'Lies My Teachers Told Me'

[dropzone]

On another board somebody posted this right-wing screed:

http://www.politicallyright.com/article123.htm

Lie Number One: America is an "Imperialist Nation"

Lie Number Two: "Socialism Works Better Than Capitalism"

Lie Number Three: The U.S. Constitution Is A "Living Document"

Lie Number Four: America Was Founded On "Racism And Genocide"

Lie Number Five: The Palestinians Are “Victims” Of Israel

Lie Number Six: Marx Was A “Genius”

Lie Number Seven: The Vietcong Were The "Good Guys"

Lie Number Eight: The Republican Party Is “The Party Of Racism"

What can we demonstrate to be true and what is false? And do ANY teachers actually say these things? My teachers didn't, but he's probably not interested in my experiences. To get things started:

#1: We have had our moments. Can he say "Manifest Destiny?" And as he points out we didn't annex Germany or Japan, I should point out that my brother was Attorney General (or something similar--an appointed, not elected, post) of the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas. "Commonwealth," as in "next stop: statehood." The same status as Guam and Puerto Rico. None of which can be considered part of the continental US. But I am an admitted Imperialist if the places ask for it, regretting that we didn't make Luzon a state (the crazies can have Mindanao) and expecting Cuba to petition for statehood within the next hundred years.

#2: If he could find a truly Socialist country as a test case maybe we could come to a conclusion. He cites Sweden, which is more a hybrid of Socialism and Capitalism and darned successful, and Guatemala, which looks to be working on being a Little USA after decades of internal problems. Yeah, they use Commie buzzwords like "solidarity" and "Secretariat" but that doesn't make them a Little Cuba.

#3: This one is clearly nonsensical and he even admits that the Framers allowed amemdments to improve the document as times required, which is what most people mean when they say that the Constitution is a "living document."

#4: Weeeeellllll, I gotta say there's some merit in that statement but we've gotten better.

#5: We can save for another discussion, one we've been through many times. I usually leave it at, "There are jerks on both sides."

#6: Marx was a very bright fellow and came up with an interesting solution to the problems of the Victorian London slums but did he even suggest that his system could or should be applied to Czarist Russia? Being a genius and being right are two different things.

#7: The origins of that war are complex, yadayadayada.

#8: Then they should kick their racists out. The Dems didn't have to; they left willingly when they saw they'd be more welcome in the Republican Party.

For the most part I just say that teachers don't say most of these things, even when they are true, and the claim that academia is overloaded with Angela Davises is a Conservative wet dream with little basis in fact. Prove me wrong, prove him wrong. With cites, of course.

[Joachim Pieper]

The article makes the college sound like some sort of cult.

Weird.



Cheers.

[jshore]

On another board somebody posted this right-wing screed:

http://www.politicallyright.com/article123.htm


I think it is fairly obvious from reading that full article that what the professors most likely told this student was something more along the lines of:

(1) America has used its power in various ways and with various motivations.

(2) Laissez-faire capitalism is not a perfect economic system and other countries have had successful and vibrant democracies with a system that is less laissez-faire than the U.S.

(3) There is not just one way to read the Constitution...There are various interpretations possible.

(4) There was what amounted to a genocide (with some of it but by no means all of it due to accidental spread of disease) committed against native peoples in America. At the time that the U.S. was founded and for nearly a century thereafter, slavery was practiced. And, even well after that, racism persisted in law and practice.

(5) The Israeli / Palestinian issue is a thorny one with both sides committing acts of violence. While Palestinian terrorists have committed horrific acts against Israeli civilians, Israel's rule over the West Bank and Gaza has sometimes been oppressive and violent...And, Israel has built settlements in these areas that it occupies that are generally deemed to be illegal under international law.

(6) Marx was an important and influencial person in history.

(7) The Vietnam was a horrible quagmire and one in which the U.S. killed many, many Vietnamese. In addition, it seems quite possible, if not likely, that our actions in the end gave greater strength to the worst of our enemies...i.e., the most radical and sadistic elements within the Viet Cong.

(8) The Republican Party was founded as a party against slavery and the Democrats indeed retained control of the South due to their popularity with white voters there through the 1960s. However, after that, things shifted with many Republicans adopting a "Southern Strategy" of appealing to Southern white voters often with covert or open appeals on racial issues.

In other words, because these professors did not indoctrinate their students with the sort of nationalistic propaganda that we rightfully criticize when it is practiced in the U.S.S.R., Cuba, West Bank / Gaza, they have lied to us.

[Scumpup]

I've been teaching since 1985 and have yet to run into the stereotypical liberal teacher or the leftist slanted textbooks that generate the constant whining among self-styled conservatives. I expect that much what they perceive as lies and bias really comes from an "if you aren't 100% in agreement with me, then you are one of THEM!" belief system on their own part.

[catsix]

I should point out that my brother was Attorney General (or something similar--an appointed, not elected, post) of the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas. "Commonwealth," as in "next stop: statehood." The same status as Guam and Puerto Rico.

I was not aware that, living in Pennsylvania, I do not live in a state as Pennsylvania is still the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It has been since long before I was born, and I don't see that changing in the future, but it is hardly a territory that does not hold full statehood-rights in the U.S. Government.

Being a Commonwealth does not mean 'on the way to statehood.'

[Rysler]

1. Ask the Phillipines how it feels.

2. My high school Civics teacher nearly cried teaching us about Ayn Rand and how communism is a destructive, terrible force that would never work. I have to agree with her, to the ire of every socialist I know (in fact, it's ended some friendships that I don't buy into the whole world love peace thing--not on my side). In college, a lot of time was spent teaching us how capitalism (well, the World Bank/IMF) was destroying Africa. Socialism was never put forth as an alternative. In both high school and college, we did spend time talking about the asssination of Salvador Allende. The lesson was always free elections are morally correct, not communism is morally correct.

3. It's not? Then why are Conservatives trying to write anti-abortion, anti-gay, and anti-free speech amendments into it? Oops, just what I was taught in school. My teachers all said, "There are several schools of thought concerning the interpretation of the US Constitution...one is literalist, that we are limited only to the powers and freedoms actually written... another is that we are allowed all freedoms and powers not expressly prohibited... these specific court cases uphold these specific viewpoints... ad nauseum."

4. I'm from the South, living with the shame of slavery is a very large part of my education (which itself is a result of the state constitutions passed after the Civil War). I'm also from Cherokee land, so the Trail of Tears was a Big Deal. I went to a college in a town known for having the first sit-in in the 1960s and also a brutal racially-motivated slaying.

I was taught that the Civil War was not fought over slavery, and WWII was not fought to end the Holocaust, and that any president openly motivated by morals is not going to make it very far (Wilson, Carter).

5. I was not taught this in school, it never came up, possibly due to being in school during the pax of the Oslo Accords. I learned about Israeli settlements and Arafat walking away in 2000 by reading the news.

6. Yes, he was, but Marx was not a Communist, just like Albert Einstein is not currently blamed for the bomb falling on Japan. The way in which we view brilliant, dangerous people might be related to Point 2.

7. In my high school, the Viet Cong were terrorists, the South Vietnamese were sympathetic to the cause of the North, and the US hopelessly ill-prepared to fight in such a situation. In my very liberal college, my very ex-Pentagon teacher complained often that the US had it's hands tied by over-cautious generals who wouldn't just let him nuke North Vietnam because we were afraid of starting a war with China.

8. Never heard that in school, or anywhere else. It's a logical step in my mind that the party for the "status quo" accepts the current status quo of minority oppression and is unwilling to take measures (affirmative action) to change the situation, but I see this as an indirect effect of the platform, rather than vice versa. Republicans either don't acknowledge there's still oppression by race, or believe that those problems cannot be solved by handouts, but can be overcome by individuals working hard and bettering themselves. I was not taught in college that a difference in perspective = enemy.

For demographic tracking, I went to a very liberal college, Guilford, in the South, and got a very liberal B. A. in Political Science/Sociology, then followed it up with a Masters in Library Science at a school accredited by the baby-eating ALA.

Sweden, of course, is not so bad, compared to, say, Guatemala.

That made me giggle. Most of the article made me titter with glee. The misinformation and omissions concerning the Israeli/Palestinian conflict sickens me. Upon preview, jshore's post is far more intelligent than mine, and I think s/he's right. Props!

[dropzone]

Yes, I'd like to quote jshore's post over there, if I may. Maybe a link, too. It'd be nice for some of them to visit this board and see liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and moderates as well as Americans and non-Americans discuss issues using facts rather than just quoting conservative websites.

[smiling bandit]

1. Ask the Phillipines how it feels.

From what I understand they feel pretty good about U.S. Mostly because we went in and conquered them and soon realized that, well, we weren't very good at Imperialism and decided to let them go. And, we did, slightly delayed because of the Japanese conquering the Phillipines in WW2.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this whole thing was decided back in 1936 or so. For whatever reasons, we decided that, well, we didn't really want an Empire and didn't want to be in on the European game. And we'd never really had much of an Empire to begin with. Our overseas posession seem to be quite happy with our control, and Puerto Rico has consistently rejected statehood and independance. ther than that, we have some military bases, whose job tends to be defending the host country and not controlling it. If it were not so, then Germany wouldn't have been so arseholic last year.

[dropzone]

Just to finish this hijack, I'd like to keep the option open for the Phillipines. And I'm not alone, apparently, as there is a pretty big movement towards statehood that I just found out about. http://members.aol.com/XPUS/Phil/Manifesto.html

A liberal American imperialist? Am I confused or what? :confused:

[jshore]

Upon preview, jshore's post is far more intelligent than mine, and I think s/he's right. Props!

Thanks...But I very much enjoyed reading your firsthand experiences on what you learned too.



Yes, I'd like to quote jshore's post over there, if I may. Maybe a link, too.


It would be fine with me.

Another point I'd like to make is that I think the U.S. has had significant problems stemming from not understanding how the rest of the world views it..and also from being insufficiently open to understanding how other nations deal with similar issues and problems as we face. (And, these problems don't stem from the U.S. viewing itself more negatively than the rest of the world does!) I am certainly not claiming that all the views that others have of the U.S. are always correct...Some are clearly quite whacked out. But, I think we need to seriously consider the criticisms of our friends and allies...And, we need to at least understand, even if we strongly disagree with, the criticisms of others.

If the person who wrote up those 8 "lies" had their way, the U.S. citizens would certainly be taught in a propagandistic way that put them even further out of touch with the views of the rest of the world and would lead to further problems for the U.S. because of this.

[dropzone]

I was not aware that, living in Pennsylvania, I do not live in a state as Pennsylvania is still the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I was using a different definition of "commonwealth." Per Dictionary.com:

Commonwealth
1. Used to refer to some U.S. states, namely, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
2. Used to refer to a self-governing, autonomous political unit voluntarily associated with the United States, namely, Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands.

[John Mace]

No much to add to jshore's post. Keep in mind that this type of oversimplified analysis really has nothing to offer in intelligent debate. Not any different from all those threads you see here with titles like "Why do Conservatives/Liberals hate...".

[dropzone]

It would be fine with me.Here you go: http://forums.prospero.com/foxfirefly/messages/?msg=12896.1

[John Mace]

Dropzone:

You might want to check the SDMB rules about linking to other boards. IIRC, it's frowned on, in the interests of preventing "Board Wars".

[dropzone]

Valid point, though that other board is fairly small and I've been trying to get some of the more thoughtful members to join the SDMB for a year or so with a marked lack of success. Okay, the mods may delete the link if they think it's a good idea.

[rjung]

I expect that much what they perceive as lies and bias really comes from an "if you aren't 100% in agreement with me, then you are one of THEM!" belief system on their own part.
Change that to "If you say anything bad about the United States, you must be one of THEM!", and I'll agree with you.

These are the same folks who think "America -- love it or leave it" makes sense. :rolleyes:

[ElvisL1ves]

Pete Seeger's version is still true:

What did you learn in school today
Dear little child of mine?

I learned our government must be strong
It's always right and never wrong
Our leaders are the finest men
That's why we elect them again and again.
...
I learned that wars are not so bad
I learned about the great ones we have had
We fought in Germany and in France
Someday soon I might get my chance.
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school . . .

[Frostillicus]

I admit it. I teach "lie" #3 to my students. I'll wait now for the authorities to round me up. I can't believe I got away with this treason as long as I did. Any punishment they give me will be more than justified. Think of the permanent damage I have done to the youth of America. :(

[John Mace]

I admit it. I teach "lie" #3 to my students. I'll wait now for the authorities to round me up. I can't believe I got away with this treason as long as I did. Any punishment they give me will be more than justified. Think of the permanent damage I have done to the youth of America. :(

Care to elaborate? It's certainly "living" in the sense that it has a well defined process for amending it. Do you teach that there is such a thing as the "constructionist school of thought" regarding interpreting the constitution? Do you present both sides and let your students decide which school of thought is appropriate? If not, then you are, in fact, indoctrinating them instead of educating them.

[RockyRaccoon]

The Right has taken over talk radio, the House, the Senate, the Administration and, to a growing degree, the courts. Now there appears to be a concerted effort to pull down what is seen by many as the last great bastion of the Left, the liberal educational establishment.

There is a lot of space on conservative web sites these days devoted to complaints about "liberal bias" on campuses. Much of it sounds like Limbaughesque hype and distortion calculated to motivate conservative activists and have a chilling effect on liberals.

[John Mace]

Honestly, this business about "the right does this' and "the left does that" sounds like two high school in-groups fueding over a popularity contest.

The Right has taken over talk radio...

Taken over? In what sense? Sounds like sour grapes. What specifically has prevented "the left" from using talk radio to its advantage?

...the House, the Senate, the Administration and, to a growing degree, the courts.

Well only if getting elected = "taking over". If you have some evidence that the courts favor a "rightist" view over a "leftist" view more often than not, let's hear it.

Now there appears to be a concerted effort to pull down what is seen by many as the last great bastion of the Left, the liberal educational establishment.

I suppose the right is struggling for influence in education, but are you honestly going to say that the left is not doing so equally? Or is education supposed to be the left's territory, and folks on the right are trespassers?

[RockyRaccoon]

Honestly, this business about "the right does this' and "the left does that" sounds like two high school in-groups fueding over a popularity contest.

Have you been out of the country for the past 10 years? ;)



Taken over? In what sense? Sounds like sour grapes. What specifically has prevented "the left" from using talk radio to its advantage?

The subtlety of its ideas, perhaps? Bombastic black/white rants are ever so much more entertaining. :p



Well only if getting elected = "taking over". If you have some evidence that the courts favor a "rightist" view over a "leftist" view more often than not, let's hear it.

Yes, the courts are still quite credible, thankfully.



I suppose the right is struggling for influence in education, but are you honestly going to say that the left is not doing so equally? Or is education supposed to be the left's territory, and folks on the right are trespassers?

The tone of the attacks on the "liberal educational establishment" these days are really quite strident. As I said, Limbaughesque. It's more than an attempt to have a voice or gain influence, it's a crusade by people who seem intent on using indimidation rather than the force of arguments or superior ideas, which would be welcomed and entirely appropriate.

[John Mace]

The tone of the attacks on the "liberal educational establishment" these days are really quite strident. As I said, Limbaughesque. It's more than an attempt to have a voice or gain influence, it's a crusade by people who seem intent on using indimidation rather than the force of arguments or superior ideas, which would be welcomed and entirely appropriate.

Might I suggest that you notice mainly those attacks that are "Limbaughesque", and don't pay attentioned to the reasoned analysis that is out there? There are plenty of "rightist" or libertarian commentators out there who don't share Rush's love of hyperbole.

The Democratic candidates for president have let out their share of "Limbaughesque" comments. And I'm not talking about just Al Sharpton. Even Kerry likes to talk about "Benedict Arnold CEOs who send jobs overseas". Benedict Arnold? He committed treason by aiding the enemy of the US during a time of war, for heaven's sake!

[Milum]

'Lies My Teachers Told Me'
Oh boy, oh boy, this is fun, like shooting fish in a barrel, beating my grandson at draw poker, or getting Janet Jackson to show us her tits.

Lie Number One: America is an "Imperialist Nation"

Most emphatically. We imperialized Japan, France, Viet Nam, Germany, South Korea, Italy, and Liberia ( our puppet, our showcase, our abject failure.)

Lie Number Two: "Socialism Works Better Than Capitalism"

Ain't it the truth, socialism has brought the good life to the masses. And then socialism has reduced the masses to exist as inanimate wards of the socialist state.

Lie Number Three: The U.S. Constitution Is A "Living Document"

This is not a lie. The Constitution was always meant to be a basic document, outlining the fundamental and inalienable rights of all people. But the authors of our Constitution provided the occasion of Amendments to aid and advance these principals.

Lie Number Four: America Was Founded On "Racism And Genocide"

That does it! I'm outa here! I don't talk to fools, educators, and people from outer space.

Lord help us all. ()

[Revtim]

Care to elaborate? It's certainly "living" in the sense that it has a well defined process for amending it. Do you teach that there is such a thing as the "constructionist school of thought" regarding interpreting the constitution? Do you present both sides and let your students decide which school of thought is appropriate? If not, then you are, in fact, indoctrinating them instead of educating them.John, could you elaborate on this? I'm not sure what you mean by "both sides"; do you mean both the sides of a particular interpretation of Consitutional text, or two sides where one feels there is room for interpration of the Constitution and the other does not?

[John Mace]

John, could you elaborate on this? I'm not sure what you mean by "both sides"; do you mean both the sides of a particular interpretation of Consitutional text, or two sides where one feels there is room for interpration of the Constitution and the other does not?

Sorry if that was unclear. "Both sides" was probably the wrong phrase to use. What I really meant was that a teacher should teach his/her students about both schools of thought regarding how the constitution can be interpreted. (And I'm sure I'm oversimplifying by assuming that there are only 2 schools of thought.) But using specific examples of two different interpretations for a given case would certainly be a good teaching tool.

The original post that I responded to on this subject seemed to imply* that the constructionist interpretation of the constution is not valid and need not be taught to students.

*I emphasize the word "imply" here, hence my request for the poster to clarify his/her position.

[kwildcat]

John, one nugget for you and Revtim - I understand what I think you're saying about "both sides of constitutional interpretation", but part of my confusion when I read your first post on the subject was your reference to "construtionist" in general. The term "constructionist" in some academic circles is in direct opposition to the very concept of "interpretation".

What I mean is, there are some Roy Moore types in the world who view the Constitution not as a "living document" but a static Hammurabi's Code, and that it should be understood literally, as some fundamentalists do the Bible or the Koran.

I don't think you meant it, but at first read, it seemed like you were giving credence to this very specific constructionist view of the Constitution, that the document is somehow immutable and not open to debate. This is not what has made the document (or our nation) a success though. To debate ways to interpret the Constitution is part of our national discourse, but the prerequisite must first be acceptance that it can indeed be interpreted differently. This is a subtle but important distinction that some conservative demagogues wilfully ignore.

Revtim most certainly should not feel compelled to dedicate valuable class time to such extremism, any more than I would expect an History teacher to deliver a lecture on Holocaust denial or a Biology professor on the superiority of the white man. It should be sufficient to state that people once thought such foolish things, but they were wrong.

[John Mace]

OK, if we go by what Theories of Constitutional Interpretation (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interp.html) from the University of Missouri-KC Law School web site, perhaps I should use the term "originalist" and "non-originalist". Suffice it to say that there is the "Antonin Scalia" school of thought and the "William Brennan" school of thought. To deny that a teacher has the responsibility to present both schools of thought without bias is to deny that one of those Supreme Court Justices has legitimacy as a jurist.

Personally, I fall in the Originalist camp. But I recognize that honorable people can disagree about that and prefer to argue the issue outright rather than deny that one side even be listenned to.

[jshore]

But does anyone really consistently subscribe to "originalism" or is it often just used as a convenient excuse to not read into the Constitution what you don't agree with anyway. For example, can the decision in Bush vs. Gore (using the equal protection clause), signed off on by Scalia and Thomas, be justified on grounds of "originalism"? I am not saying it can't but color me skeptical until shown otherwise.

[John Mace]

But does anyone really consistently subscribe to "originalism" or is it often just used as a convenient excuse to not read into the Constitution what you don't agree with anyway. For example, can the decision in Bush vs. Gore (using the equal protection clause), signed off on by Scalia and Thomas, be justified on grounds of "originalism"? I am not saying it can't but color me skeptical until shown otherwise.

That's like saying a religion class should not teach about Catholicism because no one practices that religion in its purest form. At any rate, I'll leave it to one our resident legal scholars to address the specific example cited. Just a side note: a strict originalist would have nipped the whole Florida recount thing in the bud at the state level when the Florida Sec of State certified the election per that state's constutition. It was the "non-originalists" in the Florida Supreme Court who redefined the Florida Election law and caused the case to get kicked upstairs in the first place. :)

[Ravenman]

Man, that must be some college that guy went to. I was educated in public schools in Berkeley, California, and I was only taught number three. The others I learned on my own... (j/k)

But the author apparently has a pretty poor grip on history, or at least seems to treat facts with the same regard as, say, Ann Coulter -- that is, ignore 'em when they get in the way of a good argument. In rebuttal to the allegation that America was founded on racism, he offers: "Slavery existed in areas of the United States from 1776, when the colonies declared their independence from Britain, to 1865, when Congress adopted the Thirteenth Amendment."

I bet he's just bitter because he flunked history classes with arguments like this. As if slavery did not exist in colonial America....