No. I've said that it's highly concerning that education is becoming increasingly one-sided politically. That is apparent given the study posted last page, which, if you look at my extrapolation of the data (and even if you ignore it) clearly shows a disturbing trend. I'm not sure where I've said 'both sides are equally wrong' and I'm not sure in what context you mean that, but if you're referring to pragerU and that video attacking them, that's correct. However that point as an aside to my main argument, which is: places of higher learning are and are becoming more biased politically.
It's also not a matter of 'proving scholars have been suppressed'. It's not my point they've been 'suppressed' i.e. they existed and didn't ever get published. You're clearly not reading my posts. I'm saying that the modern education system teaches students one particular worldview because when those prominent right-wing academics died, no one else took up their arguments, so those arguments, still valid, are dated and now sadly ignored because they're seen as less relevant views. Hence no students revisit those arguments because they disagree with them politically and don't want them to become relevant again.
It's a pity you don't have a humanities degree. If you did you'd notice the changing of the guard in the late 70s, where historical revisionism got particularly bad.
As I've said- the bits you posted did disagree with me, hence why I broke them down. Just because the entire article, on the whole, concurs with my own position, does not mean that the bits relevant to yours can't be wrong.
As I've said, given your posting history and the fact you shared parts of the article that disagreed with me without comment nor context, I think I was perfectly justified in believing I won't change your mind. You simply didn't give me chance to believe you were open to debate.
As for my own opinion on feminism, I personally believe current mainstream feminist thought is radical feminism. Plenty of older, second wave feminists agree with me and you can find evidence of this online. For the people who watch PragerU who might not know the difference between radical feminism and second-wave feminism, they are indeed being deceptive. They are being clear and at the same time deceptive. It depends on the viewer. It is clear to me, as someone who is familiar with their work and current arguments in social rights, whom they are referring to. For someone who doesn't know, it is slightly deceptive, hence my wording 'they are trying to con people who don't know what they mean'. It sounds silly, I agree, but it all depends on the optics with which you're looking at their video. The entire point being: it's clear to me [ruski]but they could theoretically con others. I'm surprised you couldn't put that together.
But we have gotten far from the original topic of 'does academia have a problematic left-wing bias' haven't we? The answer is yes, yes it does and something probably needs doing to balance matters. I think we can both agree on that.
I still have a really hard time even comprehending the idea that universities are somehow left wing political indoctrination machines. I've been studying at university for a couple of years now, and I haven't noticed anything political at all. No political events, no political comments from professors, nothing. Even the claim that people are taught to parrot their professors seems insane to me, as I feel like I've been aggressively taught about critical reading and being skeptical since forever. I figured it was because I'm studying natural sciences, but then @Crumpets said that the indoctrination idea is parroted by STEM students?
What, why? If a vast majority of people think that a thing they've been shown is true, it can be because they've been indoctrinated and deceived, or it can just be because the thing appears true. Why is it undeniably the former when it comes to political views?
What is even the point of a science if all that matters is how many 'champions' are alive and defending an idea? Wouldn't you expect that if these right-wing ideas would be able to convince people and spread on their own, rather than rely on 'contrarians' to keep the idea alive? And assuming that a truth exists, wouldn't it be completely expected for one viewpoint to eventually be the commonly accepted one (i.e. the one currently closest to the truth)? Honestly I'd be really interested to see you describe the example in full, namely this quote:
Well it largely depends on your circle of friends and which university you go to I suppose, though it stands to reason there is less politics in science, because science is, well, largely unpolitical. The reason crumpets said STEM students talk about indoctrination is precisely because they don't often experience politics in their own experience, but can see it in the humanities and around their wider campuses.
The problem is the potential that lessons are structured in such a way to naturally lead students to certain conclusions, almost definitely not out of particular malice (at least in the majority of cases), but because academia itself has been so heavily weighted toward the beliefs of one particular school of thought for so long. In a way this 'indoctrination' comes from students being presented with material that has been built over a period of 50-60 years of highly unequal political representation in academia that naturally prejudices them against the side of the spectrum that isn't represented. This is especially true and noticeable in the humanities, which are wholly opinion (and hence politically) based. A point I'd make is they're not necessarily being deceived, but that they're glaringly lacking a valuable dimension their education- the opinions of the other side.
One example of a right-wing idea falling by the wayside is the 'Frontier Theory', a popular right-wing interpretation of the American frontier and how it impacted American society. The historian who put this idea across in the early 20th century, Frederick Jackson Turner, lived through the end of the period himself and so, as well as being an academic historical viewpoint, his opinion and analysis of it's impact is arguably more closer to the truth than an academic's 100 years later. So, the key aspect of the frontier theory is that the hardships of the frontier built up this rugged 'american-ness' which strengthened the nation, built attitudes of individualism and self-reliance and promoted democracy, liberty (above all) and egalitarianism. His point was that Americans weren't the people who came over on the Mayflower but they were these hard frontier-folk, who continually reinvented and built modern America as the frontier moved ever onward, each new batch of frontier-folk futher strengthening this idea of America- 'It came out of the forest and strengthened for every new frontier it touched'. The idea of America. This proved very popular during the time and the theory itself was a hit, academically and in wider culture. It proved very popular up until the 60s, when it was said to have explained America's constant push toward the outside world, as new American imperialism (under the idea of Soviet 'containment') was a symptom of the country striving for new frontiers to surmount.
Of course, in the late 70s, new academics began to take issue with the idea and the attitudes it promoted. From then until the late 80s, numerous attempts were made to bury the idea academically, varying from arguing he was wrong because the attitudes he said built america were problematic- to the fact he ignored the native indian question entirely. Now you'll be hard pressed to find a historian willing to argue Turnerian Frontier Theory. The only real reason why the concept is even alive today is because mainstream culture never lost the ideal of the hard-working, rugged frontierman that Turner said was the bedrock of America. The term frontier theory later became more prevalent in business schools, as the concept is perfect at explaining various stages of business progression (as opposed to the development of a nation). In short, he was never proven wrong. The only mention of his frontier-theory academically since then was 8 years ago, by a single centre-right academic who has complained Turner is frequently overlooked and his historical theory deserves recognition.
Oh, right, I totally misunderstood what Crumpets was saying about STEM students. Thank you for explaining the example. Without knowing anything about the subject myself, I'd say I'd find it problematic if it's true that historians are rejecting the theory just because they find the 'attitudes it promotes' bad. But I don't think there's anything wrong with criticizing the theory for leaving out important factors such as race, class, and native Americans, or taking a more nuanced approach to it that goes against the 'icons of Western heritage', even if it's to the point where the original theory is hardly recognized on its own. Also, I would say that the question 'how was the American identity shaped?' isn't a question that is wholly opinion based; there should be some grounds for figuring out the truth, right? So shouldn't it be possible to prove, or at least provide convincing evidence for, the theory? Do you know what current historians have replaced the theory with? Wikipedia says "Turner ignored gender and race, downplayed class, and left no room for victims. Historians of the 1960s and later stressed that race, class and gender were powerful explanatory tools. The new generation stressed gender, ethnicity, professional categorization, and the contrasting victor and victim legacies of manifest destiny and imperialist expansion." and cites an article, but I can't find it. Do you think that that, and any other opposing viewpoints you've come across, are completely wrong? Or do you think it's more like a disagreement over which parts are most significant?
Dude, people have provided clear evidence in the form of studies that show that right wingers are not persecuted against in universities, and that they do not feel threatened. And also that there is no data that being taught by a professor with a specific political view will make you more indoctrinated towards that political stance, since if people change their beliefs they just seem to lean towards the societal median.
You seem to disagree and assert that conservative professors are being suppressed at universities, but you haven't provided any actual data for your claims. You have given us, at best, anecdotal evidence that suggests that academia might be less likely to pick up right-wing theories, but isn't it completely unsurprising if it is made up almost completely of left wingers and as such they find said theories less convincing? Those are not quite the same things as being actually suppressed.
The notion that there are less conservative professors because conservatives are "more easily disproven" is pretty ridiculous considering the number of academia today with marxist views, but there are other explanations then them being actively drawn out. Maybe conservatives just don't care that much about working in universities and studying academically (or prefer doing so in more conservative-leaning universities, which they might find more appealing for reasons). This wouldn't be that surprising, considering how the two political sides have different worldviews and demographics.
Me: You have to prove your arguments for them to be worth anything
You:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heAw4z71lvo
I think the rest of what I wrote in that post explains the situation clearly, but, if you can't understand what I wrote there then why bother? 'You do you'.
I wouldn't say any of those historical interpretations are downright wrong, but the importance placed on them is ridiculous. It's clear that Turner was a product of his age and likely held the beliefs one can expect a man in 1901 to have, but that doesn't mean his theory is inherently flawed. Criticizing him ignoring gender and race in his 'working out' is a cop-out of debating the actual points of his work, i.e. that the frontier theory is largely correct and important in explaining the development of the American identity. The Marxist viewpoint was actually discussed during the time, as the marxist school of thought would have existed concurrently alongside Turner academically-speaking, but at the time was largely ignored- funny how times change. They raise interesting questions, but Turner himself was largely only concerned with Frontier-folk who didn't have much, and that founded his opinions regarding the foundation of American self-sufficiency. I quite like the historiography surrounding victims, so I'll have to look into that further though.
These other points are, in some ways, important, but to only discuss those points and let the actual theory drop by the wayside to the extent it has does kind of elicit concern. For example, I only know of this branch of history because of a deep interest in colonial history and countless hours of personal reading (my degree was useful for something, haha). It wasn't taught in my university, nor can you find it taught in many despite, what I would argue, is it's significance. To ignore or explain-away the importance the frontier left on the American psyche seems academically dishonest. In my own reading, and my experience, I would say it wasn't really replaced with anything, rather just a lot of ink spilled about the arrogance and atrocities of manifest destiny.
Regarding your point about opinions, this is where the issue mainly lies. There really isn't a way to truly prove which historical theory is correct and which isn't- unles you're into economic history (in which case the numbers don't lie- and for the record my dissertation was vested largely concerning the cashflows of empire). In this way, all humanities are irrevocably marred by what inevitably becomes a political debate. How can it not? This is why I don't have a problem with marxist, feminist or racial academics disputing his theory, but i do take issue when his theory is largely ignored now and instead all that is focused on (if the topic even comes up) is how racist or sexist he was or how 'x' were the real victims and so his theory thus proves America was built upon hurting 'x'.
being part of an event usually clouds your judgement towards it, as your own personal inclinations can often take precedence over what had actually happened. being a part of something doesn't make you a good judge of it, often it makes you a worse one.
I agree, but only to an extent. Bear in mind this bloke was an academic from the of period (1895) and was yet still developing his theory until the 40s. He wasn't one of these frontier-folk himself- I'd compare it to a sociologist looking at the problems of the year 2000 and then by year 2040 had naturally become a historian of the time. The man is a shining example of the true academic. I recommend you look into him before declaring he was wrong because he experienced the time.
Doubtless in his eyes, he didn't ignore a large majority of the population because, during the time, the social issues of today weren't even considered and the vast majority of people just lived their lives- i.e. the women of the frontier weren't thinking 'wouldn't it be nice if I vote', they were thinking 'wouldn't it be nice if we could grow enough this harvest'. It's only today we can look back and pass judgement. This is a particular fallacy of people who look back in time. They weren't stupid, they were just less advanced.
These interpretation frameworks are only better at looking at the model from certain angles and they certainly don't disprove it's accuracy; Just because the time was sexist doesn't mean the man was wrong in saying the frontier built the American cultural spirit. What you're suggesting is it's good that we discard this fantastic (and accurate) historical model and then simply talk about how the model is wrong because the time was racist and sexist. Sure, that's important too historically, but it's merely an offshoot from the main thread.
That's odd because he was born in 1861 and died in 1932. Almost like the majority of his life was when Westward Expansion was still occurring :thinking:.
The dude was born in Wisconsin, which is "out west" and a part of that expanding frontier.
He's wrong for a variety of other factors, such as lack of proper context and nuance, and ignoring major chunks of the population to focus on White Americans.
Then it's clear you're the one that doesn't understand the social complexities of the 19th Century, and how social roles influence society and peoples lives. For example, on your "voting" example. Calls for stronger rights for women started far earlier than the 1910s, the sufferage movement in particular picking up a lot of steam in the *1840s*, which was really just part of a larger social movement calling for more rights for women *which had started in the late *18th* century. Like, the first part of the United States to give full voting rights to women was the territory of *Wyoming*, where Turner was born, in *1869* (Territory of Utah followed a year later).
Where have I even implied this? What you're talking about is *presentism* (and as an extension, righting history Teleologically), but studying history from the viewpoints of minorities and those who are generally ignored is not presentism, far from it. It's recognizing that the past was far more rich and complex than we usually give credit for - especially in like the case of women, they make up *half* the population and there are lots of viewpoints to be explored there.
It's not good, nor is it accurate. His entire thesis is founded on awful generalizations, ignores the point of view of people who weren't white, and is otherwise not good. His thesis is predicated on the idea that the "West" was a virgin land just with obstacles in the way of the U.S.'s Manifest Destiny of civilizing the land. Which completely ignores the various "civilizations" (although that's a loaded term and one best to be avoided) that were already inhabiting the west.
My apologies, I meant he worked on his thesis for 40 years. He was born 'out west' and went to school there, but ended up at Harvard as a professor because they were more friendly to people who just wanted to do research (he didn't want to teach). He was one of the most respected historians of his time.
What's clear is I evidently don't understand the social complexities of the 19th century (something to perhaps look into in my free time), however what is apparent to me is that if the women's right movement had picked up steam and had essentially won their rights in these frontier regions by the time of his work, how has Turner ignored a vast swathe of the population in his working out (especially when at the time the demographics were 55,101,258 Caucasians out of a total population of 62,947,714)? That might be an interesting argument against feminist criticisms of his work might it not? It also explains why he perhaps glossed over the other populations within America at the time (and I think you're also missing the fact that quite an astounding amount of African-American people also settled the frontier, as detailed in several books, and Turner includes these people in his thesis). His work was nowhere near as generalised as you and critics have suggested.
I can tell that you're referring often to the New Western Historians- i.e. the people who buried his work- because each of your points against his theory comes straight from their critiques. As I've said, no historical work is without importance, but these views are only valuable when looking at the work from their respective optic. To use one of them (or even all of their criticisms) to simply declare his work is awful and not worth learning about is falling into the exact problem I've been trying to put forward this entire thread. As I've said, just because the man who wrote something was maybe racist, maybe sexist doesn't mean his work was wrong. It also doesn't mean his work isn't highly relevant to the field and should be left out- as it is 99% of the time.
I mean, his work went from seminal when it was written, to highly respected yet revised in the late 40s (when it was said he was too hasty in declaring the formulation of the American character as being shaped wholly by the frontier), to this revised theory being used in the 50s-60s to examine the burgeoning trend of American imperialism, to suddenly being utterly thrown out by the new wave of historians who, on the whole, leaned left and didn't like his ideas because in their view he held problematic opinions? Do you not see how utterly stupid it is to not teach this work in a historical context?
Plus, remember that his model is still taught in business school and if the key premise is so wrong, why is it still taught there? Do you not see how modern political opinions have essentially seen that this work be resigned to history?
you can dress a pile of shit up in fancy clothing, but it's still a pile of shit.
ok and? just because someone was respected in their time doesn't mean their ideas hold water today. For example, Gibbons was highly influential in the study of the Roman Empire (or rather the fall of it), but his book is largely useless today.
A consistent criticism is the fact that minorities play no role in his thesis, could it be that, in fact he doesn't include them in his work?
that's because they're actual academics of the field (I deal with the First World War, not the American West), and I defer to people who have an actual specialty and their arguments.
sometimes ideas are no longer useful. it's as simple as that. gibbon's arguments about the fall of rome are useless today. the historiography and research as moved on, there are better fields to furrow, and better, more nuanced arguments to be made.
but his work, as demonstrated by generations of historians, has many critical flaws (and was even criticized during his lifetime lmao). while it certainly gave the united states some sort of founding myth, beyond that of just the revolution, it's not very valid.
beyond talking about it in a purely historiographical perspective (ie this is how the arguments have changed over time) it's useless.
oftentimes a greater culture is slow to catch up with historical research, especially when those ideas become so deeply rooted and seated in cultural memory (WWI's futility is one, and in this case wild west/frontier myths).
because that's what it is. sometimes it turns out that ideas and theses aren't so good and they get scrapped for better, more substantiated ones. while von ranke for instance is important to the foundation of history as a subject, his empirical ideas are outmoded for a reason - because we can't "tell history as it was" because what we have are a bunch of different perspectives of the same event, none of which are necessarily more true than the others (think of Rashomon here) and the historian has to make decisions about which ones they believe to be truer in order to give some idea of a version of events. Sometimes ideas just aren't right or true.
no it doesn't.
lmao. the older books are still there my man, there's no leftist conspiracy of "correct" thinking.
Gibbon's theory was wrong but is still relevant- and his ideas are still continually talked about and taught by academics in the field, even if they're acknowledged as wrong. Turner's theory has been consigned to history because people dislike it. There's one difference.
A criticism is he doesn't mention minorities in his work, perhaps because the man was the first person to realise there's no point making a distinction. Maybe he wasn't racist at all?
How is there more nuanced historiography when historians essentially ignore the field. Turner's work was dismissed and replaced with nothing, a clear example of critical theory at work. This is mentioned in Lauke's work (he actually just realised a book in 2017), how historians have dismissed Turner as a racist, as a sexist etc etc etc, but then they just ignored the entire field of study and moved on to complaining about other models (Lauke himself being a midwestern historian, though not of the New Western school of thought). Regarding the older books, they're there but they aren't taught and this is my point that there is a problem. If students are taught about the field at all, they aren't taught Turnerian theory even as an example of how historiography in the field has moved on. He is ignored wholly.
I'm talking about Turner because he is one example of a right-wing-esque historian who is essentially ignored today. As I've said, if his thesis is not the best fit anymore, what was it replaced with bar criticism and the teaching manifest destiny was wrong and that's all there is to frontier history? Turnerian theory in the field was replaced with no other framework bar marxist, feminist and racial historians going on about how he was wrong because he didn't listen to the plight of 'x'.
I do find it funny how we saw the same thing happening now happen back then though in your quote- because historians were taught by the man they didn't question his model. It's what we're seeing today and have seen gradually building for 50 years. Again, that's my main point. But will we see these the historiographical models of the left dismantled in 100 years? Probably not if this political trend on campus continues. (If we're still around in 100 years, haha).
Am I arguing his model was flawless? God no, never have. Am I arguing it is still relevant to the field though? Yes, wholly. It's all well and good (and really quite easy) to point out the flaws of his work, but I honestly think you'll be hard pressed to explain why he is ignored, especially when his theory was not replaced by an alternative school of thought and also generally influenced popular culture so.
You realize that people can actually see the post you quoted and read it?
no there isn't dude. they're both regarded as outdated and talked about in a historiographical sense only (and the rise of footnotes and citation). If you're a classicist and tried arguing the same lines that Gibbons does you'd be laughed at. and you can stop trying to act as an authority on history. it's clear as sunshine that you don't have the faintest fucking clue when it comes to history, historical theory, historians, and historiography.
Considering that "potential racism" was a primary driver of social interactions during the entirety of the so-called "frontier period", a whole fucking lot actually. And it's not just "minority" in the sense of Black Americans, but also those of Native Americans (and First Nations in Canada), Mexicans (in the case of say, the Mexican-American war when suddenly a lot of Mexican citizens were now suddenly living in America), women, how white women's experiences differed from black/mexican/native women's experiences, etc...
How would it not be relevant when trying to use the Frontier as way to paint Americans as some exceptional race of beings when there was more to the frontier than White, Anglo Americans? because that's what turner's theory does.
if you're involved in history of the american west he is discussed in a historigraphical context, it's not "essentially ignored", the work is placed in context, while better arguments have been made since.
idk the specifics since i don't study the west, but its clear just glancing at the wikipedia page that there have been models developed. But even then, history isn't made up of a neat series of models. it's not fucking physics. There's often not a nice little model we can use to explain how things came to be, but rather craft an interpretation based on sources that show how a specific event (etc...) came to be.
then it's clear you haven't actually looked into the criticsms beyond looking at wikipedia. like in that 1958 paper I mentioned above, some of the criticsms from the 1920s were, for example,
Alvord's particular pique was with the famous sentence in which Turner describes the migration from the East. "Each passed in successive waves across the continent. Stand at Cumberland Gap and watch the procession of civilization, marching single file-the buffalo following the trail to the salt springs, the Indians, the fur trader and hunter, the cattle-raiser, the pioneer farmer-and the frontier has passed by." Professor Alvord expressed the opinion that the division of classes was not as distinct as this sentence would lead one to think. Did not Richard Henderson accompany Daniel Boone ? Alvord believed that frontier migration would be characterized by a flood not by successive waves. In the same article, Professor Alvord observed what later critics were to hammer at to wit, Turner ignored the role of the land speculator.
Not to mention that, for example, turner's model is moot for California and the Pacific-North West.
It is very clear you have no actual understanding of historians or history with this quote. Historians are always looking to make new arguments, they don't just blindly follow what their professors say. Like Jesus Christ, it's as if you've never even stepped into an upper-level history course, dealt with actual primary sources, written actual papers, and the like.
because his theory holds no water today.
was sure "hard pressed" for that one.
see above, and it has been "replaced" by a number of different interpretations of the west.
popular culture is very difficult to influence, when you have decades upon decades of movies, tv shows, books, and games that go on about american exceptionalism and the west, it's very hard to break the grip that image has on people.
do you actually want to point out those supposed strawman arguments?
"being shutdown by people who think themselves to the great arbiters of truth" is probably the funniest thing I've read all day btw.
I'm actually inclined to lean more toward Malphas' view, especially as much of your last post was both just declaring I don't know anything about history and ignoring my entire point that modern academics are biased one way politically. Your entire argument has been largely predicated upon the entire words of the people I've said have buried Turner's work for political reasons.
I'm not saying my own argument is unassailable, far from it, largely because I'm an economic historian who only dabbles in social history as a hobby, but I believe I have brought up some worthy points. Yet everytime I make a point, you do indeed do what Malphas' has said and attack me personally, swear, question my intelligence and then demand further evidence.
i like how you haven't engaged with anything I've actually said, but instead are hiding behind malpha's post.
bravo.
the ultimate "no u". maybe re-read the post? i'll even quote it for ya
was sure "hard pressed" for that one.
history isn't made up of a neat series of models. it's not fucking physics.
then it's clear you haven't actually looked into the criticsms beyond looking at wikipedia
It is very clear you have no actual understanding of historians or history with this quote. Historians are always looking to make new arguments, they don't just blindly follow what their professors say. Like Jesus Christ, it's as if you've never even stepped into an upper-level history course, dealt with actual primary sources, written actual papers, and the like.
Presented without comment.
i had spent about 2 posts talking about how the historiography has moved on since his theory is no longer valid. i literally wrote out two whole posts about why his theory doesn't hold any water, and your retort was "well that criticisms was from liberals!!".
oh no a swear word, i'm so sorry you had to see that
how does that a) personally insult you
or
b) "insult your intellgence".
it's a criticism of your grasp of the subject matter.
because that's exactly what your posts say to me, that the arguments are making seem like they're being made from someone without any actual historical experience :thinking:.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
