||"dawnbreak in the west"|
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
If we need an education, whose?
The Left has built vast walls around the truth of our history; but, then, so has the Right. The question must be: which walls support a prison, and which support a fortress? I have pondered that I might figure out the two walls' purpose, by way of investigating their respective masonry. So on 4 July evening I locked this blog and went to a bookstore.
I gave the Reconstruction sections of Lies My Teacher Told Me another read (in its 2nd ed). Its author James Loewen intends by the book's title's "me", you - as an extension of Loewen. Loewen has sold his book on the claim that factual history is interesting history - which it is, of course. But that is not his real point. His real point is race.
Specificially, Loewen asserts that the "lies", the (politically) incorrect version of history, will cause black children to see themselves as a historical blight. Loewen may even be telling the truth. Another book I looked at, Randall Kennedy's 9ja: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word, rubs all our faces into just how damaging our racism is against blacks. So, says Loewen, when blacks hear about Galveston in February 1866, the kids' self-esteem goes down, and they will then fail. Loewen doubles down in an aside in Sundown Towns: that relative self-esteem explains the racial IQ gap(s) - all of it.
Self-esteem will not do, to solve the dire problem [for now, ignore this link's solution, please!]. Blacks have higher self-esteem than whites. And why not? In large part thanks to Loewen, this is a BRA. Whites still outperform blacks intellectually. And we of Ashkenazi ancestry, and Asians, still beat whites. Some might say that Jews and Asians are neurotic, even more than are whites. Some might say we lack... self esteem. It seems relative self-esteem does not explain the racial IQ gap(s).
I personally do worry about hurting blacks' feelings. This happened in my bid to join The Froude Society, just lately. I ended up locking up the blog. But the reason I don't like offending them isn't that I worry that I might cause them to fail!
Self-esteem is good for reasons other than as an intelligence bolster. Self-esteem keeps me alive; and I wish blacks life and happiness as well. The West may be able to support life, liberty, and happiness for all those currently living in it. Westerners telling fibs won't help, not for long.
Back to Loewen. Antiracism, like Communism, is a testable hypothesis. Loewen, like Khrushchev, assumes that when you deny the party line, you are ignorant or mentally ill. Lies gives the example of Lincoln: that Lincoln bore the taint of racism, and managed to "overcome" it. He literally wants teachers to give this out as an Edifying Tale.
Loewen's emphasis is self-refuting. If Good Teacher must feed to blacks the Left's history and anti-racism, for only that it helps blacks; then to be consistent said Teacher can hardly argue against a history for whites which helps whites. I have to conclude that Loewen is not in the business of teaching history.
How then would a history which helps whites look? I think, a lot like the historiography Loewen hates. Even on the most basic level: what helps whites and Asians to survive urban life is "knowledge of one's surroundings". That's racism, racism every moment that we must pass through a "vibrant and diverse community". Every time Loewen levels his dark sarcasm against racism in his classroom, he inculcates Eloi-ism. An Eloi is no match for a Morlock. All those who make innocents of us, have innocent blood on their hands.
But this is academic; no, not that, a disgrace to academe. Ultimately we shouldn't care about what helps blacks or what helps whites or what helps the fucking Sinhalese. We should care about what is true. And what was true in the Reconstruction period . . . is what is true now.
If Professor Loewen truly wishes the best for his students in his home state of Vermont, he is best advised to leave those kids alone.
On this site
Property of author; All Rights Reserved