His second term wasn't so hot.
I suppose, though, I'd have to define "great." Does it mean the "best," as in doing the most good? Or, as I might have to grudgingly admit, does it mean "most influential," as in changing things for better or worse, regardless? I think I've noted before this would include F. Roosevelt, not at all a favorite of mine. The two lists would be different, other than the top two. Then toss in contemporary popularity. How does that affect, say, J. Q. Adams?
It's not as simple a task as one might think, as in cherry-picking one President and rating "good" or "bad."
This, I think, would be quite a task. The very best and very worst would be easy or at least easier. Differentiating between, say, Truman and Eisenhower would be tough. And the more I learn/older I get, my views change, too. For instance, I'm no longer a big fan of T. Roosevelt--he was a progressive who planted the early seeds of Big Government and, for all of his popularity, he was an egotistical jerk.
My first two, in this order, are Lincoln and Washington, with no likely rivals. I think my reasons have been made abundantly clear. (That some, just a couple, of rankings didn't have Abe and George as the top two befuddles me. Such rankings immediately lose their legitimacy with me.) As noted, I like Truman and Eisenhower. John Adams (Daddy) and Reagan are in the top eleven or twelve, too. I also think a lot of Coolidge and not just because he is also a Lord Jeff. For me, unless faced with situations like those countenanced by Lincoln and Washington, mostly less is more. Madison and Monroe deserve some recognition as well.
The absolute worst include Buchanan, Carter, Harding, and A. Johnson, maybe a few others. I'd have to separate my prejudices to try to be fair to Nixon (I don't like him), Clinton (I don't like him), Obama (I don't like him), L. Johnson (I don't like him), and a few others. Perhaps naively, I still think that character matters. (For instance, I can't be convinced to vote for "the lesser of two evils." "Evil" is "evil.") I'm not sure the current historians/political scientists (mostly teachers/authors) separate their political beliefs from their personal views in their evaluations. How else to explain their perpetually low ranking of Coolidge and high ranking of Kennedy? (One ranking had JFK in the top half dozen citing only two assets, both of which made me laugh. He was assassinated and he was the first Roman Catholic President.)
We can eliminate W. H. Harrison and J. Garfield, who were in office far too short to evaluate. But how to tell the difference between Van Buren, Fillmore, Cleveland (actually pretty decent), Taft (also not too bad), Bush (Daddy), etc.?
I'm not a fan at all of Wilson, a racist/bigot besides being an arrogant progressive. Jackson is very problematic for a lot of reasons. If we count only Jefferson's first four years, he'd be in the top five. His second term wasn't so hot.
I suppose, though, I'd have to define "great." Does it mean the "best," as in doing the most good? Or, as I might have to grudgingly admit, does it mean "most influential," as in changing things for better or worse, regardless? I think I've noted before this would include F. Roosevelt, not at all a favorite of mine. The two lists would be different, other than the top two. Then toss in contemporary popularity. How does that affect, say, J. Q. Adams?
It's not as simple a task as one might think, as in cherry-picking one President and rating "good" or "bad."
Monday, February 18, 2019
Presidents Day
It still baffles me why there is a day to celebrate all Presidents. And, esp, since it was done at the expense of two days that honor our two greatest Presidents, Lincoln and Washington. C'mon, what rationale can there be to lump Buchanan, Pierce, A. Johnson, Carter, and Harding in with them to celebrate?
It's no secret that Lincoln and Washington, to me, are the greatest Presidents. I don't think there's a challenge to their status. I also like Truman and Eisenhower (for different reasons, recognizing some of their doings I am not crazy about). I wonder if I'd surprise people to also mention Coolidge as one worthy of considerably more note than he receives. Jefferson (his first term at least), Reagan, Madison, and Monroe also are on my "good" list. Without thinking much more about that, I'm sure I'd add a few more.
I noted the worst, or at least among the worst, above. And I know this is political, but I'd add Obama to that list, maybe even Clinton. I know I'm going to be accused of being naive or worse, but I think character matters and these two...... That a recent C-Span poll of American historians ranks them so high reflects their biases. I hope their teaching doesn't do that.
What about F. Roosevelt? I know he is usually ranked in the top three in polls of historians. In fact, a few years ago, he flip-flopped with Washington to claim the #2 spot. I understand this, but only if "great" translates to "most influential." What FDR did, to me, was very destructive to the US and to Americans, although I'm sure most historians would disagree with me. Just like I may be displaying some political and philosophical biases, I think anyone who ranks FDR so highly does, too.
Jackson remains an enigma for me. He did some dastardly things, just horrible. Yet, his administration(s) paved the way for the future. That is, what he accomplished probably made the election of Lincoln possible. Without the transformation of the US under Jackson, would there have been a President Lincoln? And if not, well, you fill in the blank.
JFK remains problematic for me, too. I think he was scum and, well, I have noted my value of good character. His policies and actions vary in my estimation--some good, very good, and some bad, very bad. Yet, I have softened a bit on him over the years. His great abilities as a speaker, I think, were very inspirational. He drove people to do things they might not otherwise have done.
But let me emphasize, being an "average" President is not a slam, far from it. That reminds me of the 25th guy on the bench of a Major League Baseball team. There's no laughing at him! Do people realize how good he was to get there? Do they realize how many really, really good players never got there? The same with Presidents.
It's no secret that Lincoln and Washington, to me, are the greatest Presidents. I don't think there's a challenge to their status. I also like Truman and Eisenhower (for different reasons, recognizing some of their doings I am not crazy about). I wonder if I'd surprise people to also mention Coolidge as one worthy of considerably more note than he receives. Jefferson (his first term at least), Reagan, Madison, and Monroe also are on my "good" list. Without thinking much more about that, I'm sure I'd add a few more.
I noted the worst, or at least among the worst, above. And I know this is political, but I'd add Obama to that list, maybe even Clinton. I know I'm going to be accused of being naive or worse, but I think character matters and these two...... That a recent C-Span poll of American historians ranks them so high reflects their biases. I hope their teaching doesn't do that.
What about F. Roosevelt? I know he is usually ranked in the top three in polls of historians. In fact, a few years ago, he flip-flopped with Washington to claim the #2 spot. I understand this, but only if "great" translates to "most influential." What FDR did, to me, was very destructive to the US and to Americans, although I'm sure most historians would disagree with me. Just like I may be displaying some political and philosophical biases, I think anyone who ranks FDR so highly does, too.
Jackson remains an enigma for me. He did some dastardly things, just horrible. Yet, his administration(s) paved the way for the future. That is, what he accomplished probably made the election of Lincoln possible. Without the transformation of the US under Jackson, would there have been a President Lincoln? And if not, well, you fill in the blank.
JFK remains problematic for me, too. I think he was scum and, well, I have noted my value of good character. His policies and actions vary in my estimation--some good, very good, and some bad, very bad. Yet, I have softened a bit on him over the years. His great abilities as a speaker, I think, were very inspirational. He drove people to do things they might not otherwise have done.
But let me emphasize, being an "average" President is not a slam, far from it. That reminds me of the 25th guy on the bench of a Major League Baseball team. There's no laughing at him! Do people realize how good he was to get there? Do they realize how many really, really good players never got there? The same with Presidents.
Sunday, February 17, 2019
Education
Amid all this frenzy in the schools about testing, testing, testing, I have been struck by something someone sent to me. It read, "The best teachers are those who show you where to look, but don't tell you what to see." (Discussing this, I was given a book to read, a kids' book, Duck/Rabbit. It is a very relevant book.) I think that was the essence of my college education.
Oh, without doubt, I didn't understand that, not at all then. It took me many years later that this dawned on me. Some years back, but not many, one of my college buddies and I were talking about Amherst. He related, "About five or six years after graduation, it clicked!" he said with great enthusiasm, even then. "I said to myself, 'I get it!'" I answered that I had the exact same revelation, although mine came a bit later, maybe eleven or twelve years after graduation. (I'm a slow learner.)
I'll use the courses/classes I still teach as an example. It's my job to test and grade students on the material in my class. (I don't go overboard with exams, generally giving a mid-term and a final. In between, I assign a good number of short essays.) So, I give tests with the expected questions. But, as I now realize, who other than me remembers what happened in, say, 1437 or 1805? And who recalls many/most of the names of many/most of the people? I would hope some dates, such as July 4th, 1776 and some of those who really made big differences and the differences they made are remembered, such as Lincoln, but......
This leads me back to Amherst. We always suspected that many of our professors gave us grades based on our overall GPAs. That is, if my average was a C+, some of my professors would give me a C+ for the course. I don't think this was dishonest. I don't recall many, if any, exams that were what might be considered "objective tests." No, I think most of them were far more subjective. I never had a multiple-choice test. My professors certainly weren't lazy; far from it. They often wrote more on my papers than I wrote myself. It was something I eventually learned from them: comments on papers aren't just for evaluation, but are teaching tools. But I suspect my professors knew something about the purpose and the value of an education. That, frankly, tests and grades aren't important in the overall scheme of things.
Yes, grades open doors. They can be indications of future success, but not always. Part of my ideas here stems from a discussion of several weeks ago. In discussing our college days, I revealed that my GPA, upon graduation, was a B-. Jaws dropped. "You mean you didn't have a B [average]?" No, I didn't and I never earned an A at Amherst, not one. I guessed, from the silence at the table after my revelation, that those others were thinking one of two things: Either I was lying (But why would I lie to make myself look worse; people lie to make themselves look better.) or I was a complete goof off in college (I admit I wasn't a bookworm, but I did work hard, far far harder than in graduate school; I remember, more than once, returning to campus from ball games on Saturday evenings and, before heading back to the house party, spending a couple of hours in a vacated classroom studying--on Saturday evening!)
As I noted above, it took me quite a while after graduation to figure what my education was all about. I wonder, to this day, at the graduation ceremony what my professors might have been thinking as I walked to get my degree. Did they just shake their heads, at least in their own minds, or did they know they had planted seeds that were yet to germinate?
Perhaps the politicians and corporate-types who are driving the test, test, test frenzy really haven't figured out education, its purpose and value. Maybe they don't realize that the most important things to be learned in education can't be tested.
It's one of the deep concerns and criticisms I have with American education today. The teachers and administrators, who should know better, have acceded, indeed have surrendered, to those who don't. But in the face of criticism, it's far easier to go along than to challenge, to fight back for what is right.
Gee, as I read through this, I hope I get my point across. I'm not sure I have.
Oh, without doubt, I didn't understand that, not at all then. It took me many years later that this dawned on me. Some years back, but not many, one of my college buddies and I were talking about Amherst. He related, "About five or six years after graduation, it clicked!" he said with great enthusiasm, even then. "I said to myself, 'I get it!'" I answered that I had the exact same revelation, although mine came a bit later, maybe eleven or twelve years after graduation. (I'm a slow learner.)
I'll use the courses/classes I still teach as an example. It's my job to test and grade students on the material in my class. (I don't go overboard with exams, generally giving a mid-term and a final. In between, I assign a good number of short essays.) So, I give tests with the expected questions. But, as I now realize, who other than me remembers what happened in, say, 1437 or 1805? And who recalls many/most of the names of many/most of the people? I would hope some dates, such as July 4th, 1776 and some of those who really made big differences and the differences they made are remembered, such as Lincoln, but......
This leads me back to Amherst. We always suspected that many of our professors gave us grades based on our overall GPAs. That is, if my average was a C+, some of my professors would give me a C+ for the course. I don't think this was dishonest. I don't recall many, if any, exams that were what might be considered "objective tests." No, I think most of them were far more subjective. I never had a multiple-choice test. My professors certainly weren't lazy; far from it. They often wrote more on my papers than I wrote myself. It was something I eventually learned from them: comments on papers aren't just for evaluation, but are teaching tools. But I suspect my professors knew something about the purpose and the value of an education. That, frankly, tests and grades aren't important in the overall scheme of things.
Yes, grades open doors. They can be indications of future success, but not always. Part of my ideas here stems from a discussion of several weeks ago. In discussing our college days, I revealed that my GPA, upon graduation, was a B-. Jaws dropped. "You mean you didn't have a B [average]?" No, I didn't and I never earned an A at Amherst, not one. I guessed, from the silence at the table after my revelation, that those others were thinking one of two things: Either I was lying (But why would I lie to make myself look worse; people lie to make themselves look better.) or I was a complete goof off in college (I admit I wasn't a bookworm, but I did work hard, far far harder than in graduate school; I remember, more than once, returning to campus from ball games on Saturday evenings and, before heading back to the house party, spending a couple of hours in a vacated classroom studying--on Saturday evening!)
As I noted above, it took me quite a while after graduation to figure what my education was all about. I wonder, to this day, at the graduation ceremony what my professors might have been thinking as I walked to get my degree. Did they just shake their heads, at least in their own minds, or did they know they had planted seeds that were yet to germinate?
Perhaps the politicians and corporate-types who are driving the test, test, test frenzy really haven't figured out education, its purpose and value. Maybe they don't realize that the most important things to be learned in education can't be tested.
It's one of the deep concerns and criticisms I have with American education today. The teachers and administrators, who should know better, have acceded, indeed have surrendered, to those who don't. But in the face of criticism, it's far easier to go along than to challenge, to fight back for what is right.
Gee, as I read through this, I hope I get my point across. I'm not sure I have.
Tuesday, February 12, 2019
Feb 12
My admiration for Abraham Lincoln is well known. I make no secret of it. Today is his birthday, 1809. (For class today, I will wear one of my Lincoln tie and a pair of my Lincoln socks. Students won't see my Lincoln tee shirt or briefs. I don't have a Lincoln beard!) It, individually, used to be celebrated. To substitute it, and Washington's Feb 22 birthday, with a generic "Presidents Day" is, to me, ridiculous. Millard Fillmore......who? Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan?
I won't give one of my lectures on Lincoln, but will forward what W.E.B. DuBois, one of the founders of the NAACP, wrote about him in 1922. Of all the lessons we can learn about and from Lincoln, I think this is one of the greatest.
“Abraham Lincoln was perhaps the greatest figure of the nineteenth century. Certainly of the five masters,--Napoleon, Bismarck, Victoria, Browning and Lincoln, Lincoln is to me the most human and lovable. And I love him not because he was perfect but because he was not and yet triumphed. The world is full of illegitimate children. The world is full of folk whose taste was educated in the gutter. The world is full of people born hating and despising their fellows. To these I love to say: See this man. He was one of you and yet he became Abraham Lincoln.”
Happy Lincoln's Birthday!
Saturday, February 9, 2019
Income Inequality
Unlike global warming, I guess there's no debate that there is income inequality, world-wide as well as in the US. I read that the top ten hedge fund managers make more money than all of the kindergarten teachers in the United States. If that's so, that's pathetic.
I understand there is great wealth in this country. There are almost 700 billionaires here. I'm not sure I can count to 700 let alone one billion. The often berated "top 1%" control about 40% of all the nation's wealth. That really doesn't bother me. I don't think it should.
According to some of the figures I found, the wealthiest 1% of the people in the US pay a little more than 40% of the income taxes, while the top 3% pay more than half of them. And the tax rate for the richest folks is about double what it is for the "average" tax payer. I'm not arguing "fair share" here, mainly because the definition of "fair" is very elusive. I'm immediately suspicious when folks start talking about "fair," "fair share," etc.
I guess my question is, Why are so many people upset by others' wealth? That there are 700 billionaires in the US doesn't detract from my life, at least financially, does it? Maybe it does and I don't realize it. But I can't see that it does. Nor does it seem to have much of a negative impact on the vast majority of others' lives. (Political influence is a different story. That money can buy legislation that affects all of us is disturbing, particularly when that legislation harms more than it helps.)
Maybe many people, with the help of doo-gooders (and I do mean doo) have come to confuse income inequality with poverty. Surely there are many people in the US (too many) and the rest of the world who live in states of poverty. But doesn't "poverty" have an elusive definition? I wonder if it has become a subjective, not an objective, term of measurement.
More than 80% of American households have at least one big screen television, that's "at least one." (I have no idea what they cost.) Almost all Americans have cell phones, 77% with smart phones. (Does that number include kids? Regardless, I know two of the three Americans who don't have a cell phone.) And the list goes on. If this is the case, what is wrong with "income inequality?"
Is it because people are greedy, regardless of their own situations? Do they want what the other guy has? Is it envy? How does the wealth of Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or any other billionaire make most Americans less comfortable?
I'm not cold-/hard-hearted. I know there is abject poverty in the United States. In a nation with this much wealth that seems tragic. But it seems that it's taboo to ask questions regarding that state of poverty. Why are people poor? Is it a natural condition in a capitalist system? I think Thomas Sowell has done a lot of work identifying that. He claims that there is always a state of flux, that many people in the lower income brackets rise while others in the upper brackets fall and vice versa. Still, there seems to be a permanent "underclass" as the economists and sociologists call it.
But why is that? Is it because of a lack of education? If that is the case, then why is that so? Can it really be the deteriorating state of schools/education, especially in urban areas? Is it that education is not valued among some people, that to be educated, to try hard in school is not cool?
I suspect that income inequality has become equated with unfairness. It's "unfair" that some people (and it depends on which people! Where are the outcries of the unfairness of the money professional athletes, hippy-rock stars, the top Hollywood-types, and their ilk have?) have a lot of money while others have less (although not necessarily so little as to be poverty-stricken).
At the same time perhaps the anger is not necessarily directed at wealth, but at the influence it can and does buy--political and governmental influence. That some people spend millions and more to influence their causes is all right while that others do the same is not OK and sparks cries of protest.
I understand there is great wealth in this country. There are almost 700 billionaires here. I'm not sure I can count to 700 let alone one billion. The often berated "top 1%" control about 40% of all the nation's wealth. That really doesn't bother me. I don't think it should.
According to some of the figures I found, the wealthiest 1% of the people in the US pay a little more than 40% of the income taxes, while the top 3% pay more than half of them. And the tax rate for the richest folks is about double what it is for the "average" tax payer. I'm not arguing "fair share" here, mainly because the definition of "fair" is very elusive. I'm immediately suspicious when folks start talking about "fair," "fair share," etc.
I guess my question is, Why are so many people upset by others' wealth? That there are 700 billionaires in the US doesn't detract from my life, at least financially, does it? Maybe it does and I don't realize it. But I can't see that it does. Nor does it seem to have much of a negative impact on the vast majority of others' lives. (Political influence is a different story. That money can buy legislation that affects all of us is disturbing, particularly when that legislation harms more than it helps.)
Maybe many people, with the help of doo-gooders (and I do mean doo) have come to confuse income inequality with poverty. Surely there are many people in the US (too many) and the rest of the world who live in states of poverty. But doesn't "poverty" have an elusive definition? I wonder if it has become a subjective, not an objective, term of measurement.
More than 80% of American households have at least one big screen television, that's "at least one." (I have no idea what they cost.) Almost all Americans have cell phones, 77% with smart phones. (Does that number include kids? Regardless, I know two of the three Americans who don't have a cell phone.) And the list goes on. If this is the case, what is wrong with "income inequality?"
Is it because people are greedy, regardless of their own situations? Do they want what the other guy has? Is it envy? How does the wealth of Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or any other billionaire make most Americans less comfortable?
I'm not cold-/hard-hearted. I know there is abject poverty in the United States. In a nation with this much wealth that seems tragic. But it seems that it's taboo to ask questions regarding that state of poverty. Why are people poor? Is it a natural condition in a capitalist system? I think Thomas Sowell has done a lot of work identifying that. He claims that there is always a state of flux, that many people in the lower income brackets rise while others in the upper brackets fall and vice versa. Still, there seems to be a permanent "underclass" as the economists and sociologists call it.
But why is that? Is it because of a lack of education? If that is the case, then why is that so? Can it really be the deteriorating state of schools/education, especially in urban areas? Is it that education is not valued among some people, that to be educated, to try hard in school is not cool?
I suspect that income inequality has become equated with unfairness. It's "unfair" that some people (and it depends on which people! Where are the outcries of the unfairness of the money professional athletes, hippy-rock stars, the top Hollywood-types, and their ilk have?) have a lot of money while others have less (although not necessarily so little as to be poverty-stricken).
At the same time perhaps the anger is not necessarily directed at wealth, but at the influence it can and does buy--political and governmental influence. That some people spend millions and more to influence their causes is all right while that others do the same is not OK and sparks cries of protest.
Sunday, February 3, 2019
The Challenge of Reason
Last week in one of my history classes, I explained a perhaps apocryphal experiment performed by the Italian scientist Galileo Galilei about 400 years ago. In holding up a grape and an orange, he asked two Cardinals of the Catholic Church (important because they were among the educated elite) which of the pieces of fruit, the orange or the grape, would strike the table first. The educated men, along with the host and guests, agreed that the orange would land first. Galileo asked, "Why?" They, in different replies, said, "...because Aristotle said so." Of course, Aristotle claimed that, because the orange weighed more, it would fall faster and, therefore, hit before the grape. And people, educated and otherwise, believed that for almost 2,000 years. "What if Aristotle was wrong?" Galileo asked. What a silly question. Logic, along with Aristotle, assured that the orange would strike first because of its greater weight.
Galileo, toying with his audience, went to put away the fruit, stopped, and suggested that he, for fun, drop the grape and the orange. He did and you and I know what happened; they hit simultaneously. Yes, we know what happened without being there, thanks to Galileo. Several of the guests, stunned, asked if they could drop the fruit. They did and with the same results, as we know. So, Galileo showed these folks that Aristotle was wrong.
Hardly. Despite seeing with their own eyes, the Cardinals, especially, denied that Aristotle was wrong. They clung steadfastly to their own, as we know, ignorant views, refusing to concede. That was a lesson Galileo was trying to teach. I was also trying to teach a lesson to my students. I hope I was more successful than the great Italian scientist! (We'll find out this week when I collect students' essays.)
I've written this before, but think about it often, probably because I fall victim to it, too. It is easier to believe than it is to challenge. That was my lesson to my students. And, to pinpoint the peril of the challenge, they now know that Galileo was put on trial for his work. It was a Catholic Church court, one which had the power to execute Galileo and more. More? Yes, not only could it sentence Galileo to death, the death penalty, it also had the authority to excommunicate him, in essence, the death penalty of the soul. In the end, Galileo was imprisoned after he recanted what he knew to be true and was later confined to a house arrest of sorts. All this for challenging.
In a similar yet somewhat different vein, frequently change is not easy. I know it isn't for me. This can be doubly so because I don't assume change is synonymous with better. Sometimes it is not. For me, this is especially true regarding technology. Much technology is good, great even. But I refuse to bow to the god of Technology. I have been called, vis a vis technology, a Luddite. I don't run away from such a label. Sometimes I am and sometimes I'm not.
I am going to try this with my students this week. I will ask them to name an important/significant person of the 20th Century, just one. No doubt I'll get a bunch of Hippy Rock Stars, Hollywood-types, etc., but I hope also some folks of more substance. Then I'll ask them to name one important person of the 19th Century. This could be more difficult than it seems since I wonder how many students actually know what/when the 19th Century was! Then, the 18th Century and the 17th and the...... You catch on. I may have to, in the end, explain my purpose. (Well, one of them, since mostly I am curious as to how far back we can go. From my 48 years of teaching experience, I'm not optimistic.) History isn't just a subject so history teachers can have jobs. Among a variety of other things, history provides a sense of time, a sense of place; it helps us to explain how the human condition got us to where we are today. I know, I know......
Finally, I came across this and found it intriguing. An author cited Seymour Hersh, who he called "one of the finest investigative reporters of the past half century," relative to a well-researched story behind the death of Osama bin Laden. Hersh's account was starkly different from the one proffered by Barack Obama. Yet it seemed the author accepted Obama's story as the true account, not Hersh's. Hmmm...... I don't understand why. In the author's own words, "one of the finest investigative reporters of the past half century" vs a guy who blatantly and publicly lied to us, more than once. ("If you like your doctor, you can keep him." "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it." And "It won't cost you a single dime," or something like that. Of course, I did keep my health care plan, except it wasn't my health care plan. It covered less. There were higher deductibles and co-pays. And my premiums skyrocketed. But, then again, I've been accused of lying about that.) Why in the world would anyone take Obama's word over Hersh's? Perhaps I've come full circle. It's easier to believe our leaders than it is to challenge their veracity.
Galileo, toying with his audience, went to put away the fruit, stopped, and suggested that he, for fun, drop the grape and the orange. He did and you and I know what happened; they hit simultaneously. Yes, we know what happened without being there, thanks to Galileo. Several of the guests, stunned, asked if they could drop the fruit. They did and with the same results, as we know. So, Galileo showed these folks that Aristotle was wrong.
Hardly. Despite seeing with their own eyes, the Cardinals, especially, denied that Aristotle was wrong. They clung steadfastly to their own, as we know, ignorant views, refusing to concede. That was a lesson Galileo was trying to teach. I was also trying to teach a lesson to my students. I hope I was more successful than the great Italian scientist! (We'll find out this week when I collect students' essays.)
I've written this before, but think about it often, probably because I fall victim to it, too. It is easier to believe than it is to challenge. That was my lesson to my students. And, to pinpoint the peril of the challenge, they now know that Galileo was put on trial for his work. It was a Catholic Church court, one which had the power to execute Galileo and more. More? Yes, not only could it sentence Galileo to death, the death penalty, it also had the authority to excommunicate him, in essence, the death penalty of the soul. In the end, Galileo was imprisoned after he recanted what he knew to be true and was later confined to a house arrest of sorts. All this for challenging.
In a similar yet somewhat different vein, frequently change is not easy. I know it isn't for me. This can be doubly so because I don't assume change is synonymous with better. Sometimes it is not. For me, this is especially true regarding technology. Much technology is good, great even. But I refuse to bow to the god of Technology. I have been called, vis a vis technology, a Luddite. I don't run away from such a label. Sometimes I am and sometimes I'm not.
I am going to try this with my students this week. I will ask them to name an important/significant person of the 20th Century, just one. No doubt I'll get a bunch of Hippy Rock Stars, Hollywood-types, etc., but I hope also some folks of more substance. Then I'll ask them to name one important person of the 19th Century. This could be more difficult than it seems since I wonder how many students actually know what/when the 19th Century was! Then, the 18th Century and the 17th and the...... You catch on. I may have to, in the end, explain my purpose. (Well, one of them, since mostly I am curious as to how far back we can go. From my 48 years of teaching experience, I'm not optimistic.) History isn't just a subject so history teachers can have jobs. Among a variety of other things, history provides a sense of time, a sense of place; it helps us to explain how the human condition got us to where we are today. I know, I know......
Finally, I came across this and found it intriguing. An author cited Seymour Hersh, who he called "one of the finest investigative reporters of the past half century," relative to a well-researched story behind the death of Osama bin Laden. Hersh's account was starkly different from the one proffered by Barack Obama. Yet it seemed the author accepted Obama's story as the true account, not Hersh's. Hmmm...... I don't understand why. In the author's own words, "one of the finest investigative reporters of the past half century" vs a guy who blatantly and publicly lied to us, more than once. ("If you like your doctor, you can keep him." "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it." And "It won't cost you a single dime," or something like that. Of course, I did keep my health care plan, except it wasn't my health care plan. It covered less. There were higher deductibles and co-pays. And my premiums skyrocketed. But, then again, I've been accused of lying about that.) Why in the world would anyone take Obama's word over Hersh's? Perhaps I've come full circle. It's easier to believe our leaders than it is to challenge their veracity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
