This past year’s flu season has not been terribly severe but in 1918, that was not the case. If you are the type of person who feels the flu is not a big deal, you are horribly mistaken. What happened in 1918 is proof of the seriousness of influenza. If you have never heard of the 1918 influenza epidemic, you are not alone. Few know much about it and the danger it posed. Part of the reason is that it happened in the waning days of World War I (by the way, the more important world conflict of the 20th-century). However, the epidemic would destroy communities, crush people’s faith in the nascent science of medicine and force the survivors to drive it from their conscience.
Known, erroneously, as the Spanish Flu, the influenza outbreak of 1918 killed more people over the course of a single year than the Plague did over a four year period. It began as a bad string of illness in western Kansas but it was not until it hit Fort Riley, an Army base in central Kansas that it claimed its first fatalities. Yet, while dangerous and potentially deadly, it was still just a bad strain and kept among soldiers. The spread of the disease and its deadly mutation did not occur until soldiers from Kansas and throughout the country jammed into ships to sail across the Atlantic for the war effort. On the battlefields, the flu spread, mutated and impacted Allied and Central Power forces. As wounded and returning soldiers reached the United States, the disease began ripping through Army hospitals. It would not remain contained. Soon, it spilled out into Boston, New York and other eastern cities. The shocking thing about the 1918 influenza strain was that a healthy person could fall ill and die within a day. As the disease spread, doctors were simply not able to catch up. It was happening too fast.
As the disease entered the civilian world, it tore through communities at an astonishing speed and ferocity. An amazing characteristic of the influenza was that it seemed to target the healthiest and the strongest. Typically, a disease will feed off the weak, the very old and the very young. While they suffered, the influenza strain also struck down the hale and hearty. In Philadelphia, one day in early October saw the death of 700 and over the course of the month, 11,000 perished. A week after Minnesota recorded its first case, Minneapolis alone saw more than 1,000 cases. The spread of the disease was intensified by public gatherings for draft summons, war bonds rallies, patriotic speeches and in November 1918, the celebration of the end of the war. Over the course of the disease, it would take more than 675,000 lives – far surpassing what the U.S. loss in the combined efforts in World War I, II, Korea and Viet Nam. Worldwide, it led to the death of 25 million people.
At the onset of the epidemic, doctors were not aware of what was killing people. The first recorded deaths back in Kansas were listed as pneumonia. Once it was identified as influenza, doctors set out to find some way to cure the disease. However, in those days, doctors thought the cause of the disease was a bacterium and sought to create a vaccine. From time to time, doctors claimed to find a possible solution but nothing ever materialized or proved effective. People continued to die at an alarming rate. The end of the influenza strain was a bit of luck as the weather turned cold. November saw a huge drop in the number of deaths. Secondly, the disease simply ran through all those who were susceptible.
It is a shocking period of history but people sought to put it out of their mind as quickly as possible. Other things over the subsequent decades would occupy our time – runaway prosperity, economic depression, another war, a cold war. As an historian, I find the topic intensely interesting and does it not stoke a curiosity? There are some resources out there if one wants to delve deeper. Use it to better understand what was not presented to you, likely, in your education. Today, news media love to play up the possibility of rampant spreading diseases but seldom does the impact match their prognostications. It is to a point where we don’t take the news seriously. Yet, there was a time when the flu killed at a horrifying rate. It could happen again. It is worth your time to study.
For more information on the influenza epidemic, check out the following sources:
John M. Barry’s The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History. What is so great about this source is that it also provides a history of medical research in the U.S. It was the source of much of the information in this article.
Alfred W. Crosby’s America’s Forgotten Pandemic: The Influenza of 1918.
The PBS American Experience documentary, Influenza, 1918.
Friday, December 30, 2011
What I Wish We Had
Between my years in the military and my time schlepping students about Europe and Asia, I’ve experienced a great deal and seen many things. Some things I treasure and I think about often. When people ask me what I liked the most about a trip, it is a question like this that draws my mind back to unique cultural traits that, at the time, left me thinking, I wish we had this back home.
I sometimes experience different faiths and from time to time, I wonder why we don’t have certain things in my faith. One, how much better would my faith be if I could have the temples with mountains as a backdrop like the open spaced Shinto ones I’ve seen in Japan. When I visit these temples, I pray to my own God but what a beautiful way to experience him (or her). While serving in the Middle East, there was no more wonderful and sublime experience than greeting the day with the call to prayer (adhan) by the nearby muezzin. I can’t quite explain the experience but it filled me with a peace and a calmness that is not inherent in my typical mornings. I visited a Hindu temple once in Dallas and the smells and sights of the place beat the sterilized and carpeted suburbia of typical churches. Have you ever noticed that most churches, especially the Protestant ones, smell the same?
I wish Vietnamese restaurants were more ubiquitous than they are now. There is no more perfect food than a large, steaming bowl of pho. The combination of a perfectly constructed broth, noodles, greens and meat, with some bean sprouts and cilantro sprinkled on top is the kind of food that has brought people together in peace. I wish the most fervent wish that our Congress had a “president’s questions” time the way the British House of Commons have with their prime minister. Many of Britain’s former colonies have the same set up in their lower House but for some reason, we decided to be a bit more “civilized.” Can you imagine Presidents Obama or Bush having to rationalize their policies to a jeering, doubtful and questioning opposition? It would, overnight, restore interest in our political system. If you are not familiar with this, check out CSPAN on Sunday night and watch with rapt interest in Prime Minister David Cameron and his opposition parry and thrust. The most positive consequence is that it would foster a political class more capable of explaining themselves.
To round out my recollections, there is a set of peculiarities I’ve seen in other countries I’d like to see more of in the U.S. In Japan, they have holes in the streets that shoot up hot water when the streets are covered by snow. I also like the Japanese stores with parking on the roof. In an attempt to save space, Japanese businesses (like a grocery store) take advantage of all the space atop the building. Genius. I once visited a roof top bar and pool in Manama in Bahrain. We have these spotted throughout the U.S. but not nearly enough. I love the bakery specific shops in Germany and France that allows one to grab fresh bread without going through a massive Target or Wal-Mart to get to it. The only bakeries we have are the doughnut and kolaches places which, though fine food, are not the same. Additionally in Germany, they have figured out a way to limit urban sprawl. Their communities are tightly packed and complete with the various services needed without pointlessly tearing up landscape.
It should be said that I love the United States. I feel it is the greatest country in the world and certainly, the most beautiful. However, my travels have allowed me to experience how other cultures have attempted to solve common problems. Some things I like and would love to see in the U.S. and other things the Americans do better. I have more exploring to do. I want to visit India, Mongolia, Ethiopia, Peru and Iceland, among others. I have so many places I want to visit, I may not have time for a future family. That said, I might not have time for a job.
I sometimes experience different faiths and from time to time, I wonder why we don’t have certain things in my faith. One, how much better would my faith be if I could have the temples with mountains as a backdrop like the open spaced Shinto ones I’ve seen in Japan. When I visit these temples, I pray to my own God but what a beautiful way to experience him (or her). While serving in the Middle East, there was no more wonderful and sublime experience than greeting the day with the call to prayer (adhan) by the nearby muezzin. I can’t quite explain the experience but it filled me with a peace and a calmness that is not inherent in my typical mornings. I visited a Hindu temple once in Dallas and the smells and sights of the place beat the sterilized and carpeted suburbia of typical churches. Have you ever noticed that most churches, especially the Protestant ones, smell the same?
I wish Vietnamese restaurants were more ubiquitous than they are now. There is no more perfect food than a large, steaming bowl of pho. The combination of a perfectly constructed broth, noodles, greens and meat, with some bean sprouts and cilantro sprinkled on top is the kind of food that has brought people together in peace. I wish the most fervent wish that our Congress had a “president’s questions” time the way the British House of Commons have with their prime minister. Many of Britain’s former colonies have the same set up in their lower House but for some reason, we decided to be a bit more “civilized.” Can you imagine Presidents Obama or Bush having to rationalize their policies to a jeering, doubtful and questioning opposition? It would, overnight, restore interest in our political system. If you are not familiar with this, check out CSPAN on Sunday night and watch with rapt interest in Prime Minister David Cameron and his opposition parry and thrust. The most positive consequence is that it would foster a political class more capable of explaining themselves.
To round out my recollections, there is a set of peculiarities I’ve seen in other countries I’d like to see more of in the U.S. In Japan, they have holes in the streets that shoot up hot water when the streets are covered by snow. I also like the Japanese stores with parking on the roof. In an attempt to save space, Japanese businesses (like a grocery store) take advantage of all the space atop the building. Genius. I once visited a roof top bar and pool in Manama in Bahrain. We have these spotted throughout the U.S. but not nearly enough. I love the bakery specific shops in Germany and France that allows one to grab fresh bread without going through a massive Target or Wal-Mart to get to it. The only bakeries we have are the doughnut and kolaches places which, though fine food, are not the same. Additionally in Germany, they have figured out a way to limit urban sprawl. Their communities are tightly packed and complete with the various services needed without pointlessly tearing up landscape.
It should be said that I love the United States. I feel it is the greatest country in the world and certainly, the most beautiful. However, my travels have allowed me to experience how other cultures have attempted to solve common problems. Some things I like and would love to see in the U.S. and other things the Americans do better. I have more exploring to do. I want to visit India, Mongolia, Ethiopia, Peru and Iceland, among others. I have so many places I want to visit, I may not have time for a future family. That said, I might not have time for a job.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Not Your Father's Protest
One of the lasting impressions of the Occupy Wall Street movement that swept the country is the rather vapid nature of the protestors’ arguments and their inability to express their point beyond the slogans they yell at the top of their lungs. The Egyptian revolution that booted Hosni Mubarak from power have replaced his autocratic rule with two parties who have not shown the capacity or the ideological wherewithal to implement the democracy so craved by those in the streets. What is the reasoning for these two scenarios? It might have much to do with social networking.
The counter-culture movement of the late 1960s can be described in many ways, and has. However, the essence of the movement was a set of literature, discussions and an evangelist’s zeal to recruit and spread the message. Authors like Hermann Hesse, Jack Kerouac and Henry David Thoreau heavily influenced the movement, as did the eastern philosophies; each used to reject the predominant culture of the country. The movement also depended on group discussions to work through their philosophy. Whether gathered in salons or bars, the movement was dependent upon the person’s ability to express and explain his or her ideas. Lastly, the leaders of the movement were able to go throughout a campus or an area and make their point, argue against those who disagreed with them and string together cogent arguments. Personally, I think the counter-culture movement was filled with naïve and spoiled children whose arguments were Pollyanna but they studied, they read and had the capacity to make their point. Today’s social networking undermines what used to be necessary for protests.
Let’s take the example of Egypt. What best explains a movement to get rid of one dictatorship in lieu of two; two political parties that do not treasure or purport democracy or participatory government? Social networking and media are not a medium for an exchange of ideas but of slogans and chants. Yet, when one is speaking of ideas as complex and potentially dangerous as the protest against government, it would behoove activists to have a clearer idea and goal in mind than just removing a leader. I sincerely believe the reason for the elections of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafi, if I’m to believe the rationale for the jettison of Mr. Mubarak, is due to a lack of a discussion and lack of consensus on what type of government they wished. While it may be true that the two groups are more connected to Egyptian values and culture, they do not express what the protestors said they wanted – a greater political voice, more say in the running of the government. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafi do not represent a possible government that would tolerate too much opposition. Recent further unrest, I’m afraid, are a sign of things to come for the mis-represented Egyptian people.
In the United States, the voice of the 99% is as incoherent and divergent as one would expect from 99% of anything. They speak in slogans that are material for their posterboards. The vast majority of people at some of the larger protests do not seek the betterment of society but the destruction of the same. Indeed, their numbers suggest they are actually the 1%, if that. There is no literature or search for truth in these protestors. The fact that they are content with the slogans and mantras and signs suggest that the truth holds no interest. The protests and the gatherings are spontaneous in the worst sense of the word. They exist without an examination of the facts of their case. They exist without an examination of possible solutions. Indeed, these protests exist without much thinking at all. They were the product of “meet here” and “click like” if you embraced the idea of muddling up the works.
It is not that things are perfect or that a people do not have the right to want a better government. However, the organization of these movements lacks the information and forethought about what to do once they have grabbed the world’s attention. Social critic Neil Postman said, “What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.” The egoism to demand change but the passivity that prevents study. Sound familiar?
The counter-culture movement of the late 1960s can be described in many ways, and has. However, the essence of the movement was a set of literature, discussions and an evangelist’s zeal to recruit and spread the message. Authors like Hermann Hesse, Jack Kerouac and Henry David Thoreau heavily influenced the movement, as did the eastern philosophies; each used to reject the predominant culture of the country. The movement also depended on group discussions to work through their philosophy. Whether gathered in salons or bars, the movement was dependent upon the person’s ability to express and explain his or her ideas. Lastly, the leaders of the movement were able to go throughout a campus or an area and make their point, argue against those who disagreed with them and string together cogent arguments. Personally, I think the counter-culture movement was filled with naïve and spoiled children whose arguments were Pollyanna but they studied, they read and had the capacity to make their point. Today’s social networking undermines what used to be necessary for protests.
Let’s take the example of Egypt. What best explains a movement to get rid of one dictatorship in lieu of two; two political parties that do not treasure or purport democracy or participatory government? Social networking and media are not a medium for an exchange of ideas but of slogans and chants. Yet, when one is speaking of ideas as complex and potentially dangerous as the protest against government, it would behoove activists to have a clearer idea and goal in mind than just removing a leader. I sincerely believe the reason for the elections of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafi, if I’m to believe the rationale for the jettison of Mr. Mubarak, is due to a lack of a discussion and lack of consensus on what type of government they wished. While it may be true that the two groups are more connected to Egyptian values and culture, they do not express what the protestors said they wanted – a greater political voice, more say in the running of the government. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafi do not represent a possible government that would tolerate too much opposition. Recent further unrest, I’m afraid, are a sign of things to come for the mis-represented Egyptian people.
In the United States, the voice of the 99% is as incoherent and divergent as one would expect from 99% of anything. They speak in slogans that are material for their posterboards. The vast majority of people at some of the larger protests do not seek the betterment of society but the destruction of the same. Indeed, their numbers suggest they are actually the 1%, if that. There is no literature or search for truth in these protestors. The fact that they are content with the slogans and mantras and signs suggest that the truth holds no interest. The protests and the gatherings are spontaneous in the worst sense of the word. They exist without an examination of the facts of their case. They exist without an examination of possible solutions. Indeed, these protests exist without much thinking at all. They were the product of “meet here” and “click like” if you embraced the idea of muddling up the works.
It is not that things are perfect or that a people do not have the right to want a better government. However, the organization of these movements lacks the information and forethought about what to do once they have grabbed the world’s attention. Social critic Neil Postman said, “What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.” The egoism to demand change but the passivity that prevents study. Sound familiar?
Monday, December 19, 2011
The Death of Kim Jong Il
“For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground
And tell sad stories of the death of kings…
…for within the hollow crown
That rounds the mortal temples of a king
Keeps Death his court and there the antic sits,
Scoffing his state and grinning at his pomp…”
Richard II, William Shakespeare
Over the weekend, Americans heard the first word of the death of North Korea’s Kim Jong Il; the enigmatic, irrational, dangerous and bizarre leader of the “hermit” country. In his place, an even more mysterious figure, Kim Jong Un, to take the mantle of dictatorship. However, dictatorship does not begin to explain the depth of control exercised by the North Korean government. It is the level of control and the near brainwashed-like level of devotion that makes Kim Jong Il’s death so disturbing and so potentially dangerous.
Immediately, markets dropped throughout Asia, with South Korea’s market dropping the most as they stand in the shadow of the mysterious country. South Korea’s military, understandably, went on high alert. Japan and China must also be wary of what the death of Kim Jong Il must mean to the region, in particular and the world, in general. Increasing the concern is the size and devotion of the North Korean military – a million-strong force said to be the fifth largest in the world. While China has some influence on the country, it might not be able to control the series of events that could impact its neighbor.
There are two major areas of concern that many analysts are highlighting. The first deals the unpreparedness of Kim Jong Un. While in his late twenties or early thirties, there is not much thought that he is in a position to run the country without being some type of puppet. Who would be pulling the strings of the young marionette? There are rivalries that exist within the family, with the eldest son, Kim Jung Nam, safely in China, criticizing the order of succession. What makes him all the more intriguing is that he is a “reformer.” Would it be enough to bring North Korea from the cold should Kim Jong Un prove not ready for the bright lights?
The other area of concern lies with the three organizations within the government constantly fighting for influence and power – the party, the military and the Cabinet. According to the BBC, the military has seen a large increase of power and influence in the term of Kim Jong Il but each group has its hopes.
So, what do the surrounding countries and the U.S. do? First, I’m not sure how many messages of condolences will be forthcoming. Hard to express sympathy for one who is responsible for the utter destruction of the country’s agricultural sector, that has led to widespread starvation and poverty and ultimately, countless deaths. South Korea obviously has the most to worry about. However, its military might will not be enough in the event of a young ruler looking to display his feathers. This will bring the U.S. and its allies into the mix. To make matters worse, there is not a great deal that President Obama can do but to react best to a quickly developing situation. For Japan, its relatively small military will place it at risk should Pyongyang decide to instigate conflict. Russia has lost contact with North Korea, cutting off annual funds since the collapse of the Soviet Union. And so, if there is to be one country who stands at the greatest position of influence, it is China.
China has always viewed North Korea as the “crazy little brother” that they must protect. However, North Korea is already showing a troubling tendency. Shortly before the announcement of the death of Kim Jong Il, reports suggested several test rockets were fired along the east coast of the country. The biggest thing that the Americans, Koreans and the Japanese can do is to prepare militarily. Former ambassador to China under Barack Obama, John Huntsman, who is also a Republican candidate for president, has suggested the possibility for hope but the U.S. and the world community cannot count on that. There is simply not enough information to know for sure. Shakespeare’s Richard II was a character whose actions led to his destruction. Kim Jong Il’s actions destroyed a country and killed, potentially, millions. History abhors a vacuum and the united nations can only hope that what comes next is better than before. Hopefully.
And tell sad stories of the death of kings…
…for within the hollow crown
That rounds the mortal temples of a king
Keeps Death his court and there the antic sits,
Scoffing his state and grinning at his pomp…”
Richard II, William Shakespeare
Over the weekend, Americans heard the first word of the death of North Korea’s Kim Jong Il; the enigmatic, irrational, dangerous and bizarre leader of the “hermit” country. In his place, an even more mysterious figure, Kim Jong Un, to take the mantle of dictatorship. However, dictatorship does not begin to explain the depth of control exercised by the North Korean government. It is the level of control and the near brainwashed-like level of devotion that makes Kim Jong Il’s death so disturbing and so potentially dangerous.
Immediately, markets dropped throughout Asia, with South Korea’s market dropping the most as they stand in the shadow of the mysterious country. South Korea’s military, understandably, went on high alert. Japan and China must also be wary of what the death of Kim Jong Il must mean to the region, in particular and the world, in general. Increasing the concern is the size and devotion of the North Korean military – a million-strong force said to be the fifth largest in the world. While China has some influence on the country, it might not be able to control the series of events that could impact its neighbor.
There are two major areas of concern that many analysts are highlighting. The first deals the unpreparedness of Kim Jong Un. While in his late twenties or early thirties, there is not much thought that he is in a position to run the country without being some type of puppet. Who would be pulling the strings of the young marionette? There are rivalries that exist within the family, with the eldest son, Kim Jung Nam, safely in China, criticizing the order of succession. What makes him all the more intriguing is that he is a “reformer.” Would it be enough to bring North Korea from the cold should Kim Jong Un prove not ready for the bright lights?
The other area of concern lies with the three organizations within the government constantly fighting for influence and power – the party, the military and the Cabinet. According to the BBC, the military has seen a large increase of power and influence in the term of Kim Jong Il but each group has its hopes.
So, what do the surrounding countries and the U.S. do? First, I’m not sure how many messages of condolences will be forthcoming. Hard to express sympathy for one who is responsible for the utter destruction of the country’s agricultural sector, that has led to widespread starvation and poverty and ultimately, countless deaths. South Korea obviously has the most to worry about. However, its military might will not be enough in the event of a young ruler looking to display his feathers. This will bring the U.S. and its allies into the mix. To make matters worse, there is not a great deal that President Obama can do but to react best to a quickly developing situation. For Japan, its relatively small military will place it at risk should Pyongyang decide to instigate conflict. Russia has lost contact with North Korea, cutting off annual funds since the collapse of the Soviet Union. And so, if there is to be one country who stands at the greatest position of influence, it is China.
China has always viewed North Korea as the “crazy little brother” that they must protect. However, North Korea is already showing a troubling tendency. Shortly before the announcement of the death of Kim Jong Il, reports suggested several test rockets were fired along the east coast of the country. The biggest thing that the Americans, Koreans and the Japanese can do is to prepare militarily. Former ambassador to China under Barack Obama, John Huntsman, who is also a Republican candidate for president, has suggested the possibility for hope but the U.S. and the world community cannot count on that. There is simply not enough information to know for sure. Shakespeare’s Richard II was a character whose actions led to his destruction. Kim Jong Il’s actions destroyed a country and killed, potentially, millions. History abhors a vacuum and the united nations can only hope that what comes next is better than before. Hopefully.
Friday, December 16, 2011
No Virginia, the Government Does Not Have All the Answers
I was watching the news the other day and a story was being run on the state of the economy in Iowa. In an interview with a woman, she mentioned that she can no longer depend on the government because she no longer trusts the politicians. The reporter speculated that the sentiment was a dangerous sign for the future of effective government and suggested the anecdote represented a divide that must be bridged in government’s effort to fix the economy.
Yet, that was not the impression from which I walked away. During the 1992 presidential election campaign, President George H.W. Bush was debating Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton and Texas businessman Ross Perot and the three were engaged in a town-hall style debate – the first of its kind. During audience questioning, a young man posed a challenge in which he suggested that the government and the future president is like a parent and the American citizens were his children. The man asked what each candidate would do for his children. In the scope of presidential debate highlights, this does not get a great deal of play. However, it was a question that was and is symptomatic of some thinking today. From where does this attitude originate?
The short and easy answer is the New Deal. President Franklin D. Roosevelt put in place a series of programs that set up the government as instrumental in caring or providing for those who are in need. However, as transformative as the New Deal was to the power of the president in particular and of government in general, people throughout the 1940s and 1950s did not change greatly compared to those of the 1910s and 1920s. At the height of progressive and liberal governance, people were not swayed to surrender their notions completely. It was not until the 1960s, when arose a group of people mostly from affluent and comfortable families who crowded the streets and complained about the system that provided an unprecedented standard of living. The hippies were not just complaining about the war but rejecting the values that provided for their college tuition and allowed them the flexibility to protest rather than work for a living. A generation of spoiled brats began to radically change how government should operate.
President Theodore Roosevelt, in explaining his Square Deal three decades prior to his cousin’s presidency, suggested the goal was not to ensure success. How each man played the cards dealt to him was his affair. However, the government should ensure there is “no crookedness in the dealing.” The difference between equality of opportunity and the equality of success is dangerous to democracy. The government who looks upon the people as children is one that operates under a mindset of paternalism and superiority. By surrendering one’s own ability to care for themselves, as the questioner in the 1992 presidential debate was willing to do, we give the government way more power that it was ever intended and created to hold.
In the 1960s, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater suggested that a government big enough to give a citizen all he or she needs, is big enough to take it all away. So, perhaps the Iowa woman is right and historically more aligned with her predecessors a century or two ago. Why wait for the government? Why wait for people who are not directly connected to you and your family? Why wait for a monolithic institution that was never meant to answer the individual’s needs, only the country’s needs? The sooner Americans break their addiction and dependence upon the government and begin to depend upon their own talent and abilities, perhaps the better off we will be.
Yet, that was not the impression from which I walked away. During the 1992 presidential election campaign, President George H.W. Bush was debating Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton and Texas businessman Ross Perot and the three were engaged in a town-hall style debate – the first of its kind. During audience questioning, a young man posed a challenge in which he suggested that the government and the future president is like a parent and the American citizens were his children. The man asked what each candidate would do for his children. In the scope of presidential debate highlights, this does not get a great deal of play. However, it was a question that was and is symptomatic of some thinking today. From where does this attitude originate?
The short and easy answer is the New Deal. President Franklin D. Roosevelt put in place a series of programs that set up the government as instrumental in caring or providing for those who are in need. However, as transformative as the New Deal was to the power of the president in particular and of government in general, people throughout the 1940s and 1950s did not change greatly compared to those of the 1910s and 1920s. At the height of progressive and liberal governance, people were not swayed to surrender their notions completely. It was not until the 1960s, when arose a group of people mostly from affluent and comfortable families who crowded the streets and complained about the system that provided an unprecedented standard of living. The hippies were not just complaining about the war but rejecting the values that provided for their college tuition and allowed them the flexibility to protest rather than work for a living. A generation of spoiled brats began to radically change how government should operate.
President Theodore Roosevelt, in explaining his Square Deal three decades prior to his cousin’s presidency, suggested the goal was not to ensure success. How each man played the cards dealt to him was his affair. However, the government should ensure there is “no crookedness in the dealing.” The difference between equality of opportunity and the equality of success is dangerous to democracy. The government who looks upon the people as children is one that operates under a mindset of paternalism and superiority. By surrendering one’s own ability to care for themselves, as the questioner in the 1992 presidential debate was willing to do, we give the government way more power that it was ever intended and created to hold.
In the 1960s, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater suggested that a government big enough to give a citizen all he or she needs, is big enough to take it all away. So, perhaps the Iowa woman is right and historically more aligned with her predecessors a century or two ago. Why wait for the government? Why wait for people who are not directly connected to you and your family? Why wait for a monolithic institution that was never meant to answer the individual’s needs, only the country’s needs? The sooner Americans break their addiction and dependence upon the government and begin to depend upon their own talent and abilities, perhaps the better off we will be.
Friday, December 9, 2011
A Little Revolution Now and Again…
Egyptians have shaken off the dictatorship they long resented and have the political power they have long craved. Given the history of autocrats that have ruled the country since the Nasser-led coup in 1952, it is surprising that the Egyptians would vote for groups without much connection to and respect for democratic rule. The military has stepped in and commandeered the election process by suggesting that the elections were not valid given the unstable conditions of the country and the fact that not all members of Egyptian society are represented in the proportional parliament.
This is an interesting dilemma for the Obama administration. It abdicated responsibility when the Egyptian uprising began, content to lob condemnation of Mr. Mubarak from afar. Worse, after the uprising was complete, it did not see a role in helping Egyptians prepare for and conduct a proper election. Furthermore, with “Islamists” taking some two-thirds of the Egyptian parliament, the government could be in the hands of an organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, that many Western powers fear and do not trust.
The current military rulers, making up the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), is likely equally unsure about the Muslim Brotherhood and what its leadership would mean to the rule of the country, the upholding of its treaties and the threat it would pose to other countries. These threats would have to be defended by the military. Increasing the military’s unease with the recent election results is the connection between it and Western advisors over the decades.
What makes matters worse, if the West believes that the winning parties (the Muslim Brotherhood and the more conservative Nour Party) are ultimately dangerous to Egypt’s neighbors and the West’s allies, they have lost the opportunity to do anything about it. To some degree, when one pushes for democracy, you have to accept and deal with the results. Are these organizations good for Egypt? It is difficult to think so from afar but for ordinary Egyptians, they apparently think so.
The Muslim Brotherhood has had its collective noses pressed against the division between it and the power structure for decades. It has clamored for recognition and political power and now, it is on the cusp of having it. Yet, the military will not let it come easily. Will the measures of the SCAF turn the populace against the military? Will more protests and perhaps, riots, take place? If so, what role does the West play? If the U.S. and Europe come in on the side of the military, it will further ensconce our image as anti-Arab and pro-anything-that-favors-the-west.
From afar, it is difficult to trust the Muslim Brotherhood. Its intentions and its stance on Egypt’s long held treaties (more importantly with Israel) cannot be trusted. It has a record of speeches and declarations that stretches for the better part of a century that defines the organization. The Brotherhood will likely have its chance to rule and do so responsibly. I hope it rises to the challenge.
This is an interesting dilemma for the Obama administration. It abdicated responsibility when the Egyptian uprising began, content to lob condemnation of Mr. Mubarak from afar. Worse, after the uprising was complete, it did not see a role in helping Egyptians prepare for and conduct a proper election. Furthermore, with “Islamists” taking some two-thirds of the Egyptian parliament, the government could be in the hands of an organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, that many Western powers fear and do not trust.
The current military rulers, making up the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), is likely equally unsure about the Muslim Brotherhood and what its leadership would mean to the rule of the country, the upholding of its treaties and the threat it would pose to other countries. These threats would have to be defended by the military. Increasing the military’s unease with the recent election results is the connection between it and Western advisors over the decades.
What makes matters worse, if the West believes that the winning parties (the Muslim Brotherhood and the more conservative Nour Party) are ultimately dangerous to Egypt’s neighbors and the West’s allies, they have lost the opportunity to do anything about it. To some degree, when one pushes for democracy, you have to accept and deal with the results. Are these organizations good for Egypt? It is difficult to think so from afar but for ordinary Egyptians, they apparently think so.
The Muslim Brotherhood has had its collective noses pressed against the division between it and the power structure for decades. It has clamored for recognition and political power and now, it is on the cusp of having it. Yet, the military will not let it come easily. Will the measures of the SCAF turn the populace against the military? Will more protests and perhaps, riots, take place? If so, what role does the West play? If the U.S. and Europe come in on the side of the military, it will further ensconce our image as anti-Arab and pro-anything-that-favors-the-west.
From afar, it is difficult to trust the Muslim Brotherhood. Its intentions and its stance on Egypt’s long held treaties (more importantly with Israel) cannot be trusted. It has a record of speeches and declarations that stretches for the better part of a century that defines the organization. The Brotherhood will likely have its chance to rule and do so responsibly. I hope it rises to the challenge.
Friday, December 2, 2011
What’s in a Grade?
Since the time I began teaching, I was told of the wonders of the highly motivated student – the one who constantly strives to get the best grade. This is the student that knows the most and wants to know more. This is the student that offsets the ambivalent, disengaged one who clutters up the roll sheet and drags down the class as a whole. This is the student who will go on to achieve the greatest of all of his or her peers. As a teacher, I have many students who could be classified as highly motivated. However, the extent to which I treasure these students has waned over the years.
My attitude towards these students is never personal – it is professional. However, I have taught these students for sixteen years in high school, including three years at a local community college. In that time, I’ve come to understand the danger of these students. In Matthew 6:24, it reads that, “No man can serve two masters…Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” So it is with students. One can either achieve for knowledge or achieve for an “A” but one cannot do both.
The pursuit of knowledge is compromised by the government officials that seek test scores as affirmations of success. It is undermined by the school officials who stress that all of their children are headed to college – and certainly should be. It is undermined by parents who stress a letter as the highest level of achievement of their child. It is undermined by the teacher who constantly re-affirms that the grade is the most important goal. Lastly, it is undermined by the student who places their effort to achieve a letter over their effort to better understand something.
I teach Advanced Placement World and U.S. History classes. I have the grade-mongering students who will pore over the terms for each unit in preparation for a unit exam. In the interim, they will read and I will discuss the context – the history – of which the terms are a part. When I write up a test, I pose questions based on the terms but occasionally, as an experiment, I will ask questions based on the terms within the context. Because the grade-mongers see only the terms as the path to success on the unit exam, that is all they study and they will not go beyond. Therefore, they will nail the fact-based questions using information of the terms but to talk about the terms in context, they fail and are frustrated every time. The goal is not to completely understand the information but to learn what is needed to make a passing grade. The gaps in their knowledge are even more evident when I hold conversations for a test grade. My feeling is if they can carry on a five- to ten-minute conversation with me on a particular subject, then they know the information. They seldom show such knowledge. It is not a pursuit of knowledge these kids are concerned with; it is the perversion of the pursuit of knowledge of which they are guilty.
A colleague of mine and I have given much thought to what should be in place of grades. It is not enough to say, “We are not going to hand out grades.” At the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, they have a place called the “sweat room.” It is here that students await for their time in front of a panel where they will justify their earning credit for a particular field of study. Likewise, we would like to create a school where a student earns a “passing” or “failing” grade by speaking with a panel of three teachers and having to defend their knowledge. It is much more challenging and more comprehensive a process than the current grading system. On a practical level, this type of model is not conducive to the school system in its current form. Changes would have to be made. At present, as my colleague and good friend is fond of saying, high schools today are simply tools for universities and businesses – we help them by categorizing and labeling students to their benefit.
To some extent, it is not the kids’ fault. The blame lies with the government officials, the school leaders, the teachers and the parents. We are raising a generation of people chasing success and not chasing knowledge. There are those, both in and out of education, who have boiled the pursuit of knowledge down to future occupation or wage-earnings and I can’t think of a more depressing thought. The more we come up with fancy computer programs or various initiatives to find a way to motivate our kids to embrace the cult of success, the less knowledgeable they will become. Socrates worried about the student who depended upon outside sources as a means of knowledge and complained about those who, “will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.”
My attitude towards these students is never personal – it is professional. However, I have taught these students for sixteen years in high school, including three years at a local community college. In that time, I’ve come to understand the danger of these students. In Matthew 6:24, it reads that, “No man can serve two masters…Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” So it is with students. One can either achieve for knowledge or achieve for an “A” but one cannot do both.
The pursuit of knowledge is compromised by the government officials that seek test scores as affirmations of success. It is undermined by the school officials who stress that all of their children are headed to college – and certainly should be. It is undermined by parents who stress a letter as the highest level of achievement of their child. It is undermined by the teacher who constantly re-affirms that the grade is the most important goal. Lastly, it is undermined by the student who places their effort to achieve a letter over their effort to better understand something.
I teach Advanced Placement World and U.S. History classes. I have the grade-mongering students who will pore over the terms for each unit in preparation for a unit exam. In the interim, they will read and I will discuss the context – the history – of which the terms are a part. When I write up a test, I pose questions based on the terms but occasionally, as an experiment, I will ask questions based on the terms within the context. Because the grade-mongers see only the terms as the path to success on the unit exam, that is all they study and they will not go beyond. Therefore, they will nail the fact-based questions using information of the terms but to talk about the terms in context, they fail and are frustrated every time. The goal is not to completely understand the information but to learn what is needed to make a passing grade. The gaps in their knowledge are even more evident when I hold conversations for a test grade. My feeling is if they can carry on a five- to ten-minute conversation with me on a particular subject, then they know the information. They seldom show such knowledge. It is not a pursuit of knowledge these kids are concerned with; it is the perversion of the pursuit of knowledge of which they are guilty.
A colleague of mine and I have given much thought to what should be in place of grades. It is not enough to say, “We are not going to hand out grades.” At the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, they have a place called the “sweat room.” It is here that students await for their time in front of a panel where they will justify their earning credit for a particular field of study. Likewise, we would like to create a school where a student earns a “passing” or “failing” grade by speaking with a panel of three teachers and having to defend their knowledge. It is much more challenging and more comprehensive a process than the current grading system. On a practical level, this type of model is not conducive to the school system in its current form. Changes would have to be made. At present, as my colleague and good friend is fond of saying, high schools today are simply tools for universities and businesses – we help them by categorizing and labeling students to their benefit.
To some extent, it is not the kids’ fault. The blame lies with the government officials, the school leaders, the teachers and the parents. We are raising a generation of people chasing success and not chasing knowledge. There are those, both in and out of education, who have boiled the pursuit of knowledge down to future occupation or wage-earnings and I can’t think of a more depressing thought. The more we come up with fancy computer programs or various initiatives to find a way to motivate our kids to embrace the cult of success, the less knowledgeable they will become. Socrates worried about the student who depended upon outside sources as a means of knowledge and complained about those who, “will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)