Forum Weblog Zoek Actieve Items Nieuws Columns Reviews Previews Specials Archief

'New Mexico is een vreemd land'

Danny

In het Amerikaanse D.C. hebben een medewerkster en diens chef van het D.C. Courts System een trouwvergunning geweigerd aan een man die volgens het tweetal afkomstig was uit een vreemd land. Gavin Clarkson probeerde een trouwvergunning aan te vragen, maar toen hij zijn rijbewijs overhandigde kreeg hij te horen dat hij zijn internationale paspoort diende te overhandigen.

De man eiste hierop de directe chef van de baliemedewerkster te spreken. Zijn rijbewijs was afkomstig uit New Mexico, wat in 1912 een Amerikaanse staat werd en hij nam aan dat - hoewel de baliemedewerkster het IQ van een pinda bezat - de manager hier toch wel uitkomst zou kunnen bieden. Niets bleek echter minder waar, want ook die weigerde, tot grote hilariteit van de rij wachtenden achter Clarkson.

Pas na meerdere malen uitleg en uitzoekwerk kwam het tweetal - waarvan de ladder niet helemaal tot de zolder reikt - tot de conclusie dat New Mexico inderdaad gewoon een staat in Amerika is, en geen vreemd land.

Clarkson is eveneens onderdeel van de Choctow Indianen. Had hij zijn stam-legitimatie getoond zou hij vermoedelijk minder moeite hebben gehad. Inmiddels heeft het D.C. Courts System excuses gemaakt voor de verwarring.

Help ons; deel dit item als je het leuk vond

Heb je een leuk of interessant bericht gevonden dat je graag op FOK! terug ziet? Tip ons dan via de submit!

Zoek jij altijd de leukste nieuwtjes en kun je daar leuk over schrijven? Meld je aan als nieuwsposter!

Lees ook

Font-grootte:
Normaal
Kleiner

regelhoogte :
Normaal
Kleiner

37 reacties

Redactie Frontpage

zondag 2 december 2018, 10:42 uur #1

BasOne

Spaceship!

'Murica

Het land van onbegrensde domheid....

Free speech?....... Yeah about as free as a Ferrari!!
Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.
Laboro te salutante

zondag 2 december 2018, 10:44 uur #2

CuiusRegioEiusReligio

quote:
Op zondag 2 december 2018 @ 10:42 schreef BasOne het volgende:
'Murica

Het land van onbegrensde domheid....

Ze weten niets van de wereld en nu blijkt, ook van hun eigen land weten ze niets.

Een derde wereldland.

Redactie Frontpage

zondag 2 december 2018, 10:46 uur #3

BasOne

Spaceship!

quote:
Op zondag 2 december 2018 @ 10:44 schreef CuiusRegioEiusReligio het volgende:

[..]

Ze weten niets van de wereld en nu blijkt, ook van hun eigen land weten ze niets.

Een derde wereldland.

Shithole country

Free speech?....... Yeah about as free as a Ferrari!!
Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.
Laboro te salutante

zondag 2 december 2018, 11:22 uur #4

Grasshoppa

Het onderwijs systeem van links werpt zijn vruchten af.

Redactie Frontpage

zondag 2 december 2018, 12:03 uur #5

Innisdemon

quote:
Op zondag 2 december 2018 @ 11:22 schreef Grasshoppa het volgende:
Het onderwijs systeem van links werpt zijn vruchten af.

Gaat in jouw regio ook bergafwaarts zo te zien.

'Me' is géén bezittelijk voornaamwoord

zondag 2 december 2018, 12:15 uur #7

Grasshoppa

quote:
Op zondag 2 december 2018 @ 12:03 schreef Innisdemon het volgende:

[..]
Gaat in jouw regio ook bergafwaarts zo te zien.

Correct.

zondag 2 december 2018, 12:17 uur #8

Galantfan

quote:
Op zondag 2 december 2018 @ 12:05 schreef zyx1981 het volgende:

[..]

Van links? Leg die ff uit?

De teaparty en diverse andere extreme groepen proberen idd het onderwijs flink te beinvloeden. De kerk is daar ook sterk mee bezig, zie bv de lange lijst met boeken die voor scholieren verboden zijn (al zien scholieren die lijst daardoor als een must-read). Maar 'dat komt door links' gaat er bij mij niet in zonder nadere uitleg. Dus vertel, wat maakt dat jij denkt dat 'Links' daar het onderwijs verneukt?

Nou kijk maar even naar de millinials die dat onderwijs heeft op geleverd.

zondag 2 december 2018, 12:21 uur #9

Grasshoppa

quote:
Op zondag 2 december 2018 @ 12:05 schreef zyx1981 het volgende:

[..]

Van links? Leg die ff uit?

De teaparty en diverse andere extreme groepen proberen idd het onderwijs flink te beinvloeden. De kerk is daar ook sterk mee bezig, zie bv de lange lijst met boeken die voor scholieren verboden zijn (al zien scholieren die lijst daardoor als een must-read). Maar 'dat komt door links' gaat er bij mij niet in zonder nadere uitleg. Dus vertel, wat maakt dat jij denkt dat 'Links' daar het onderwijs verneukt?

AFAIK, Marxists are found primarily in sociology and English departments. I don't know why they're in sociology departments, but I can explain why they're in English departments. Sort of. This is the short, hand-wavy version.

We could begin around 1910, when the politic radicalizing of art as a tool for social destruction really took off with modern art. Or we could begin in the 1930s, when a large fraction of famous Western artists and writers were either communists or fascists, and Marxist ideas became widespread in continental literature. (So did fascist ideas, but we don't talk about those books now.)

But let's begin with Northrup Frye's 1957 "Anatomy of Criticism". Frye was a then less-common breed: a professional literary theorist who had never written any literature.

Between Samuel Johnson and Frye, most literary criticism had been done by writers, who believed that some writing was good and some was bad, and wanted to understand why. (There were exceptions, like William Hazlitt, but nothing like today.)

Frye's writings turned the focus of literary criticism away from literature and toward itself--removing the requirement that a literary critic be able to write literature. Eventually this would lead to the situation in the 1970s, which were dominated by critics like Baudrillard, Derrida, and Foucault, who did not even seem interested in literature.

The 1950s was also when more critics began to approve of modernist writing. (The New Critics of the 1940s, although they're now often called modernists, were not much impressed by modernist poetry and literature and spent little time on it.) Like modern art earlier in the century, modernist literature was based in radical politics and theories. Many acclaimed modernists were not themselves radicals, but were useful to radicals because their works critiqued 20th-century society. The modernist canon, unlike earlier canons, was not chosen from books that people liked, or that helped people understand themselves or deal with their lives, but was rather mainly books selected precisely for making people feel more confused, disoriented, and unable to deal with life. (In the 1930s there was an attempt to include explicitly proletarian works, but later these were rejected in favor of works which raised revolutionary consciousness by making people feel bad about their lives.)

Colleges in the late 1960s were in a furor over Vietnam, civil rights, feminism, and Marxism. At the same time, Marxist professors were being kicked out of economics departments--not because of the cold war, but for the same reason that Freudians and Jungians were being kicked out of psychology departments: it was increasingly evident that their theories didn't work.

The one place that would take in all these Marxists, Freudians, and other philosophers who didn't know how to math was English departments. Marx, Freud, and continental philosophy all lent themselves very well to the modernist project of the 1960s, born of the radical fascism and communism which swept the art world just before World War 1, which was to discredit and demolish all previous art and all previous art theory. Its proponents had waited for decades for the New Critics to die off, and immediately began to purge their ideas from literary studies, replacing them with the false caricatures of their ideas now found in all textbooks on literary theory.

In the 1960s, these various groups launched a joint attack on the heart of literature: the idea that the content of a work of literature was worth something. The navel-gazing initiated by Frye was taken further by Marshall McLuhan's claim that the contents of a message were not as interesting or important as the media used to transmit the message. Marxist and Freudians taught the hostile critique, which assumes that the task of the critic is not to understand a work of literature, but to unmask its author's secret agenda. Feminists and civil rights activists attacked the idea that some books were better than other books as oppressing marginalized voices. The modernist rejection of the Enlightenment had led to a retreat to medieval metaphysics, which the post-modernists Barthes and Derrida used to argue, respectively, that original thought was impossible (only God can have original thoughts, and there is no God), and that communication itself was impossible (as only God can provide meaning, and there is no God).

(Here the story is complicated by the ironic fact that these groups in the 1960s attacked the New Critics for passages in which they taught how to analyze formal properties of poetry rather than its propositional content. The New Critical position was actually that propositional content was the core of poetry and literature, and analyzing it required knowing the context in which the poetry was written--but that this analysis was a matter of general wisdom and experience, not specific to literature, and so while content and context were necessary for any individual act of literary criticism, neither content nor context, but only logical structure, should be the focus of a class on literary criticism. The radicals avoided supporting the interpretation of content by instead saying only that the New Critics opposed the use of context, which the radicals interpreted as meaning race, class, economic relations, and all the other things they were all about.)

Books were thus to be valued not based on their content, but on the political stance which valuing them implied. In other words, you only needed to know what it would signal to put a book on your coffee table; you didn't have to read it. This wasn't seen as cynical, but as an enlightened understanding of the function of books in society.

Literary studies stopped being useful or interesting to readers or writers. Readers found it did not identify good novels--it seemed to be devoted to praising bad novels (see, e.g., Annie Dillard's 1982 Living By Fiction for specifics). Writers found it useless. It was increasingly devoted to the deprecation rather than the appreciation of literature; it led to no career other than academia; it had no object of study other than itself; and it demanded that you write in the ugly, twisted, jargon-laden, illogical style of Adorno, Althusser, and Derrida. People who loved literature fled, and the political activists flooded in.

If you doubt this, read the last thousand pages of The Norton Anthology of Theory & Criticism, the "premier" anthology of literary criticism. Its editor, Vincent Leitch, took the word "literary" out of its title to emphasize that literary theory is no longer concerned with literature. 74 of the 80 entries written after 1959 are leftist, phenomenologist, post-modernist, about race or gender oppression, or multi-culturalist / post-colonialist. AFAIK, only one of them has anything good to say about literature. That same Leitch wrote in chapter 2 of his 2014 Literary Criticism in the 21st Century that literary theorists refer disparagingly to people who oppose the use of literary studies to promote left-wing political agendas as lovers of literature.

Or read Lennard Davis, 1987, Resisting Novels: Ideology & Fiction, which argues that the medium of the novel inherently suppresses revolutionary consciousness by propagating the bourgeois lie that people can live worthwhile lives without collective action for revolutionary change. It's a common theme; Brecht and Adorno said similar things, just not at such length.

So what about the Marxists?

Well, first off, most of them wouldn't call themselves Marxist. In most top-ranked English departments, calling yourself "Marxist" doesn't mean you believe in Marxist economics. Everybody is expected to believe in or at least respect them. It means that, like Theodor Adorno, Terry Eagleton, Fredric Jameson, or Cornel Sandvoss, you rely primarily on Marx in your studies, rather than on post-modernism, identity politics, media studies, cyberstudies, intersectionality, trauma studies, or the various other approaches on offer. Others may call themselves "post-Marxist", meaning they're vaguely Marxist or at least opposed to free markets and the right to sell your labour, but it's not at the top of their agenda and they don't really care about most of what Marx wrote.

The Marxism in English departments is also a little weird. Marx was concerned about people actually being poor; college Marxism is more concerned about a spiritual poverty caused by "consumerism", which turns out to mean "not being poor". There is a weird double-think going on in, for example, Adorno & Horkheimer's concept of the "culture industry", which seems to imply that getting rich is what keeps people poor. (I think this was actually implicit in Marx's essentially religious condemnation of money ("the accumulation of capital") as being the Marxist analogue of original sin, but I also think Marx would have disagreed.)

But more importantly, Marxism is just one part of a stable, internally-coherent ideological ecosystem which also relies heavily on post-modernism and identity politics. The key to making this worldview internally consistent is post-modernist epistemology, which renounces reason itself. Logic is replaced with dialectic (an anti-logic which begins by supposing a contradiction); referentiality is declared impossible; scientific knowledge is derided; factuality is unimportant. You can't argue them out of their position because they believe they've proven that argument and proof are impossible. Everything is a language game. Rhetorical victories are won not by presenting facts, but by having the power to define terms. Defending a position by saying that it's to your personal advantage is accepted as a valid argument.

This is why Marxism survives within English departments. They're inoculated against reason. What matters to them is acting on their feelings in a way that follows the praxis of their community. Anything else is, to them, hopelessly naive.

I can't tell whether they're sincere about this, or consciously know it's all bullshit. They're certainly aware that going against the grain would wreck their careers. But I imagine it's like being Christian was for me, when I was Christian: everyone learned not to think about certain things, and to not see the contradictions. You don't, for instance, do a Freudian critique of Marx, or a deconstruction of Freud, or a cultural analysis of the culture of literary theory. You don't dwell on the contradictions between Marxism (which believes in progress) and post-modernism (which insists that progress is a false narrative).

For some quotes from the people involved on how English got taken over by leftists in the late 1960s, see

https://www.fimfiction.ne(...)ism-how-did-it-begin

Geeft je misschien wat meer beeld.

zondag 2 december 2018, 13:33 uur #10

Noin

quote:
Op zondag 2 december 2018 @ 12:21 schreef Grasshoppa het volgende:

[..]

AFAIK, Marxists are found primarily in sociology and English departments. I don't know why they're in sociology departments, but I can explain why they're in English departments. Sort of. This is the short, hand-wavy version.

We could begin around 1910, when the politic radicalizing of art as a tool for social destruction really took off with modern art. Or we could begin in the 1930s, when a large fraction of famous Western artists and writers were either communists or fascists, and Marxist ideas became widespread in continental literature. (So did fascist ideas, but we don't talk about those books now.)

But let's begin with Northrup Frye's 1957 "Anatomy of Criticism". Frye was a then less-common breed: a professional literary theorist who had never written any literature.

Between Samuel Johnson and Frye, most literary criticism had been done by writers, who believed that some writing was good and some was bad, and wanted to understand why. (There were exceptions, like William Hazlitt, but nothing like today.)

Frye's writings turned the focus of literary criticism away from literature and toward itself--removing the requirement that a literary critic be able to write literature. Eventually this would lead to the situation in the 1970s, which were dominated by critics like Baudrillard, Derrida, and Foucault, who did not even seem interested in literature.

The 1950s was also when more critics began to approve of modernist writing. (The New Critics of the 1940s, although they're now often called modernists, were not much impressed by modernist poetry and literature and spent little time on it.) Like modern art earlier in the century, modernist literature was based in radical politics and theories. Many acclaimed modernists were not themselves radicals, but were useful to radicals because their works critiqued 20th-century society. The modernist canon, unlike earlier canons, was not chosen from books that people liked, or that helped people understand themselves or deal with their lives, but was rather mainly books selected precisely for making people feel more confused, disoriented, and unable to deal with life. (In the 1930s there was an attempt to include explicitly proletarian works, but later these were rejected in favor of works which raised revolutionary consciousness by making people feel bad about their lives.)

Colleges in the late 1960s were in a furor over Vietnam, civil rights, feminism, and Marxism. At the same time, Marxist professors were being kicked out of economics departments--not because of the cold war, but for the same reason that Freudians and Jungians were being kicked out of psychology departments: it was increasingly evident that their theories didn't work.

The one place that would take in all these Marxists, Freudians, and other philosophers who didn't know how to math was English departments. Marx, Freud, and continental philosophy all lent themselves very well to the modernist project of the 1960s, born of the radical fascism and communism which swept the art world just before World War 1, which was to discredit and demolish all previous art and all previous art theory. Its proponents had waited for decades for the New Critics to die off, and immediately began to purge their ideas from literary studies, replacing them with the false caricatures of their ideas now found in all textbooks on literary theory.

In the 1960s, these various groups launched a joint attack on the heart of literature: the idea that the content of a work of literature was worth something. The navel-gazing initiated by Frye was taken further by Marshall McLuhan's claim that the contents of a message were not as interesting or important as the media used to transmit the message. Marxist and Freudians taught the hostile critique, which assumes that the task of the critic is not to understand a work of literature, but to unmask its author's secret agenda. Feminists and civil rights activists attacked the idea that some books were better than other books as oppressing marginalized voices. The modernist rejection of the Enlightenment had led to a retreat to medieval metaphysics, which the post-modernists Barthes and Derrida used to argue, respectively, that original thought was impossible (only God can have original thoughts, and there is no God), and that communication itself was impossible (as only God can provide meaning, and there is no God).

(Here the story is complicated by the ironic fact that these groups in the 1960s attacked the New Critics for passages in which they taught how to analyze formal properties of poetry rather than its propositional content. The New Critical position was actually that propositional content was the core of poetry and literature, and analyzing it required knowing the context in which the poetry was written--but that this analysis was a matter of general wisdom and experience, not specific to literature, and so while content and context were necessary for any individual act of literary criticism, neither content nor context, but only logical structure, should be the focus of a class on literary criticism. The radicals avoided supporting the interpretation of content by instead saying only that the New Critics opposed the use of context, which the radicals interpreted as meaning race, class, economic relations, and all the other things they were all about.)

Books were thus to be valued not based on their content, but on the political stance which valuing them implied. In other words, you only needed to know what it would signal to put a book on your coffee table; you didn't have to read it. This wasn't seen as cynical, but as an enlightened understanding of the function of books in society.

Literary studies stopped being useful or interesting to readers or writers. Readers found it did not identify good novels--it seemed to be devoted to praising bad novels (see, e.g., Annie Dillard's 1982 Living By Fiction for specifics). Writers found it useless. It was increasingly devoted to the deprecation rather than the appreciation of literature; it led to no career other than academia; it had no object of study other than itself; and it demanded that you write in the ugly, twisted, jargon-laden, illogical style of Adorno, Althusser, and Derrida. People who loved literature fled, and the political activists flooded in.

If you doubt this, read the last thousand pages of The Norton Anthology of Theory & Criticism, the "premier" anthology of literary criticism. Its editor, Vincent Leitch, took the word "literary" out of its title to emphasize that literary theory is no longer concerned with literature. 74 of the 80 entries written after 1959 are leftist, phenomenologist, post-modernist, about race or gender oppression, or multi-culturalist / post-colonialist. AFAIK, only one of them has anything good to say about literature. That same Leitch wrote in chapter 2 of his 2014 Literary Criticism in the 21st Century that literary theorists refer disparagingly to people who oppose the use of literary studies to promote left-wing political agendas as lovers of literature.

Or read Lennard Davis, 1987, Resisting Novels: Ideology & Fiction, which argues that the medium of the novel inherently suppresses revolutionary consciousness by propagating the bourgeois lie that people can live worthwhile lives without collective action for revolutionary change. It's a common theme; Brecht and Adorno said similar things, just not at such length.

So what about the Marxists?

Well, first off, most of them wouldn't call themselves Marxist. In most top-ranked English departments, calling yourself "Marxist" doesn't mean you believe in Marxist economics. Everybody is expected to believe in or at least respect them. It means that, like Theodor Adorno, Terry Eagleton, Fredric Jameson, or Cornel Sandvoss, you rely primarily on Marx in your studies, rather than on post-modernism, identity politics, media studies, cyberstudies, intersectionality, trauma studies, or the various other approaches on offer. Others may call themselves "post-Marxist", meaning they're vaguely Marxist or at least opposed to free markets and the right to sell your labour, but it's not at the top of their agenda and they don't really care about most of what Marx wrote.

The Marxism in English departments is also a little weird. Marx was concerned about people actually being poor; college Marxism is more concerned about a spiritual poverty caused by "consumerism", which turns out to mean "not being poor". There is a weird double-think going on in, for example, Adorno & Horkheimer's concept of the "culture industry", which seems to imply that getting rich is what keeps people poor. (I think this was actually implicit in Marx's essentially religious condemnation of money ("the accumulation of capital") as being the Marxist analogue of original sin, but I also think Marx would have disagreed.)

But more importantly, Marxism is just one part of a stable, internally-coherent ideological ecosystem which also relies heavily on post-modernism and identity politics. The key to making this worldview internally consistent is post-modernist epistemology, which renounces reason itself. Logic is replaced with dialectic (an anti-logic which begins by supposing a contradiction); referentiality is declared impossible; scientific knowledge is derided; factuality is unimportant. You can't argue them out of their position because they believe they've proven that argument and proof are impossible. Everything is a language game. Rhetorical victories are won not by presenting facts, but by having the power to define terms. Defending a position by saying that it's to your personal advantage is accepted as a valid argument.

This is why Marxism survives within English departments. They're inoculated against reason. What matters to them is acting on their feelings in a way that follows the praxis of their community. Anything else is, to them, hopelessly naive.

I can't tell whether they're sincere about this, or consciously know it's all bullshit. They're certainly aware that going against the grain would wreck their careers. But I imagine it's like being Christian was for me, when I was Christian: everyone learned not to think about certain things, and to not see the contradictions. You don't, for instance, do a Freudian critique of Marx, or a deconstruction of Freud, or a cultural analysis of the culture of literary theory. You don't dwell on the contradictions between Marxism (which believes in progress) and post-modernism (which insists that progress is a false narrative).

For some quotes from the people involved on how English got taken over by leftists in the late 1960s, see

https://www.fimfiction.ne(...)ism-how-did-it-begin

Geeft je misschien wat meer beeld.

Leg eerst eens in je eigen woorden uit wat jij denkt dat Marxisme is.

zondag 2 december 2018, 14:13 uur #11

Grasshoppa

quote:
Op zondag 2 december 2018 @ 13:33 schreef Noin het volgende:

[..]

Leg eerst eens in je eigen woorden uit wat jij denkt dat Marxisme is.

Nee dat doe ik niet

zondag 2 december 2018, 14:28 uur #13

Grasshoppa

quote:
Op zondag 2 december 2018 @ 14:23 schreef zyx1981 het volgende:

[..]

[..]

Jullie beiden maken graag statements zonder die met feiten te onderbouwen. Een kreet roepen of een plaat tekst plaatsen zónder aan te geven wat je mening is over dat statement of plaat text, danwel deze met feiten te onderbouwen, is dodelijk voor discussies.

Nieuwe poging:

Onderwijs zou vrij en open moeten zijn, waarbij leerlingen en studenten ongehinderd toegang zouden moeten hebben tot kennis. Via discussies over hoe kennis te vergaren en te beoordelen, kunnen ze zelf leren een wereldbeeld te vormen. Elke gevestigde groep in Amerika ziet dat als bedreiging voor zijn/haar missie, en probeert dus via invloed op onderwijs ervoor te zorgen dat jongeren in hun denkrichting ontwikkelen.

Denk bv aan religeuze groepen die boeken over homofilie en seks proberen te verbieden. Of bedrijven als Shell die gratis onderwijspaketten over klimaatverandering aanbieden (waarin alles en iedereen de schuld krijgt en zij een pluim in hun hol omdat ze 1% van hun investeringen in zon en wind steken). Echter, vergeet de politiek niet die het liefst geschiedenisboeken ziet waarin of de democraten of de republiekeinen als slecht worden bestempelt. Geschiedenis, maatschappijleer en literatuur zijn in de VS politiek beladen onderwerpen geworden.

Volgens mij mis jij mijn hele punt want wat jij roept ben ik het volledig mee eens.

zondag 2 december 2018, 15:04 uur #14

Galantfan

quote:
Op zondag 2 december 2018 @ 14:23 schreef zyx1981 het volgende:

[..]

[..]

Jullie beiden maken graag statements zonder die met feiten te onderbouwen. Een kreet roepen of een plaat tekst plaatsen zónder aan te geven wat je mening is over dat statement of plaat text, danwel deze met feiten te onderbouwen, is dodelijk voor discussies.

Nieuwe poging:

Onderwijs zou vrij en open moeten zijn, waarbij leerlingen en studenten ongehinderd toegang zouden moeten hebben tot kennis. Via discussies over hoe kennis te vergaren en te beoordelen, kunnen ze zelf leren een wereldbeeld te vormen. Elke gevestigde groep in Amerika ziet dat als bedreiging voor zijn/haar missie, en probeert dus via invloed op onderwijs ervoor te zorgen dat jongeren in hun denkrichting ontwikkelen.

Denk bv aan religeuze groepen die boeken over homofilie en seks proberen te verbieden. Of bedrijven als Shell die gratis onderwijspaketten over klimaatverandering aanbieden (waarin alles en iedereen de schuld krijgt en zij een pluim in hun hol omdat ze 1% van hun investeringen in zon en wind steken). Echter, vergeet de politiek niet die het liefst geschiedenisboeken ziet waarin of de democraten of de republiekeinen als slecht worden bestempelt. Geschiedenis, maatschappijleer en literatuur zijn in de VS politiek beladen onderwerpen geworden.

Dat is waar en nog even en het gebeurd hier ook..Als het misschien al gebeurd met de linkse invloed op de scholen.

zondag 2 december 2018, 15:32 uur #15

Noin

quote:
Op zondag 2 december 2018 @ 14:13 schreef Grasshoppa het volgende:

[..]

Nee dat doe ik niet

Volgens mij herhaal je gewoon wat soundbites van het rechts populisme zonder dat je weet waar het over gaat.

Wat is Marxisme?
Waarom vind je Marxisme slecht?
Waarom denk je dat Marxisme ervoor gezorgd heeft dat mensen in de VS niet meer weten dat New Mexico een Amerikaanse staat is?

zondag 2 december 2018, 16:34 uur #16

Turkminator

quote:
Op zondag 2 december 2018 @ 12:05 schreef zyx1981 het volgende:
[..]

Van links? Leg die ff uit?

De teaparty en diverse andere extreme groepen proberen idd het onderwijs flink te beinvloeden. De kerk is daar ook sterk mee bezig, zie bv de lange lijst met boeken die voor scholieren verboden zijn (al zien scholieren die lijst daardoor als een must-read). Maar 'dat komt door links' gaat er bij mij niet in zonder nadere uitleg. Dus vertel, wat maakt dat jij denkt dat 'Links' daar het onderwijs verneukt?

quote:
Op zondag 2 december 2018 @ 12:21 schreef Grasshoppa het volgende:

[..]

Lange tekst over links en marxisme in het hoger onderwijs dat er niet toe doet bij dit artikel.

Geeft je misschien wat meer beeld.

Bekend zijn met topografiekennis van de staten in de VS, is basisschoolniveau of Junior highschool. Dergelijke domme mensen die zulke simpele dingen niet weten, hebben meestal de high school niet afgemaakt. Dat universiteiten en colleges linksgeoriënteerd zouden zijn doet er bij dit soort domheid dus helemaal niet toe. Niemand zal je bekritiseren als je iets op universiteitsniveau (specialisatie) niet weet. Toch? Gebruik eerst je eigen hersens voordat je dergelijke er-niet-toe-doende lappen propaganda van anderen kopieert en plakt. De bezuinigingen op het openbaar basis en middelbaar onderwijs en de groeiende niveauverschillen tussen arm (openbare scholen) en rijk (privéscholen), ligt toch echt aan rechts.

In de VS gaat bovendien iedere scholier naar dezelfde (openbare) high school en wordt er geen onderscheid gemaakt tussen vmbo, mavo, havo en vwo. Leerlingen in het openbaar onderwijs die niet goed mee kunnen met de rest van de klas (laag en hoog niveau door elkaar heen) kunnen door de bezuinigingen (grote klassen, minder studiehulpmiddelen, overspannen leraren) onvoldoende extra aandacht krijgen, schamen zich vaak, compenseren dat met stoer gedrag en stoppen vaak vroegtijdig met school en zijn daardoor vatbaarder voor criminaliteit.

Andersom worden leerlingen met hoge capaciteiten, maar uit lagere inkomens, op de openbare scholen onvoldoende gestimuleerd omdat het gemiddelde niveau (laag en hoog niveau door elkaar heen) voor hen te laag ligt. Je moet echter heel hoog scoren op de SAT-toets wil je kans maken op een universiteitsplek. Rijke kinderen op privéscholen krijgen echter wel de benodigde aandacht en worden speciaal klaargestoomd voor de SAT-toets.

zondag 2 december 2018, 16:56 uur #17

Turkminator

quote:
Op zondag 2 december 2018 @ 15:32 schreef Noin het volgende:

[..]

Volgens mij herhaal je gewoon wat soundbites van het rechts populisme zonder dat je weet waar het over gaat.

Wat is Marxisme?
Waarom vind je Marxisme slecht?
Waarom denk je dat Marxisme ervoor gezorgd heeft dat mensen in de VS niet meer weten dat New Mexico een Amerikaanse staat is?

Hij kopieert en plakt alleen een Engelse tekst (die hij waarschijnlijk niet eens goed begrijpt). Hij parafraseert het niet eens in eigen (Nederlandse) woorden met daarbij de uitleg waarom die informatie (propaganda) over het 'marxisme' in het hoger onderwijs relevant is bij dit artikel.

Het artikel gaat immers niet over de politieke oriëntatie binnen universiteiten, maar over een domme medewerker en haar manager die niet eens weten dat New Mexico een staat binnen de VS is en bij een Choctow Indiaan, automatisch dachten dat hij een burger was van Mexico die zijn Mexicaanse rijbewijs liet zien. Dat is toch echt te wijten aan rechtse vooroordelen gecombineerd met onwetendheid voortkomend uit rechtse bezuinigingen op het openbaar onderwijs.

zondag 2 december 2018, 21:50 uur #20

Galantfan

quote:
Op zondag 2 december 2018 @ 17:49 schreef zyx1981 het volgende:

[..]

Welke linkse invloed op scholen? Heb je een voorbeeld?

De hevige propaganda van het klimaat is al het ergste voorbeeld.Ze worden gewoon gebrainwashed.

zondag 2 december 2018, 22:57 uur #21

Also-von-Oder

Last man standing.

Man, man, man... en dan verwachten ze van buitenlanders die genaturaliseerd willen worden dat ze zelfs alle Amerikaanse presidenten moeten kunnen, van voor naar achteren en andersom.

zondag 2 december 2018, 22:59 uur #22

Also-von-Oder

Last man standing.

quote:
Op zondag 2 december 2018 @ 21:50 schreef Galantfan het volgende:

[..]
De hevige propaganda van het klimaat is al het ergste voorbeeld.Ze worden gewoon gebrainwashed.

Het klimaat is niet links of rechts. En als je nu nog niet door hebt dat er iets veranderd, dan kun je beter in Amerika gaan wonen, tussen de idioten niet eens weten dat New Mexico een staat is in hun eigen land.

maandag 3 december 2018, 00:17 uur #24

Galantfan

quote:
Op zondag 2 december 2018 @ 23:19 schreef zyx1981 het volgende:

[..]

Het werk van 10600 wetenschappers met alle soorten achtergronden kan je alleen met heel veel moeite als propaganda zien.

Als je stelt dat extreemlinksen proberen onderwijs te beinvloeden, ben ik het met je eens. Maar noem eens één extreme groep die dat niet probeert? Denk je niet dat de rechtse machten en de superconservatieven in elk land niet net zo hard lobbyen als extreem linksen?

Wel ja,zeker die 97 % he?

Er zijn 37000 echte klimaatwetenschappers die daar tegen in gaan,met een ondertekend petitie tegen de IPCC. En niet de z.g peer reviewers van de IPCC wat alleen maar studenten zijn.

maandag 3 december 2018, 00:19 uur #25

Galantfan

quote:
Op zondag 2 december 2018 @ 22:59 schreef Also-von-Oder het volgende:

[..]

Het klimaat is niet links of rechts. En als je nu nog niet door hebt dat er iets veranderd, dan kun je beter in Amerika gaan wonen, tussen de idioten niet eens weten dat New Mexico een staat is in hun eigen land.

Nee,dat klopt,maar de linkse mens heeft het wel opgeblazen als zijnde catastrofaal,terwijl het dat helemaal niet is..Propaganda dus waar Goebels nog trots op zou zijn.

maandag 3 december 2018, 01:00 uur #26

Also-von-Oder

Last man standing.

quote:
Op maandag 3 december 2018 @ 00:19 schreef Galantfan het volgende:

[..]
Nee,dat klopt,maar de linkse mens heeft het wel opgeblazen als zijnde catastrofaal,terwijl het dat helemaal niet is..Propaganda dus waar Goebels nog trots op zou zijn.

Vergeet niet dat wij een land zijn dat voor de helft onder de zeespiegel leeft. Maar bijna alle klimaatwetenschappers zijn het er mee eens. Zelfs China en Rusland... alleen Amerika niet, maar zelfs Trump begint te schuiven.

En ja, linkse mensen zijn meer betrokken bij het milieu, dan rechtse rakkers die alleen denken aan hun eigen portemonnee en veel minder over hun nageslacht. Na rechts de zondvloed.

maandag 3 december 2018, 08:54 uur #27

Galantfan

quote:
Op maandag 3 december 2018 @ 01:00 schreef Also-von-Oder het volgende:

[..]

Vergeet niet dat wij een land zijn dat voor de helft onder de zeespiegel leeft. Maar bijna alle klimaatwetenschappers zijn het er mee eens. Zelfs China en Rusland... alleen Amerika niet, maar zelfs Trump begint te schuiven.

En ja, linkse mensen zijn meer betrokken bij het milieu, dan rechtse rakkers die alleen denken aan hun eigen portemonnee en veel minder over hun nageslacht. Na rechts de zondvloed.

Rusland? Bekijk het even! De grootste oppositie tegen deze waanzin komt juist uit Rusland! Ze hebben daar juist wetenschappers die onafhankijk van de staat kunnen werken. In tegenstelling tot de USA waar steeds met de geldtrommel wordt gerammelt als je maar zegt dat het door de CO2 komt!

maandag 3 december 2018, 09:29 uur #29

Galantfan

Hahahahaha! Man, verschuif eens je informatie naar echte feiten! De afgelopen winter is er een record hoeveelheid ijs gevormt op beide Polen. De temperatuur in de zomer is niet eens boven nul geweest en dat is lang geleden!De temperatuur is op Groenland even - 33 geweest IN DE ZOMER! Er is nauwelijks ijs gesmolten rond om de Pool, op de pool helemaal niet waar door de meerjaren ijshoeveelheid is gegroeid! Ga maar na bij het instituut in Denemarken die dat allemaal bij houd. Ik dacht dat het MID heet. Je moet je niet in de luren laten leggen door O. a. het IPCC en trawanten, want het zijn gewoon goed betaalde schurken.

maandag 3 december 2018, 14:11 uur #31

peperazzi2

quote:
Op zondag 2 december 2018 @ 16:34 schreef Turkminator het volgende:

In de VS gaat bovendien iedere scholier naar dezelfde (openbare) high school en wordt er geen onderscheid gemaakt tussen vmbo, mavo, havo en vwo. Leerlingen in het openbaar onderwijs die niet goed mee kunnen met de rest van de klas (laag en hoog niveau door elkaar heen) kunnen door de bezuinigingen (grote klassen, minder studiehulpmiddelen, overspannen leraren) onvoldoende extra aandacht krijgen, schamen zich vaak, compenseren dat met stoer gedrag en stoppen vaak vroegtijdig met school en zijn daardoor vatbaarder voor criminaliteit.

Andersom worden leerlingen met hoge capaciteiten, maar uit lagere inkomens, op de openbare scholen onvoldoende gestimuleerd omdat het gemiddelde niveau (laag en hoog niveau door elkaar heen) voor hen te laag ligt. Je moet echter heel hoog scoren op de SAT-toets wil je kans maken op een universiteitsplek. Rijke kinderen op privéscholen krijgen echter wel de benodigde aandacht en worden speciaal klaargestoomd voor de SAT-toets.

Het ligt echt aan waar je school ligt in hoeveel aandacht er besteed wordt aan de kinderen die buiten het gemiddelde vallen. Scholen worden in de VS betaald uit de property taxes (lokale onroerend goed-belasting, waar ook auto's en boten onder vallen). In districten met hoge huizenprijzen zijn de scholen meestal goed bedeeld en kunnen ze mentorprogramma's voor de onderpresteerders instellen en GT (gifted and talented) en AP (advanced placement) programma's voor de bovengemiddelde studenten.

Als je in een district woont, waar de belastinginkomsten niet zo hoog zijn, dan ben je inderdaad genaaid. Vaak is het zo dat in de arme districten de hulp het hardste nodig is en het minst beschikbaar. Scholen die kunnen aantonen dat ze in een laag-inkomendistrict wonen, kunnen wel beroep doen op de federale overheid met een Title I-subsidie, maar die brengt scholen meestal op het gemiddelde niveau van financiering - niet dat wat nodig is om de extra programma's te betalen.

maandag 3 december 2018, 16:20 uur #32

Turkminator

quote:
Op maandag 3 december 2018 @ 14:11 schreef peperazzi2 het volgende:

[..]

Het ligt echt aan waar je school ligt in hoeveel aandacht er besteed wordt aan de kinderen die buiten het gemiddelde vallen. Scholen worden in de VS betaald uit de property taxes (lokale onroerend goed-belasting, waar ook auto's en boten onder vallen). In districten met hoge huizenprijzen zijn de scholen meestal goed bedeeld en kunnen ze mentorprogramma's voor de onderpresteerders instellen en GT (gifted and talented) en AP (advanced placement) programma's voor de bovengemiddelde studenten.

Als je in een district woont, waar de belastinginkomsten niet zo hoog zijn, dan ben je inderdaad genaaid. Vaak is het zo dat in de arme districten de hulp het hardste nodig is en het minst beschikbaar. Scholen die kunnen aantonen dat ze in een laag-inkomendistrict wonen, kunnen wel beroep doen op de federale overheid met een Title I-subsidie, maar die brengt scholen meestal op het gemiddelde niveau van financiering - niet dat wat nodig is om de extra programma's te betalen.

Dat hoef je mij niet te vertellen. Er zijn veel scholen die helemaal geen AP klassen hebben of weinig. Niet elke school heeft ook een mentor-programma. Ik weet dus allang dat er tussen openbare scholen onderling al grote verschillen zijn (door de property taxes) in arme en rijkere wijken en dat het verschil alleen nog maar groter wordt als je kijkt naar het verschil tussen openbare scholen en privéscholen.

Wat vind jij er trouwens van dat ik zeg dat het feit dat een medewerker en haar chef allebei niet weten dat New Mexico een staat is, niets te maken heeft met de politieke voorkeur op universiteiten aangezien dergelijke basiskennis op de lagere en middelbare school wordt onderwezen?

maandag 3 december 2018, 19:33 uur #33

Galantfan

quote:
Op maandag 3 december 2018 @ 13:45 schreef zyx1981 het volgende:

[..]

Heb jij een bron voor je beweringen?

Hier een bron waarin staat dat de noordpool 30° warmer was en dat er nog nooit zo weinig ijs geweest is als nu: https://www.google.nl/amp(...)stunning-scientists/

The washingpost!!! De grootste leugenaar van allemaal! Ik zit op dit moment op mijn telefoon, zal kijken wat ik kan, maar links door geven op FOK wordt steeds moeilijker.

maandag 3 december 2018, 20:05 uur #34

peperazzi2

quote:
Op maandag 3 december 2018 @ 16:20 schreef Turkminator het volgende:

[..]
Dat hoef je mij niet te vertellen. Er zijn veel scholen die helemaal geen AP klassen hebben of weinig. Niet elke school heeft ook een mentor-programma. Ik weet dus allang dat er tussen openbare scholen onderling al grote verschillen zijn (door de property taxes) in arme en rijkere wijken en dat het verschil alleen nog maar groter wordt als je kijkt naar het verschil tussen openbare scholen en privéscholen.

Wat vind jij er trouwens van dat ik zeg dat het feit dat een medewerker en haar chef allebei niet weten dat New Mexico een staat is, niets te maken heeft met de politieke voorkeur op universiteiten aangezien dergelijke basiskennis op de lagere en middelbare school wordt onderwezen?

Helemaal mee eens. Mijn kinderen (7 en 9) kennen alle staten al en kunnen ze aanwijzen op een kaart die bij ons in de kamer hangt(*). Of je nu links, rechts of krom bent, aardrijkskunde is niet het sterkste punt van Amerikanen, en zou onderdeel moeten zijn van een goede basiskennis, lang voordat je in de buurt komt van een universiteit.

(*) Wij wonen in South Carolina. Kinderen zijn hier geboren

vrijdag 15 februari 2019, 01:18 uur #35

Vis1980

Veni Vidi Vissie

quote:
Op zondag 2 december 2018 @ 12:17 schreef Galantfan het volgende:

[..]
Nou kijk maar even naar de millinials die dat onderwijs heeft op geleverd.

Ik dacht dat hun ouders dat hadden gedaan...

Het antwoord op de belangrijkste vraag van alle vragen? 42!

vrijdag 15 februari 2019, 01:23 uur #36

Vis1980

Veni Vidi Vissie

quote:
Op zondag 2 december 2018 @ 12:21 schreef Grasshoppa het volgende:

[..]

AFAIK, Marxists are found primarily in sociology and English departments. I don't know why they're in sociology departments, but I can explain why they're in English departments. Sort of. This is the short, hand-wavy version.

We could begin around 1910, when the politic radicalizing of art as a tool for social destruction really took off with modern art. Or we could begin in the 1930s, when a large fraction of famous Western artists and writers were either communists or fascists, and Marxist ideas became widespread in continental literature. (So did fascist ideas, but we don't talk about those books now.)

But let's begin with Northrup Frye's 1957 "Anatomy of Criticism". Frye was a then less-common breed: a professional literary theorist who had never written any literature.

Between Samuel Johnson and Frye, most literary criticism had been done by writers, who believed that some writing was good and some was bad, and wanted to understand why. (There were exceptions, like William Hazlitt, but nothing like today.)

Frye's writings turned the focus of literary criticism away from literature and toward itself--removing the requirement that a literary critic be able to write literature. Eventually this would lead to the situation in the 1970s, which were dominated by critics like Baudrillard, Derrida, and Foucault, who did not even seem interested in literature.

The 1950s was also when more critics began to approve of modernist writing. (The New Critics of the 1940s, although they're now often called modernists, were not much impressed by modernist poetry and literature and spent little time on it.) Like modern art earlier in the century, modernist literature was based in radical politics and theories. Many acclaimed modernists were not themselves radicals, but were useful to radicals because their works critiqued 20th-century society. The modernist canon, unlike earlier canons, was not chosen from books that people liked, or that helped people understand themselves or deal with their lives, but was rather mainly books selected precisely for making people feel more confused, disoriented, and unable to deal with life. (In the 1930s there was an attempt to include explicitly proletarian works, but later these were rejected in favor of works which raised revolutionary consciousness by making people feel bad about their lives.)

Colleges in the late 1960s were in a furor over Vietnam, civil rights, feminism, and Marxism. At the same time, Marxist professors were being kicked out of economics departments--not because of the cold war, but for the same reason that Freudians and Jungians were being kicked out of psychology departments: it was increasingly evident that their theories didn't work.

The one place that would take in all these Marxists, Freudians, and other philosophers who didn't know how to math was English departments. Marx, Freud, and continental philosophy all lent themselves very well to the modernist project of the 1960s, born of the radical fascism and communism which swept the art world just before World War 1, which was to discredit and demolish all previous art and all previous art theory. Its proponents had waited for decades for the New Critics to die off, and immediately began to purge their ideas from literary studies, replacing them with the false caricatures of their ideas now found in all textbooks on literary theory.

In the 1960s, these various groups launched a joint attack on the heart of literature: the idea that the content of a work of literature was worth something. The navel-gazing initiated by Frye was taken further by Marshall McLuhan's claim that the contents of a message were not as interesting or important as the media used to transmit the message. Marxist and Freudians taught the hostile critique, which assumes that the task of the critic is not to understand a work of literature, but to unmask its author's secret agenda. Feminists and civil rights activists attacked the idea that some books were better than other books as oppressing marginalized voices. The modernist rejection of the Enlightenment had led to a retreat to medieval metaphysics, which the post-modernists Barthes and Derrida used to argue, respectively, that original thought was impossible (only God can have original thoughts, and there is no God), and that communication itself was impossible (as only God can provide meaning, and there is no God).

(Here the story is complicated by the ironic fact that these groups in the 1960s attacked the New Critics for passages in which they taught how to analyze formal properties of poetry rather than its propositional content. The New Critical position was actually that propositional content was the core of poetry and literature, and analyzing it required knowing the context in which the poetry was written--but that this analysis was a matter of general wisdom and experience, not specific to literature, and so while content and context were necessary for any individual act of literary criticism, neither content nor context, but only logical structure, should be the focus of a class on literary criticism. The radicals avoided supporting the interpretation of content by instead saying only that the New Critics opposed the use of context, which the radicals interpreted as meaning race, class, economic relations, and all the other things they were all about.)

Books were thus to be valued not based on their content, but on the political stance which valuing them implied. In other words, you only needed to know what it would signal to put a book on your coffee table; you didn't have to read it. This wasn't seen as cynical, but as an enlightened understanding of the function of books in society.

Literary studies stopped being useful or interesting to readers or writers. Readers found it did not identify good novels--it seemed to be devoted to praising bad novels (see, e.g., Annie Dillard's 1982 Living By Fiction for specifics). Writers found it useless. It was increasingly devoted to the deprecation rather than the appreciation of literature; it led to no career other than academia; it had no object of study other than itself; and it demanded that you write in the ugly, twisted, jargon-laden, illogical style of Adorno, Althusser, and Derrida. People who loved literature fled, and the political activists flooded in.

If you doubt this, read the last thousand pages of The Norton Anthology of Theory & Criticism, the "premier" anthology of literary criticism. Its editor, Vincent Leitch, took the word "literary" out of its title to emphasize that literary theory is no longer concerned with literature. 74 of the 80 entries written after 1959 are leftist, phenomenologist, post-modernist, about race or gender oppression, or multi-culturalist / post-colonialist. AFAIK, only one of them has anything good to say about literature. That same Leitch wrote in chapter 2 of his 2014 Literary Criticism in the 21st Century that literary theorists refer disparagingly to people who oppose the use of literary studies to promote left-wing political agendas as lovers of literature.

Or read Lennard Davis, 1987, Resisting Novels: Ideology & Fiction, which argues that the medium of the novel inherently suppresses revolutionary consciousness by propagating the bourgeois lie that people can live worthwhile lives without collective action for revolutionary change. It's a common theme; Brecht and Adorno said similar things, just not at such length.

So what about the Marxists?

Well, first off, most of them wouldn't call themselves Marxist. In most top-ranked English departments, calling yourself "Marxist" doesn't mean you believe in Marxist economics. Everybody is expected to believe in or at least respect them. It means that, like Theodor Adorno, Terry Eagleton, Fredric Jameson, or Cornel Sandvoss, you rely primarily on Marx in your studies, rather than on post-modernism, identity politics, media studies, cyberstudies, intersectionality, trauma studies, or the various other approaches on offer. Others may call themselves "post-Marxist", meaning they're vaguely Marxist or at least opposed to free markets and the right to sell your labour, but it's not at the top of their agenda and they don't really care about most of what Marx wrote.

The Marxism in English departments is also a little weird. Marx was concerned about people actually being poor; college Marxism is more concerned about a spiritual poverty caused by "consumerism", which turns out to mean "not being poor". There is a weird double-think going on in, for example, Adorno & Horkheimer's concept of the "culture industry", which seems to imply that getting rich is what keeps people poor. (I think this was actually implicit in Marx's essentially religious condemnation of money ("the accumulation of capital") as being the Marxist analogue of original sin, but I also think Marx would have disagreed.)

But more importantly, Marxism is just one part of a stable, internally-coherent ideological ecosystem which also relies heavily on post-modernism and identity politics. The key to making this worldview internally consistent is post-modernist epistemology, which renounces reason itself. Logic is replaced with dialectic (an anti-logic which begins by supposing a contradiction); referentiality is declared impossible; scientific knowledge is derided; factuality is unimportant. You can't argue them out of their position because they believe they've proven that argument and proof are impossible. Everything is a language game. Rhetorical victories are won not by presenting facts, but by having the power to define terms. Defending a position by saying that it's to your personal advantage is accepted as a valid argument.

This is why Marxism survives within English departments. They're inoculated against reason. What matters to them is acting on their feelings in a way that follows the praxis of their community. Anything else is, to them, hopelessly naive.

I can't tell whether they're sincere about this, or consciously know it's all bullshit. They're certainly aware that going against the grain would wreck their careers. But I imagine it's like being Christian was for me, when I was Christian: everyone learned not to think about certain things, and to not see the contradictions. You don't, for instance, do a Freudian critique of Marx, or a deconstruction of Freud, or a cultural analysis of the culture of literary theory. You don't dwell on the contradictions between Marxism (which believes in progress) and post-modernism (which insists that progress is a false narrative).

For some quotes from the people involved on how English got taken over by leftists in the late 1960s, see

https://www.fimfiction.ne(...)ism-how-did-it-begin

Geeft je misschien wat meer beeld.