There are three major problems with the way history is being taught to young adults, and as a student of history as well as a future educator, I must say that this is distressing, to say the least. These problems that I speak of are as follows: An undue emphasis on trade and economics, unhealthy amounts of "chronological snobbery," and the wanton imposition of modern ideals upon the various contexts of history. Let's take a look at these issues, and I shall explain in greater detail what I mean.
Trade. It is undoubtedly an important factor in the development of world events. But if you were to sit in on a university-level history course, you would get the impression that trade was the only factor which affected anything at all. I am currently enrolled in a class called, "World Civilizations Since 1500," an overview of historical events stretching from the late Renaissance all the way up until modern times. I can say without fear of hyperbole that the entire course has been centered around economics. This is not just my perspective, either, I have spoken with a few of the other students in the class who agree with this assessment. Let us take the example of the Enlightenment period. There were many ideas circulating during the Enlightenment, ideas which would effectively cause the destabilization of Europe and in many cases the deconstruction of long-standing governmental structures. These were replaced by new, revolutionary-minded forms of government, the most obvious example being post-revolution France. The ideas behind all of this were extremely influential at the time and also extremely complicated. Yet these same ideas were not really discussed or examined within in the context of my class. We didn't read any of the Enlightenment thinkers, or talk about the details and nuances of the revolutionary philosophy. Instead, we discussed how these new Enlightenment governments affected trade and politics.
What I want to talk about is WHY. Why did these ideas lead to revolutions? What are the consequences of this way of thinking? We were told that the Enlightenment was an age of free thinking, without really being shown what was being thought at the time. Does this make any sense? What is discussed in the classroom is mere FACT. I can find facts on my own, as could any motivated student. Libraries provide the student with essentially the same information that is available to any knowledgeable professor. A history teacher should be able to explain all of the connections and nuances behind the ideas, not merely gloss over their results. This problem exists not only in this particular class, but also in every other college-level history course I have taken. Economics is made the driving force behind everything, and the possibility of any other cause is ignored. The Crusades? Completely motivated by European greed and avarice. There is no allowance for justice or honor as motivators in that situation, and only the desire for land and wealth is "allowed" to control the actions of the past. The Reformation? Simply an ideological movement, something which allowed governments to break away from the supposedly oppressive Catholic church, bringing forth free government, free trade, and free press in Europe. Some of the most important ideas of the last millennium are ignored in favor of mere facts. Facts do not form a worldview, facts do not constitute morality, and facts do not spur the hearts of men to action. Why do we settle for this in the classroom? At the end of a four year education, most students will know nothing about the Reformation or the Enlightenment except for a two sentence textbook summary on the topic. This does not, in my opinion, benefit the student in any way, and I believe that professors do their students a disservice by making gross generalizations and excluding details that are in fact vital to a complete understanding of history.
Another deficiency that can be found in university classroom is "chronological snobbery." This is the assumption that the present is automatically better than the past, by virtue of supposed advances in technology, ideology, or religion. This is an incredibly fallacious way to look at things. Hindsight is, as they say, 20-20. The chronological snob might, for example, look down his nose at a some medieval scholar or logician, one who might have believed that the earth was located in the center of the solar system. The snob will declare said scholar to be a daft old fool, mired in the Dark Ages, and of no use to anyone. This concept can be put into a logical syllogism thusly:
I. You argue that A implies B.
II. A implies B is an old argument, dating back to the times when people also believed C.
III. C is clearly false.
IV. Therefore, A does not imply B.
Well, does that really make sense? Some teachers seem to think it is perfectly all right to go about completely discounting entire periods of time simply because they think that modern man has so vastly improved himself, so much so that silly things like, for example, Medieval Christianity cannot possibly be worth discussing, or even giving credence to. Every period has, as C.S. Lewis said, "its own characteristic illusions." But for professional educators to paint the portrait of history with so broad a brush seems very unscholarly to me, and I'm not sure why more care isn't taken to avoid this problem. The speed at which generalizations are made is indeed astounding, and makes one wonder whether or not some professors even care about accuracy.
The third problem I have seen is that of the modern ideal being applied to the historical context. (It could be said that this is, in fact, an outgrowth of chronological snobbery, so make of that what you will.) One example of this is the modern idea of "tolerance." Tolerance in our day and age is a sort of pluralism, a "live and let live" attitude towards beliefs or customs which differ from ours. Oftentimes, a historical group will be looked at and proclaimed to be more tolerant than other people of the day. We are then led to believe that this makes that particular group somehow better or more agreeable than their peers. But the definition of tolerance used is largely a modernist invention. To the modern mind, tolerance is progressive, tolerance is politically correct, tolerance is necessary for a free society. But is that how the historical context defines things? Was it really a desire for tolerance which prompted the institution of Dhimma within 7th century Muslim law? And should the 4th century Christian church be thought of as intolerant for trying to stamp out Arianism? At first glance, moderns will dismiss feudalism as oppressive and cruel, but is it really? Is that the way it was viewed by the people who actually lived within that context? It seems to me that many times, the vast differences between the modern perspective and the perspectives of the past are completely ignored. History is put into a blender along with modernism, and the result is a watery, revisionist concoction that is more counterproductive than anything else. No attempt is made to break free from the gravitational pull of our own biases. The practice of taking modern ideas and slapping them onto historical events in such a way is just plain old bad scholarship. The willingness of academia to view history through mud-coloured glasses is something which should not be taken with the complacency that so many seem to have towards the treatment of history in the classroom.
It would seem that for the modern university student, history has been reduced to money and power. Ideas are mentioned, but never investigated. Cultures are surveyed, but never explored. If I were to remember only one thing that I learned as a history student in high school, it would be that ideas have consequences. Worldview matters. Philosophies matter. Religion matters. These things affect culture, politics, economics, literature, music, art, architecture, and every other aspect of society imaginable. It amazes me that the most important factors in the development of history are ignored by those who have studied it the most.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
"There is a way that seems right to a man..."
"... but its end is the way to death." - Proverbs 14:12
I stumbled upon a five part documentary(link at the bottom of this post) about the Norwegian Black Metal band, Gorgoroth, and more specifically, their vocalist, a man called Gaahl.
On a superficial level, this series really exemplifies a few of the reasons why metal is an inherently un-Christian movement. Putting aside whatever arguments are made for its status as music, the ideas which lie behind metal, and more specifically, Black Metal, are really awful. Members of Gorgoroth freely admit that Satanism is at the core of this band, and at the core of Black Metal. Gorgoroth itself is blantantly anti-Christian. A quote from Gaahl: "Christianity is based solely on stolen souls and lives. So, of course, every trace of them should be erased." The music of Gorgoroth clearly has an agenda, according to the members themselves, and that is to create fear and change the minds of their listeners to reflect the Satanist ideology that is at the center of the band. "The band is spreading fear, and we use that fear to create change and to also get our ideas across," said . "[There are] few bands around with a Satanic message, it's all about the music ... we are not about that, we are about the message."
Gaahl views himself as a Biblical goat, one with free will, unlike the sheep who follow God. This leads us to the humanism that motivates Gaalh. As the documentary begins to examine Gaahl more closely, we see a man whose ideals are more or less the height of humanism. He utterly rejects God, saying that God is within Man. When talking about breaking away from religion, he says, "You will be allowed to focus on the god within yourself, because that's the only true god, the god within everything. That's the only thing that, for me, is worth calling god. It is the highest spirit of everything, and not this control freak that is telling you, you are not supposed to do this, you are not supposed to do this ... God is within man, God is within nature, and nature will always grow, that's the force of all life, to grow."
Gaahl constructs his own morality. He has multiple convictions for violence, one of which involved torture. Gaahl apparently felt it necessary to teach one particular man a lesson for attacking him, and so he restrained his attacker and beat the man for hours, supposedly collecting the man's blood in a cup. He says that this sort of thing is "punishment," meant to teach others a lesson, and has apparently done this on multiple occasions. When Man is given the status of a god, rather than God's image, this is what can happen. If I am a god in my own right, what's to stop me from constructing my own ideas of right and wrong, however contrary they may be to the urgings of my own conscience, and then carrying them out upon others, regardless of the consequences? In a way, that's what Gaahl has done. In a broader sense, Gaahl embodies the reasoning of Man as he fights against God's sovereignty. Although we are loath to admit it, we are all Gaahl in our heart of hearts, however extreme an example he may be. The grace of God, the work of Christ, and the strength of the Holy Spirit enable us to rise above our sinful natures and follow Christ. Praise Yahweh that this is so.
Note: Concerning the video series, I recommend that you watch it to understand the full scope of what I've discussed here. There are some very poignant aspects of this story that I really can't describe. But, also be warned that there are some graphic images of stage props used at Gorgoroth concerts, for example, and also instances of foul language. Just be aware. I still recommend that you see all five parts, it's very interesting, albeit disturbing.
Here is the link: True Norwegian Black Metal
I stumbled upon a five part documentary(link at the bottom of this post) about the Norwegian Black Metal band, Gorgoroth, and more specifically, their vocalist, a man called Gaahl.
On a superficial level, this series really exemplifies a few of the reasons why metal is an inherently un-Christian movement. Putting aside whatever arguments are made for its status as music, the ideas which lie behind metal, and more specifically, Black Metal, are really awful. Members of Gorgoroth freely admit that Satanism is at the core of this band, and at the core of Black Metal. Gorgoroth itself is blantantly anti-Christian. A quote from Gaahl: "Christianity is based solely on stolen souls and lives. So, of course, every trace of them should be erased." The music of Gorgoroth clearly has an agenda, according to the members themselves, and that is to create fear and change the minds of their listeners to reflect the Satanist ideology that is at the center of the band. "The band is spreading fear, and we use that fear to create change and to also get our ideas across," said . "[There are] few bands around with a Satanic message, it's all about the music ... we are not about that, we are about the message."
Gaahl views himself as a Biblical goat, one with free will, unlike the sheep who follow God. This leads us to the humanism that motivates Gaalh. As the documentary begins to examine Gaahl more closely, we see a man whose ideals are more or less the height of humanism. He utterly rejects God, saying that God is within Man. When talking about breaking away from religion, he says, "You will be allowed to focus on the god within yourself, because that's the only true god, the god within everything. That's the only thing that, for me, is worth calling god. It is the highest spirit of everything, and not this control freak that is telling you, you are not supposed to do this, you are not supposed to do this ... God is within man, God is within nature, and nature will always grow, that's the force of all life, to grow."
Gaahl constructs his own morality. He has multiple convictions for violence, one of which involved torture. Gaahl apparently felt it necessary to teach one particular man a lesson for attacking him, and so he restrained his attacker and beat the man for hours, supposedly collecting the man's blood in a cup. He says that this sort of thing is "punishment," meant to teach others a lesson, and has apparently done this on multiple occasions. When Man is given the status of a god, rather than God's image, this is what can happen. If I am a god in my own right, what's to stop me from constructing my own ideas of right and wrong, however contrary they may be to the urgings of my own conscience, and then carrying them out upon others, regardless of the consequences? In a way, that's what Gaahl has done. In a broader sense, Gaahl embodies the reasoning of Man as he fights against God's sovereignty. Although we are loath to admit it, we are all Gaahl in our heart of hearts, however extreme an example he may be. The grace of God, the work of Christ, and the strength of the Holy Spirit enable us to rise above our sinful natures and follow Christ. Praise Yahweh that this is so.
Note: Concerning the video series, I recommend that you watch it to understand the full scope of what I've discussed here. There are some very poignant aspects of this story that I really can't describe. But, also be warned that there are some graphic images of stage props used at Gorgoroth concerts, for example, and also instances of foul language. Just be aware. I still recommend that you see all five parts, it's very interesting, albeit disturbing.
Here is the link: True Norwegian Black Metal
Friday, October 3, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
You Can't Legislate Morality
In my College Writing class earlier this week, we were discussing some articles about marriage as opposed to cohabitation, and the pros and cons that are involved. I was struck by some of the things that were brought up. For example, people are supposedly given incentive to stay married because of the fact that having to go through the legal process of divorce is more of a hassle than simply being able to pick up and leave your current cohabiting lover. On the other hand, cohabitation requires no joint finances, no long-term commitment, and can be abandoned at any time. Yet, it is socially acceptable to bring a child into the world within the context of such a relationship. How is this logical? If you are not ready to make the "final commitment" of marriage, as one of my classmates put it, then how are you ready to be a parent? By the same token, I am of the opinion that as a general rule of thumb, if you don't think you're quite ready to be a parent, you shouldn't get married.
But as I was sitting there, listening to what everyone in my class had to say, I realised that if marriage is removed from its status as a divinely ordained covenantal relationship, it is more or less meaningless. Apart from the covenant and Christ's model of what marriage should be, what is marriage? It becomes nothing more than social contract, no different from cohabitation, "life-partner"-ship, or whatever sort of ambiguous title you'd care to tack onto it. Divorce rates are embarrassingly high, so high in fact, that the government has tried to put programs in place to get married couples to stay married. The institution of marriage as we know it is most definitely in danger, and is attacked from all sides by post-modern ideas and blatant immorality.
As Christians attempt to combat things like same-sex marriage and rampant divorce, I wonder if there's actually anything left to defend. Marriage in the United States, at least, the way statistics portray it, is not the same institution that God created in the Garden at the beginning of time. Is such a shallow reflection of God's covenant worth defending? Well, perhaps not. But the question we must ask is this: do things really have to be this way? The answer is a resounding no. It is the responsibility of Christians, now more than ever, to preserve marriage, not necessarily through Constitutional amendments or senate legislation, but instead though the living out of Christ's example. True cultural change cannot be achieved through revolution, rebellion, or activism. You cannot legislate morality. Rather, true transformation is brought about through Christ's Church. That is how marriage is going to be redeemed.
But as I was sitting there, listening to what everyone in my class had to say, I realised that if marriage is removed from its status as a divinely ordained covenantal relationship, it is more or less meaningless. Apart from the covenant and Christ's model of what marriage should be, what is marriage? It becomes nothing more than social contract, no different from cohabitation, "life-partner"-ship, or whatever sort of ambiguous title you'd care to tack onto it. Divorce rates are embarrassingly high, so high in fact, that the government has tried to put programs in place to get married couples to stay married. The institution of marriage as we know it is most definitely in danger, and is attacked from all sides by post-modern ideas and blatant immorality.
As Christians attempt to combat things like same-sex marriage and rampant divorce, I wonder if there's actually anything left to defend. Marriage in the United States, at least, the way statistics portray it, is not the same institution that God created in the Garden at the beginning of time. Is such a shallow reflection of God's covenant worth defending? Well, perhaps not. But the question we must ask is this: do things really have to be this way? The answer is a resounding no. It is the responsibility of Christians, now more than ever, to preserve marriage, not necessarily through Constitutional amendments or senate legislation, but instead though the living out of Christ's example. True cultural change cannot be achieved through revolution, rebellion, or activism. You cannot legislate morality. Rather, true transformation is brought about through Christ's Church. That is how marriage is going to be redeemed.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Campus Photos
Friday, September 5, 2008
I pity the fool who uses Ad Hominem arguments!
All right, here is a message for anyone online who discusses politics. If you employ obscenities and blatantly slander people in the course of your political discussion, I will disregard what you have to say, regardless of how correct or intelligent you are. Discussion on a civilised and intellectual level should be conducted in a manner which reflects that. Saying things like, "Bush is an idiot" will not get you my attention. Apparently, that is an acceptable way to speak about politics, especially for young people, students who are my age. America's youth has become accustomed to the Stewart-Colbert brand of political discussion. While I find Stephen Colbert to be quite hilarious, he is in no way a serious political commentator. What types of programs do they play on Comedy Central? Just take a stab at it. The News Hour with Jim Lehrer? NO! COMEDY! Analysis has become equated with derision and slander, and debate has been made synonymous with crass bickering. The internet is a haven for misuse and oftentimes complete ignorance of rhetorical standards. If you want me to listen to you, speak to me like an adult.
Here's a good example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZEWdo-I61M
I stopped the video within the first few seconds. (If bad language offends you, just don't click the link.) This video is also a good example of someone trying to make a point, but never showing me any proof. This gentleman makes several statements concerning the content of speeches made by Republicans, but never shows me any examples. There are videos like this all over YouTube. I'd really love it if I could pound the concept of "ad hominem" into the brains of internet users. It's a fallacy! It's not a legitimate point!
Here's a good example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZEWdo-I61M
I stopped the video within the first few seconds. (If bad language offends you, just don't click the link.) This video is also a good example of someone trying to make a point, but never showing me any proof. This gentleman makes several statements concerning the content of speeches made by Republicans, but never shows me any examples. There are videos like this all over YouTube. I'd really love it if I could pound the concept of "ad hominem" into the brains of internet users. It's a fallacy! It's not a legitimate point!
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
The Internet Strikes Again
Amazing. Misinformation and Photoshopped pictures of Sarah Palin have already permeated the internet's opinion of her. It's completely unexpected, really. The internet is really one of the worst things to happen to political discussion and public perceptions in recent history. Really.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
In Which Andrew Proves, via Indisputable Logic, That He Is Gay
Interesting thing happened at work earlier this evening. One of our tables was occupied by a group of high school kids, and some of them happened to be cheerleaders, in uniform, probably coming from a game or school event of some sort. One of my coworkers came over to me and said, "Dude, did you see those cheerleaders, man?" "Yes," I replied. "Awesome, right?" I shook my head. "How can you not dig that?" (He used some expletives here, but I won't bother including them.) I shrugged. "Well, I mean... are you gay?" "No, I'm not," said I. "Oh," he said. And then he walked away.
So. The fact that I don't ogle high school cheerleaders somehow means that I am a homosexual. Hey! I know! Let's do a logical proof! YAY!
1. Andrew does not like objectifying women.
2. All men who do not like objectfying women are homosexuals.
3. Therefore, Andrew is a homosexual.
Logic makes everything more fun. Yay, logic! But really, do you see how absurd this is? I'm sorry, this sort of thing really gets to me, it makes me wanna slap a foo'. I sincerely apologise to the world at large for the fact that I possess moral fibre. Perhaps the thing that most angers me is that because I'm a "prude," because I don't participate in such stupidity, I am considered abnormal. And it's easy for me to get on my high horse and complain, but seriously, this is bleeding ridiculous. And perhaps the worst part is that women EXPECT men to behave like this. Even some of my female friends are surprised when I don't act that way. That is really horrible. The way I see it, this speaks to the number of real men that our society is lacking.
So. The fact that I don't ogle high school cheerleaders somehow means that I am a homosexual. Hey! I know! Let's do a logical proof! YAY!
1. Andrew does not like objectifying women.
2. All men who do not like objectfying women are homosexuals.
3. Therefore, Andrew is a homosexual.
Logic makes everything more fun. Yay, logic! But really, do you see how absurd this is? I'm sorry, this sort of thing really gets to me, it makes me wanna slap a foo'. I sincerely apologise to the world at large for the fact that I possess moral fibre. Perhaps the thing that most angers me is that because I'm a "prude," because I don't participate in such stupidity, I am considered abnormal. And it's easy for me to get on my high horse and complain, but seriously, this is bleeding ridiculous. And perhaps the worst part is that women EXPECT men to behave like this. Even some of my female friends are surprised when I don't act that way. That is really horrible. The way I see it, this speaks to the number of real men that our society is lacking.
Windows Mojave
Wow. Microsoft is really desperate to change the consumer mindset concerning the latest mutation of the Windows operating system, Vista. They conducted a little experiment in which they demonstrated Vista to consumers who had never seen it before, but called it by a different name. The consumers who participated had heard all of the negative reviews of Vista, complaints from other users, etc., but when they tried out "Windows Mojave," they were apparently quite impressed. They were later told that it was, in fact, Vista.
I'm not going to go all "Mac vs. PC" on you, because I think that entire thing is stupid. But I will say that from a marketing standpoint, this is pretty bad. Microsoft has to resort to disguising their product as something else in order to get potential buyers to even look at it. That's not good. Yes, it was an interesting experiment, but Vista still has a horrible reputation. This new "Decide For Yourself" campaign seems to be an attempt to reverse some of the negative hype that Vista has gotten, but I don't think it's going to be very successful.
I'm not going to go all "Mac vs. PC" on you, because I think that entire thing is stupid. But I will say that from a marketing standpoint, this is pretty bad. Microsoft has to resort to disguising their product as something else in order to get potential buyers to even look at it. That's not good. Yes, it was an interesting experiment, but Vista still has a horrible reputation. This new "Decide For Yourself" campaign seems to be an attempt to reverse some of the negative hype that Vista has gotten, but I don't think it's going to be very successful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)