7 Things No American Would Ever Believe …
Feel free to stalk our every post with the f*cking c*nts RSS feed, subscribe to f-ckingc-nts.com by email, follow our new posts and random comments on Twitter, or become a fan on facebook. Go on. You know you want to! All the cool kids are doing it ...
… if public schools taught anything resembling history—Or, American Exceptionalism is a crock of shit.
American schools are shit at teaching anything resembling an in-depth study of history. Of course, to a certain extent, any nation's schools are going to teach history from their own bias and perspective, but after meeting an talking with people of various education levels, from a bunch of different countries, I've come to the inevitable conclusion that US schools are the absolute bottom of the first-world barrel.
We are the ignoramus history class bottom-feeders of the developed world. Folks I've met in the UK, with the equivalent of a high school diploma, have a better understanding of US history than most US college graduates I've known … while a large portion of US high school graduates couldn't name the Prime Minister of the UK if their ignorant little lives depended on it.
It's one problem that American school children score average or worse in math and science compared to many other countries, which no doubt impacts our competitiveness on an international scale … but the fact that we have, on average, a utterly fucking dismal understanding of our own history, and our role in various important world events, is a huge detriment right here at home.
So, for the elucidation of any American public school survivors who should happen across this page, here is a list of things no sane American would ever believe, if our schools actually taught history, instead of bald-faced propaganda:
- America is a Christian Nation. More on this in my next entry, but suffice to say for now that any country with ZERO mentions of god, and only two mentions of religion (both of which pointedly exclude religion from the government and legislative process), in its foundational documents is pretty clearly not a religious nation of any stripe. Read the Constitution sometime, mm'kay? I know it's usually not required in school, but it's very enlightening.
So what difference does this little delusion make in today's society? Well, ask any teen girl who got pregnant, because the only information she got about birth control was from an "abstinence only" sex-ed program … where all you learn is how often birth control fails, never mind how to use it properly, because premarital sex is a sin. Visit a school where science teachers have to include a unit on "Intelligent Design", aka. God Created the World (which is not any kind of scientific theory), right along side the theory of Evolution, or where the library had to remove books which somehow offended the sensibilities of a loud local church. Or how about NGO foreign aid organizations receiving government funding who, thanks to Reagan's biblical policies (enthusiastically upheld by both generations of BushCo presidencies, while suspended during the Clinton administration), cannot educate women in Third World countries about abortion, because that's a sin too? The US does guarantee that you can practice whatever form of holy superstition you like, but the Founders were really quite clear that you have no right to try legally forcing your religious values down other people's throats.
- The US military is unbeatable. We vanquished the English in the Revolutionary War (who maybe at some point decided continuing the war wasn't worth it, given the distance they had to travel, with no local military stronghold to operate from). We single-handedly saved the world in both World Wars (which might have been a collective effort amongst a great many nations, with us jumping in at the end and giving the effort a well-timed boost). Vietnam and Korea are largely glossed over. Well, really, they're HUGELY glossed over. And why not? Our team didn't win.
And what's the end result of this one-dimensional, utterly inaccurate macho horseshit? Wherever in the world evil needs to be vanquished, the American public is far too willing to jump on the bandwagon, and then get all confused when we don't walk all over the enemy and come home all bright-n-shiny. Because we are the biggest badasses in the world. Hello Iraq and Afghanistan, boy oh boy are we whompin' everybody into shape over there!
- Legal abortion is a modern "problem". For the most part, abortion has been practiced without legal impediment since recorded human history began (and, one might assume, before then). Widespread laws against abortion in the West didn't come into being until the 1800's. Before that, with the exception of some stringently religious communities, abortion was largely a matter between a woman and her midwife or her herb cabinet. Even in mainstream religious belief abortion was entirely acceptable before "quickening," when a woman could first feel the baby move. But lo and behold, as Western medicine started coming to the fore, the (male domianted) medical establishment didn't want "uneducated" midwives impinging on their doctors' territory; the eugenics movement was terribly concerned about a falling birthrate among white, middle/upperclass families (thanks to improvements in birth control); while the women's suffrage movement threatened to allow women to participate more fully in society. Clearly, something must be done.
The effects of this moralistic delusion? Ask a woman who had to travel hundreds of miles to get an abortion (or one who couldn't afford to), because the local fundie squad felt they had the right to run all the abortion providers out of town. Abortion is seen as a modern, secular, feminist evil, which the righteous religious folk must battle against. Sanctity of life, and all that. Mind you, I'd never try to legally mandate abortions for all pregnant women under the age of 18 … but somehow these self-righteous fucks think god gave them the right to legislate what I can do with my body. Go fuck yourselves.
- The US always supports human rights & democracy. Ask the Native Americans about this. Or the African slaves who came along not too long after. Or South Americans, where the US has been politically/militarily meddling, on behalf of our own economic interests, since Teddy Roosevelt's time. Ask the Chileans, who saw the rise to power of murderous dictator Augusto Pinochet on September 11, 1973, in a military coup supported by the US government. Ask the Iraqis, who's former dictator Saddam Hussein, was supported by the US against the Ayatollah Khomeini … only to have us charge in and take over years later, when Saddam no longer served our interests. In almost any case where we claim to initiate military action on behalf of "human rights," look just a bit under the surface to find our economic interests at play. We did nothing when the "evil communist" Chinese invaded Tibet, and took over power in 1951 (at very nearly the height of anti-Communist paranoia here at home). We stood by idly while Rwandan Hutus massacred hundreds of thousands of their Tutsi countrymen. And what of East Timor, and other Indonesian government misdeeds? Hell, we didn't even get into WWII until very nearly the end, despite reliable information about Hitler's genocidal tendencies.
This particular delusion is perhaps the most destructive, on a global scale. It seems all the US government has to do is claim a human rights abuse against our Enemy Du Jour™, and the US public rallies behind it. Thanks to the public school system offering virtually no coverage of international history and politics, and the US news media doing no better, many Americans simply don't realize what opportunistic, shameless, bloodthirsty hypocrites their government is actually being.
- America is a tolerant, welcoming, cultural "melting pot" society. Sure, we learn all the general dates when new waves of immigrants came to the US. We learn where these groups of immigrants settled. We learn about Chinese immigrants being subjected to slave labor working conditions on Western railroad construction (or at least we did when I was in school). But what we don't learn? That every new wave of immigrants was treated as a unique, dirty, almost sub-human threat to the greatness of our fledgling nation. Every. Single. One. The Italians were supersitious, Catholic (read: suspiciously idolatrous) sleazeballs. The Irish were worthless, uneducated drunk thugs. The Chinese were subhuman opium-dealing aliens. Japanese Americans were thrown into internment camps during WWII. Native American tribal languages are dying out. A high school in Mississippi held its first interracial prom ever just last week. And so on and so forth.
Modern day effects? The Mexicans. Without whom much of the hotel industry in the contiguous United States would collapse. Without whom the agricultural industry would probably have to raise prices beyond the reach of the average American family. But THEY are going to be the downfall of this great "melting pot" of a nation. Legal (and not so legal) persecution of unofficial Mexican immigrants is fully supported by a great many people. They're stealing our jobs! Just like the Irish did! And the Italians! And the Eastern Europeans! Guess what, you pathetic bigoted prissy white assholes: Everyone but the Native Americans are fucking immigrants here. Just because you came on a boat, instead of hiking through the desert doesn't make you a higher class of human being.
- Supply and Demand are the only regulations the world of commerce requires. Adam Smith wrote his theories long before today's multinational corporate economies came into being. Hell, Wealth of Nations was written before the fucking Industrial Revolution entirely changed the face of commerce and society. And yet, if and when US public school students reach a level in their studies when anything resembling economics comes into play, the whole idea of free-market capitalism, and the "invisible hand" that supposedly regulates it, is held up as an unquestioned ideal. While I have no doubt his theories might have been sound in smaller, locally centered economic circumstances, where the general public has free and easy access to environmental and human rights information, poor Mr. Smith wasn't psychic enough to predict the faceless, depersonalized, media controlling, profit-before-all-else behemoths that are modern, publicly traded corporations.
Repercussions? Here are a few phrases for you to Google, if you think the world would be better off if business were unregulated:
- Worker safety regulation:
-
"Triangle Shirtwaist Company"
-
Agent Orange
-
"19th century" "factory workers"
- Environmental Protection:
-
"Union Carbide" Bhopal
-
PG&E "hexavalent chromium"
-
"industrial revolution" London smog
- Multinationalism:
-
Rubbermaid bankruptcy Wal-Mart
-
NAFTA "US wages"
-
Southeast Asia "child labor"
- Consumer safety:
-
"tobacco industry" hidden research
-
Thalidomide "morning sickness"
-
"automotive safety" history
Of course, I could go on … and on and on and on. When it comes down to it, I firmly believe the only people who could ever support an unregulated business sector are either so blinded by their own pollyanna ideals of human good nature they can't see past the nose on their face well enough to read the newspaper, or they're stright up ruthless, selfish, short-sighted greedy cunts of the highest order.
- America is unique in the history of the world. This is really the root attitude of this whole list. It's known as "American Exceptionalism". The notion that the US is unique in all the history of the world … and therefore need not heed the warnings provided by any other nation's history. We do not need to make note of the fall of every other imperialist nation's empire-building efforts, because we do not fully occupy and govern the nations with which we meddle. We do not need to make note of every other Western nation's struggle with class division issues, or their resultant social service and health care policies, because we never had a monarchy. We don't have to listen to the lessons of global military history, because we have the highest-tech most kick-ass military establishment the world has ever known. We can ignore the failures of mixing religion and government because … ummm … because … well … we just know better, because God is on Our Side.
The impact of this delusion? We are the spoiled, knowitall, teenage brats of global politics. Get a fucking clue, people: every single nation on Earth has a unique history. Every one has a unique indigenous culture (most of which have been all but wiped out). Every country and every people has historical accomplishments to be proud of. And every region on earth has suffered through at least one nation with pretenses of world domination. American exceptionalism is a crock of shit, and US schools ought to teach history accordingly.
Don't agree with the first one though. America IS a christian nation. Its not the constitution, that makes U.S. a christian nation, its how the people feel about religion in their lives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States
17th June 2008 at 12:54 am | permalink |You know what… if you ever want to leave the U.S. I'm sure "we", the rest of the world, will welcome you to "this side". :-P :-)
17th June 2008 at 1:02 am | permalink |@an athiest: Culturally? Sure, the US has one of (if not the) highest percentage of regular churchgoers in the world. However, that does NOT in any way, shape or form make it acceptable for them to try and ensconce their religious beliefs in our government. Freedom to practice one's chosen religion (or lack thereof) is all the 'special treatment' Christians or anyone else should be getting in this country.
@JS: hehe … well, when I've traveled, all of "You" have been very welcoming so far. ;-)
17th June 2008 at 1:15 am | permalink |I am so tempted to link to this post from my blog again. As it stands, I'll be printing this out and sharing it whenever I can.
17th June 2008 at 5:12 am | permalink |@ Alpha: The U.S. supported Saddam Hussein against the Ayatollah Khomeni, not the Shah of Iran. Khomeni was the leader of the fundamentalist Muslim students that overthrew the Shah of Iran (forcing him to abdicate to the U.S.) and ultimately overran the U.S. embassy in 1979 and took U.S. diplomats and Marines hostage.
U.S. support included chemical and biological weapons that Saddam ultimately used against the Iranians in a battle at the al Faw peninsula and against a Kurdish uprising in Halabja.
17th June 2008 at 6:45 am | permalink |A fair perspective, from this side of the pond anyway!
17th June 2008 at 7:17 am | permalink |Great post.
I have been trying to explain to people for years that the free market can't work because the fundamental assumptions of free market economics don't hold in the real world (see http://thewaronbullshit.com/2008/06/05/free_market_cant_work/). It should be obvious, for instance, that we don't have perfect competition. But nobody gets it. How can people who have no training in science or economics be so sure the free market works?
Which brings me to something else they don't teach in school: Skepticism.
17th June 2008 at 10:59 am | permalink |@Becca: Duly edited. *cringe* Did I mention that US public schools don't teach history worth a damn? ;-) (and I'm just terrible with names too … hehehe)
17th June 2008 at 11:00 am | permalink |I really laughed my fucking ass off at the little "TM" after "Enemy du Jour"!
17th June 2008 at 11:51 am | permalink |@Sage: Feel free to link as often as you like. ;-)
@Kavan: And beyond the shortcomings you mention in your post, and a bit beyond the specific 'free market' issue, the whole stock market expectation of constant growth is utterly physically impossible to maintain in a finite world. Why the hell don't publicly traded companies get rewarded for maintaining sustainable equilibrium over the long term?
Ah, skepticism … yes, I do love me some skepticism. ;-)
@pedro: I think news stories about the US's latest sabre-rattling campaign should totally be headlined with that … Right now we could be using "Enemy Du Jour™: Iran"
17th June 2008 at 12:28 pm | permalink |@ Alpha: I learned about al Faw in school, but not a regular school–they taught us that in our Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) Weapons training. Wanna know the symptomology and proper decontamination routine/chemicals for various types of nerve gas? :-)
17th June 2008 at 12:34 pm | permalink |@Becca: If I vacation in the middle east any time soon, I'll definitely ask you about that. ;-)
Did I ever mention the molecular chemist I met in a strip club once, who was working on DOD contract to develop a molecule that would fluoresce in the presence of nerve gas? No shit. You meet all kinds, in the strangest places. heh
17th June 2008 at 12:41 pm | permalink |Im Latvian here, and I think that Americas schools are not the best, as many people have stereotypes about America that its center of the world and intelligence.
I know many people from my previous school who moved to USA to study there after 9th grade and few ones got into 11th grade already in the start and others were the smartest in the class.
About countries having unique history. Yes, maybe from Russian and Americas view is that there were only few sides in WWI - Eastern and Western, and in WWII- Axis powers and Allies.
For those who still doubts small country history:
I advice to watch only 85 minutes long movie about Soviets and NAZIS cooperation, Lenins and Hitler friendship, NKVD/KGB parades along with Waffen SS.
Movie is new, 2008th year, based on facts, secret documents, known english, france, russian, europes historian comments, with WWII Deportation and hollocaust victims.
Movies name is: The Soviet Story
http://www.sovietstory.com
if someone have free time - its best historycal movie about Europe and Russias part in NAZI Europe progress, and why it was needed to USSR.
/Kriitinjsh
17th June 2008 at 1:03 pm | permalink |Alpha!? You met a molecular chemist in a strip club???
17th June 2008 at 1:42 pm | permalink |…of course America is fucked up… it's founders wore powdered wigs, velvet knickers and lace collars and cuffs!!! LMFAO
@kriitinjsh: I'll have to download that … I must say, any sort of balanced view of Soviet history is pretty much absent from the average US school curriculum too. :-) (Oh, damn. It's not downloadable from that site … I'm not sure getting a copy just for myself is what they have in mind with their "publicity and distribution" email address either …)
@Pedro: You meet the strangest collection of people in those places, really … but as for the US Founders, I think that sort of style was in fashion in most of Europe at the time as well. ;-)
17th June 2008 at 4:33 pm | permalink |@alpha - "So what difference does this little delusion make in today's society? Well, ask any teen girl who got pregnant, because the only information she got about birth control was from an "abstinence only" sex-ed program … where all you learn is how often birth control fails, never mind how to use it properly, because premarital sex is a sin."
I believe the NEA actually advocates a comprehensive sex-ed course which would and does cover (to varying degrees)puberty, abstinence, STDs, birth control, sexual orientation, sexual abuse, and in some cases abortion rights. The problem is our government only supports a abstinence only program. When I say support, I really mean finance. Our government allocates millions of dollars every year for sex-ed; however, only the schools teaching abstinence only courses are eligible. Many schools/states have opted out of federal funding in favor of a comprehensive program.
Then you have the issue of whether or not the state should be involved in teaching children sex-ed. Some would argue it's the parents right/responsibility to teach sexual mores to their kids. That would be fine if all parents were responsible or educated enough to do so.
On the topics of "The US military is unbeatable" and "The US always supports human rights & democracy".
I imagine the slant on the US and it's involvement/success in past/current wars will vary from teacher to teacher. I personally was taught both Vietnam and Korean wars were clusters fucks and essentially consider a loss. To this day opinions differ depending on who you ask.
On the human rights/democracy issue I agree "the US has been politically/militarily meddling, on behalf of our own economic interests." I would have to say that also plays a big role in our success/failure in past/present wars. It appears that politics and hidden agendas play a significant role in our tactical strategies.
Nice post! Thanks
17th June 2008 at 4:58 pm | permalink |I should also add this was not taught in any of my schools. - "the US has been politically/militarily meddling, on behalf of our own economic interests." I would have to say that also plays a big role in our success/failure in past/present wars. It appears that politics and hidden agendas play a significant role in our tactical strategies.
17th June 2008 at 5:02 pm | permalink |Oops, that should read "tactics/strategies"
17th June 2008 at 5:58 pm | permalink |When we were preparing for this second war back in the beginning of 2003, one of the Pythons, either Eric Idle or John Cleese wrote a brilliant editorial in the UK Register, and aside from calling Tony Blair "Bush's Bitch," which I found uproariously funny, he also spent the rest of the article justifying the following point: America isn't the greatest country in the world. It's better than some, not as good as others. Just as everyone does certain things well and is deficient in others. I remember spending a few months in Europe and getting the same perspective. Not every country in the world that isn't America is backwards and impoverished.
That doesn't mean I want to leave, nor should it, it just means I recognize other countries have some strengths we lack.
And by the way, going back to point #1 of your post, one of my pet-peeves lately is the statement that we're a country founded on the values of our Christian forefathers. They were Diests. The fundamental principle there was that God exists, but is irrelevant. Man has the ability to make up their own minds, follow their own fates, and create their own laws. Kind of anti-everything the conservative right is saying.
17th June 2008 at 6:11 pm | permalink |I LOVE This!
17th June 2008 at 7:45 pm | permalink |Have been an exchange student in the Bible Belt Area with a SUPER Christian family in 2001 (YES! 911 all the way) and experienced ALL of this myself. I am so happy that people from the US share this opinion.
People thought my European take on things was to edgy, but as you say: sceptisism is too importang to not be taught.
@Rick, re Sex Ed.: Y'know, what burns me about the federal funding issue is this: All it does is ensure lower-income areas, where parents tend to be less educated and therefore less able to teach their kids things they need to know, end up stuck with the bullshit abstinence programs, while affluent well-educated folks send their kids to school who can afford to tell BushCo® to fuck off.
Then, the conservatives scream about abortions and what leeches poor single mothers are … when THEY'RE the ass monkeys who ensured the girls didn't know how the fuck to use birth control in the first place. The hypocrisy is abso-fucking-lutely mind-boggling.
Sex Ed should be treated as a public health issue, as well as a budgetary issue. Between STD treatment, neonatal care for infants whose uninsured, uneducated, low-income parents didn't get proper prenatal care, to the public services to take care of the kids as they grow up, contraceptive education and condom distribution is the only morally and fiscally responsible way to deal with it.
Re Vietnam/Korea in schools: I'm impressed! I mostly learned about Vietnam from my parents and PBS …
@Elie: It's kind of a sad statement about our society when the overwhelming response to a realistic assessment of your birth nation is to tell you to leave, isn't it? I mean, how the fuck are we supposed to improve anything, if we can't even discuss the problems that need fixing?! "The first step is admitting you have a problem …" hehehe
And I think I recall reading the piece you're referring to … I'll have to look it up, and make sure.
@Euro: Oh my lord, am I ever glad I wasn't where you were on 9/11 … whew. I don't think I would have survived the wave of ignorant outrage. You know how they say overexposure to something can cause you to develop a fatal allergy to it?
I would have gone into anaphylactic shock. You're lucky you don't suffer overexposure over in Europe. ;-)
17th June 2008 at 8:26 pm | permalink |It's odd how those who bash abortion as a mortal sin (burn in hell you baby killing bastard!) tend to support the death penalty. I'm pretty sure "Thou shalt not kill" wasn't qualified with "unless you really don't like them."
Another point worth mentioning in terms of people actually having a fucking clue about US meddling abroad, is that it would make it a lot harder for people to get away with 'Ay-rabs hate us because we're free'. Eg: "No, 'Ay-rabs' hate you because you've been propping up Israel so they can kill civilians at will, because you've played countless Arab nations off against each other, and generally treated the Middle East as a personal stomping/pissing ground. Oh, and the million+ civilian death toll in Iraq probably doesn't help either." Which would likely lead to a whole lot less dipshittery from the US, which would stop pissing off so many people, which would limit the pool of rage-filled psychos willing to blow themselves up, which would - shock horror - make the world a safer place.
But making the world a safer place isn't what it's about is it? What's important is the continuation of a social order that keeps the plebs in line with the specter of Islam, or communism, or universal healthcare (ooooooo, scary), so the ruling class can continue to suck them dry at will.
Hell, I'd be happy if everyone read (and actually understood) 1984.
17th June 2008 at 10:42 pm | permalink |Try to get it from thepiratebay.com or monova.com.
Its only documental move I have really enjoyed, because other ones ar boring and silly with stupid facts :/
18th June 2008 at 5:35 am | permalink |Great post!
This is in response to:
"Every country and every people has historical accomplishments to be proud of"
Perhaps it's a local flavor, Puerto Ricans seem so proud to be Boricua. The week leading up to Puerto Rico Day bears witness to these proud individuals with their flags on their cars, music blaring and being all boisterous. That's all fine and dandy. BUT, what are they proud of? Someone once remarked "Ricky Martin".
18th June 2008 at 8:14 am | permalink |@grimbles: "… it would make it a lot harder for people to get away with 'Ay-rabs hate us because we're free'." Good point! Thanks for bringing that up … I'm a bit embarrassed I didn't put that in. ;-)
"But making the world a safer place isn't what it's about is it?" After many years of observation and thought on the general subject of government policy, I would have to give that an unqualified "FUCK NO".
And yeah, I'd like to see 1984 as required reading in a new required "philosophy of government" course in every US high school.
@kriitinjsh: I did find it elsewhere. :-) But of course, I'm not encouraging any kind of horrible, illegal, amoral [whisper]copyright infringement[/whisper] or anything. Heavens no!
@New Yawker: They might have Ricky Martin … but we have Vanilla Ice, The Church of Scientology, Potted Meat Food Product and George W. Bush. I still think they're ahead. ;-)
18th June 2008 at 9:14 am | permalink |Puerto Rico is actually New Fucking Jersey with palm trees. K-marts and Burger-fucking-Kings and KFC's everywhere. There are actually MORE Puerto Ricans in New York City than in Puerto Rico!!! and,, they are really Americans, and good citizens.
18th June 2008 at 12:22 pm | permalink |One time, in a bar in isla Verde, Puerto Rico, I asked the waitreess(in English) for a Heiniken Dark,, she was insulant,, and told me, in Spanish, she didnt speak English and could not help me. Well. being from Peru, I understood her perfectly, but, I was NOT in the mood for her bullshit. I said (in perfect English), "awww, too bad, I was going to leave you a $10 tip. Since you don't understand me. I will go to the Howard Johnson's and have a dark Heiniken there",,! She responded.. "O ha, I was just kidding, I speak perfect English!". She did bring me a beer and I left her a dime. ,, my point is,, Puerto Requennos are Americans too. :-)
@awesome alpha Bee
18th June 2008 at 12:49 pm | permalink |You're so right, they have it made. The island is under U.S. protection from the Dominicans, the Cubans, the Bahamians, the Bermudans and all the other Carribean putos. Still, can anyone tell me what being Puerto Rican means and why one should be so damn proud?
…recently, I read, and I do NOT have the source at hand, that there are at LEAST 2 million illegal Peruanos in the United States. I just wonder,,hmmm, how many American citizens are here in Peru illegally?? Hmm. Yes, "America aint perfect, but why do so many from ALL OVER the World want to be there?? I also read the stats about illegals from the EU in the USA, I was amazed. Something in America must be attracting so many people there? Is it the hamburgers???
18th June 2008 at 1:09 pm | permalink |I just sugested, because I dont know laws of America, but in here we are criminals if use something like torrents or DC++
18th June 2008 at 1:11 pm | permalink |@kriitinjsh - perspective is everything - the more angles you can have on a subject the greater your understanding of that subject becomes. - I too am going to download that movie (is it in English or have subtitles?)
[quote]Which brings me to something else they don't teach in school: Skepticism.[/quote]
No society would ever teach scepticism - not good for its continuation. Every society has been built on engendering belief in its subjects - whatever that belief maybe, scepticism is bad for business.
18th June 2008 at 6:13 pm | permalink |I'd consider that slightly too sceptical. Unless you mean no *extant* society, not 'no possible society ever'. Scepticism is only dangerous to a social order that is based on lies. A well governed society, where the interests of all are addressed, not just the few, would have nothing to fear from people thinking for themselves.
I believe slowly increasing levels of scepticism amongst the public is what will actually lead to the genesis of such societies: there will come a point where other societies simply cannot survive the scrutiny.
That's not to say that such dreams couldn't be derailed or co-opted by certain bastards, but it's definitely not impossible.
18th June 2008 at 6:28 pm | permalink |Okay my thinking may be a little too sceptical for you - I do certainly mean 'no extant society' not 'no possible society'.
However I would say that in any 'governed' society scepticism would not be taught as it would be dangerous.
[quote]I believe slowly increasing levels of scepticism amongst the public is what will actually lead to the genesis of such societies: there will come a point where other societies simply cannot survive the scrutiny.[/quote]
Or more likely the genesis of societies where scepticism is considered heretical and persecuted at every opportunity as it is at the moment.
18th June 2008 at 6:52 pm | permalink |"That's not to say that such dreams couldn't be derailed or co-opted by certain bastards, but it's definitely not impossible."
Also, I'd say scepticism is probably a lot more widespread now than 100 years ago, 200, 500… (some) People question the church, the government, and for the most part in the west, don't get killed for it.
You're right, it could go either way, but we're really at the only point where *stopping* scepticism is going to require an undertaking akin to genocide in scope and determination. It's difficult (impossible even?) for the Chinese government to stamp out dissent, do your really think western democracies would have an easier time of it?
As for any 'governed' society, it really does depend on your definition of governed. If you assume that government inherently means deceit, then yes, scepticism would never be endorsed by a 'government'. But I honestly don't think lies are necessarily inherent in government. It is *easier* to govern with half truths, to be Machiavellian, but I don't believe that it is impossible to govern otherwise.
18th June 2008 at 9:19 pm | permalink |@Ian
The movie is made by Latvian with help of Europe and movie itself is in English with Latvian subtitles. Movies author worked and studied 10 years with this theme, collected documents and everything about this theme and now movie is ready. :)
19th June 2008 at 1:50 am | permalink |Yep. You nailed it again, as usual !!
19th June 2008 at 3:46 am | permalink |[quote]As for any 'governed' society, it really does depend on your definition of governed.[/quote]
I personally describle 'governed' as any society with a heirarchical system of leadership.
[quote]But I honestly don't think lies are necessarily inherent in government. It is *easier* to govern with half truths, to be Machiavellian, but I don't believe that it is impossible to govern otherwise.[/quote]
I don't believe it is impossible to govern otherwise either - but that still does not imply that said government would not suppress scepticism. In fact it may lead to even more vigorous suppression of scepticism - as someone who knows that they are telling the truth and are right could be even more intolerent of sceptics who are 'obviously' wrong.
It is all to do with the fact that truth is relative. For example if we have a dead body and two witnesses to a the death.
Witness 1 says I saw a man point a gun at the dead man and I saw the man clutch his chest and fall to the ground but I didn't hear a thing.
Witness 2 says I heard a loud bang and then I heard the victim fall to the ground but I didn't see the event.
There are scenarios where both the above witnesses tell the truth but the victim was not shot.
And you should always beware when someone tells you something is obviously 'true' in many cases it is the statement of someone who has just fallen back on their belief system to justify their actions.
19th June 2008 at 1:52 pm | permalink |What it implies is that there would be no *need* to suppress scepticism. Someone might choose to do it anyway, but as you said, it's 'might' or 'may'. Which seems to be in contrast to the claim that "in any 'governed' society scepticism would not be taught as it would be dangerous." Scpeticism is only dangerous for a leader with something to hide, who doesn't have the best interests of the people at heart. Perhaps it would bother such a person that people were sceptical, but it's fairly unlikely that someone who was *good* enough to care about good government rather than government for its own sake would suddenly feel the need to repress independent thought.
I'll concede that a straight up disbelief in anything the government says is not something that would be promoted, but that's not what scepticism is. It's openness to the possibility that things are not as they appear, and a desire to have a better understanding. Being 'truly' sceptical of honesty doesn't do anything but give you a better understanding of the issue. If there's nothing to hide, a (non paranoid, but that's a different story) sceptic will determine there's no need to be distrustful about a certain topic. Everyone being sceptical would tend to mean everyone having a fuller understanding of issues, which would generally lead to a better society.
The danger of scepticism is not to hierarchies and government structure, but rather to the abuse of them. If they're not being abused, there's nothing to fear, and someone who was looking to build a society with less tolerance for such abuses would encourage scepticism as a counterbalance. A benevelont dictator would have no problems with sceptecism - in fact many Greek tyrants (in the classical sense) loved it -, as the only reason democracy is preferred to dictatorship is that it has a tendency toward less abuses of power. (Not that I'm suggesting dictatorships as being a good idea, since the impact of an idiot in charge is far worse than in a democracy).
19th June 2008 at 7:01 pm | permalink |Hi. Could we have one of you for the UK too?…
20th June 2008 at 6:07 am | permalink |@ Becca: I went to private schools for most of my life, and I have never heard of al faw or any other use of NBC weapons in any war other than WWII. That includes three years of Jesuit HS… (Jesuits are famous for their exceptional education programs, when [atheist] china was setting up their school systems, they had Jesuits come in to do it… or so I've been told)
@alpha: I've been reading your site for a little while now, and thus far, I've not read anything I disagree with. What does that say about me though…
29th June 2008 at 7:51 am | permalink |@ Alpha: "Y'know, what burns me about the federal funding issue is this: All it does is ensure lower-income areas, where parents tend to be less educated and therefore less able to teach their kids things they need to know, end up stuck with the bullshit abstinence programs, while affluent well-educated folks send their kids to school who can afford to tell BushCo® to fuck off."
But this ensures a steady stream of ignorant blue collar people who will vote republican…
The same with abortion. For every poor single mother who has an abortion, thats one undereducated ignorant fuck who will work in fast food and vote republican eighteen years in the future
well, probably more than eighteen years, from personal experience, my observations have led me to believe that blue collar raised people tend to start voting at a later age and or take less pride in voting than those raised in a white collar family. Case in point: my father was raised in a blue collar family, he didn't start voting at eighteen; my mother and myself were both brought up in a white collar environment, and we both started voting at eighteen.
@ grimbles: "Hell, I'd be happy if everyone read (and actually understood) 1984."
I've been meaning to read that… Haven't found the time to yet, and missed reading it in school.
29th June 2008 at 8:21 am | permalink |It wasn't on my booklist at school, I just read it. I think in religion class… I went to a Christian private school, and loved fucking with the religion teacher. Yr 8, i did a bit of work. From 9-11, I did basically none. I think he was kinda scared of he, which was funny as hell.
And yeah, the school I attended is regarded as the best in the state, but any 'history' that didn't toe the line wasn't included. I quit my history class because I got sick of my history teacher being a complete idiot. He mastered in the French Revolution, but couldn't pronounce Versailles >.> Also because when we were doing modern history he didn't want to admit that 'the good guys' could ever do anything wrong.
Possibly not as applicable given I grew up in Aus, but I've always wanted to vote. And I'm not really sure what 'collar' my family would count as. Not blue collar, but too poor to really count as white collar. I'll go with 'clerical collar' since both my parents are clergy (which is how I got to the good school when we were piss poor). Then again, that probably had a lot to do with my understanding of social justice and such.
30th June 2008 at 12:21 am | permalink |@Pedro: "… my point is,, Puerto Requennos are Americans too."
Oh, humans are humans no matter where you go. If you took an infant from any nation on earth, and raised it in another culture, the kid would grow up adapted to the culture they were raised in.
The sad thing is that corporate culture is starting to become the worldwide default, and I think a lot of what is seen as "American" cultural garbage is actually corporate cultural garbage.
@New Yawker: "… can anyone tell me what being Puerto Rican means and why one should be so damn proud?"
Eh. Same reason anyone's proud of anything that they're not personally responsible for. :-) It gives people a sense of self-worth to associate themselves with a larger community.
@kriitinjsh: "… here we are criminals if use something like torrents or DC++"
Same here, for the most part.
@Ian: "No society would ever teach scepticism - not good for its continuation. Every society has been built on engendering belief in its subjects"
Yup. So long as the folks with the most influence stand to lose their power and money if/when the general populace figures out what's going on, they'll do their damndest to keep that from happening. A society that questions nothing is most easily used.
@grimbles: "… it's fairly unlikely that someone who was *good* enough to care about good government rather than government for its own sake would suddenly feel the need to repress independent thought."
Assuming such a person didn't become less good the longer they had the power that being the head of a government usually confers … which is why I tend to agree with Iain about any "governed" society, meaning any hierarchical form of leadership.
@jamo: "Could we have one of you for the UK too?…" I'd be happy to work out some kind of time-share/dual-citizenship arrangement. ;-)
@grizzly: "… I've not read anything I disagree with. What does that say about me though…"
It says nothing good, I'm sure … hehehe
"But this ensures a steady stream of ignorant blue collar people who will vote republican…"
Very true. The Democrats used to have working class folks in the bag … it's really rather impressive (from a strategic standpoint), the way the Repubs have convinced so many lower income people to vote 100% against their own self-interest.
@grimbles: "… but any 'history' that didn't toe the line wasn't included."
30th June 2008 at 4:48 pm | permalink |Yeah, that's definitely not a solely US phenomenon … but all in all, people I've met from elsewhere seem to have gotten a more complete "correct" version of history than the US public school survivors I've met.
@ab: "Yup. So long as the folks with the most influence stand to lose their power and money if/when the general populace figures out what's going on, they'll do their damndest to keep that from happening. A society that questions nothing is most easily used"
I agree with this. What I'm contending is the idea that all governed societies would inherently have something to hide. I would accept many, even most, but not any.
Mostly I find the presentation of "in any 'governed' society scepticism would not be taught as it would be dangerous" - a truth statement - to be just slightly ironic in a discussion of scepticism =p
30th June 2008 at 7:24 pm | permalink |@grimbles: Well, I think human nature tends to lead to corruption in any situation of power. :-\
I'd like to see a government created from the start in such a way that they *couldn't* legally hide things. But I'm sure that sort of constitution would get amended really fucking quick. ;-)
1st July 2008 at 4:47 pm | permalink |