Alabama pardons Rosa Parks - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: May 9, 2006

RE: Alabama pardons Rosa Parks

Date: May 9, 2006

American occupation of Iraq= "utopian scheme"; to build a democracy where none has ever existed and where deep rooted ethnic and religious tensions almost certainly militate against one ever existing.

American entry into WWI="utopian scheme," from Woodrow Wilson's perspective, anyway, "to make the world safe for democracy."

American occupation of the Phillipines="utopian scheme" to "take up the white man's burden" by lifting "our little brown brothers" into the 20th-century (even if it meant killing off about 200,000 of them)

Homestead Act of 1861 (Lincoln signed this, right?)="utopian scheme" for giving every American family that wanted it arable land on the frontier.

Mormon founding of the "State of Deseret" in 1840's="utopian scheme" for creation of community of visible saints.

US Declaration of Independence="utopian scheme" for creation of nation state premised on never before heard of principles of universal human equality (at least that was the advertisement).

William Penn's founding of Pennsylvania, early c-18th ="utopian scheme" to create a state with complete religious toleration and freedom of worship.

Puritan settlement of New England, mid c-17th="utopian scheme" for effecting an "errand in the wilderness" to prepare the godly for the second coming.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any of these "utopian schemes" were advanced by socialists, with the possible exception of the Separatist Puritans at Plymouth, who were certainly not clients of the "red menace" that so haunts the conservative imagination . . .

Date: May 9, 2006

Speaking of Utopian schemes, don't forget B.F. Skinner's Walden II

Date: May 9, 2006

OtP,

Some of the "utopian schemes" you mentioned were successful in the real universe and have actually endured for decades or centuries; therefore I would not classify them as utopian.

The utopian schemes that worry me (past examples of which I am not allowed to mention) did not work in the real universe; I would therefore classify them as utopian in the strict sense.

The burden of proof is on you to offer empirical evidence that the current schemes you favor are not utopian. That's why I keep asking you if you can offer any evidence or proof that similar ideas have ever worked anywhere, but I guess I'm not allowed to do THAT, either. I guess I just have to take it on faith that your ideas are practical.

At least the business folk you despise actually have to test their ideas in the real world and run the risk of failure. As an academic theorist, you have the luxury of not having to be tested in that way. I don't get the sense that you even read very widely among writers who disagree with your ideas (I've several times asked you to list the conservative magazines or journals you regularly read, and you've never responded).

By the way, how do you deal with dissenting students? If a student challenges your views, how do you cope with such disagreement?

Date: May 9, 2006

OtP,

I just discovered that one of the leading critics of utopian schemes was Karl Marx (talk about the pot calling the kettle black!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopian_socialism. So I guess all along I have been doing the sort of "Marxian analysis" you have explicitly said you admire. Where do I get my membership card and decoder ring?

Date: May 9, 2006

Lest we forget wrote:

By the way, how do you deal with dissenting students? If a student challenges your views, how do you cope with such disagreement?

I listen respectfully until the student's interest, knowledge or argument falters, and then try to incorporate what he or she said into what it was we are discussing at the time. I sometimes make suggestions about how that knowledge may be augmented and the argument sharpened. What do you do?

Really, Lest, your insinuation that because I am skeptical of the smug ideology of cowboy capitalism I must also bully and censor my students is insulting in the extreme. It comes pretty close to ad hominem here, doesn't it? I appeal to the Board for a call here.

But, regardless, there's a lesson to be learned here. The common accusation that "leftist" academics routinely quash free speech is another marker of a bankrupt ideology. "Conservatism," must keep conjuring up evil "socialist" boogey men to give vitriolic "conservative" self-aggrandizers something to justify their ridiculous existence.

The real cultural work done by academic redbaiting is to further distract the citizenry from realizing that the real threats to free speech come from corporate domination of the media--which keeps vital information from the citizenry and narrows the spectrum of public debate on issues of global importance--and from a presidential adminstration that rewrites the Constitution by fiat when it's not trampling on it outright.

How's that for a reality-based critique?

Date: May 9, 2006

Lest we forget wrote:

I guess all along I have been doing the sort of "Marxian analysis" you have explicitly said you admire. Where do I get my membership card and decoder ring?

I could put you in touch with some people, but you probably wouldn't like them!

Date: May 9, 2006

off the plantation wrote:

Lest we forget wrote: By the way, how do you deal with dissenting students? If a student challenges your views, how do you cope with such disagreement? I listen respectfully until the student's interest, knowledge or argument falters, and then try to incorporate what he or she said into what it was we are discussing at the time. I sometimes make suggestions about how that knowledge may be augmented and the argument sharpened. What do you do? Really, Lest, your insinuation that because I am skeptical of the smug ideology of cowboy capitalism I must also bully and censor my students is insulting in the extreme.

Sorry - didn't mean to be insulting. I simply know that many students do feel unwelcome to express their own opinions in many classes taught by people who hold your views, so I just wondered how you dealt with your own students. Since you asked, I actually encourage my students to disagree with me, tell them that they will never be penalized for the substance of their arguments (although I do expect any arguments to be supported by evidence), and look forward to vigorous and contentious debate in my classes. I've written extremely strong letters of recommendations for students whose ideas I often dislike (such as the one who tried to justify the Berlin wall).

Meanwhile, I try to read a wide range of periodicals, including many that advocate views at variance from my own. I guess there's no point in asking you (for I think about the fourth time now) which conservative periodicals you regularly read. It's partly because I suspect that you don't read any that I asked about your style of teaching.

Here's the sort of statement that might perhaps make a student reluctant to challenge you in the classroom:

The common accusation that "leftist" academics routinely quash free speech is another marker of a bankrupt ideology. "Conservatism," must keep conjuring up evil "socialist" boogey men to give vitriolic "conservative" self-aggrandizers something to justify their ridiculous existence.

Do you think that your conservative students might ever suspect that you regard their ideas as bankrupt and that you consider their existences ridiculous?

By the way, I took by nom, "Lest we forget," about a year ago when I was simply trying to remind some folks on this board that leftists were indeed sometimes guilty of suppressing free speech in academia. These people I was arguing with then were justifying physical attacks on right-wing speakers (such as William Kristol) at college campuses. I'm guessing, from your remarks above about your teaching, that you, at least, would not justify physical attacks on conservative speakers, no matter how bankrupt or ridiculous you considered them.