Why Don't More Colleges Teach Military History

[force scout]

Hi Guys

Have worked in the hallowed halls of academia I believe that I might add a small window of insight to the discussion.

As much as I hate to admit a Marine has added a very brilliant observatation to the discussion I must say that Brig is a very intelligent lad. The very fact that the insane are running the institute is obvious in this instance. The Halls of Higher education is without question an ivory tower where reality is rarely ever a concern to the poobas. Theory is everything. In theory we can solve all of mankinds problems. All you have to do is convince the great uneducated and unwashed masses is that the genius of theory should reign. Hey that sounds great. ?????BUT WHO ARE THE GENIUSES EXTRAPOLATING THIS THEORY????? At present they are the ones that hid out in college to avoid the draft in the 60's and early 70's. Addmitedly so they are very intelligent. Their ploy of staying in school 6 to 8 years and earning graduate masters and post graduate PHD's and and other alphabet degrees was successful. The war was pretty much over by the time they finished. The well educated really had a problem associating with the wave of Veterans coming back to school on the GI bill and really did not want to interact with same. So what happened guys let their hair grow long, smoked dope and partied with the geniuses and spoke little about their past service to avoid the instant argument that that fact would cause. Nobody likes being called a motherf*ckin babykiller, a pig, a brainwashed zombie, etc., etc., etc.. The split tails were adamently against any show of macho testorone based daring do and being a veteran was the epitomy of same. Everybody wants to get laid so you didn't talk about military service or you went over to the dark side and preached against everything you believed and were just to be popular. (To get laid) The 70's and early 80's were not a good time to be a vet. A synopsis of what I observed during that period.

The good thing about being part Native American and from a western background my own personal culture told me different. My case was even a little harder in that I was a Vietnam vet in the Art Department. That was a real rush. ( using the vernacular of the times) There were times that my unabashed patriotism and refusal to believe that everything I and my fellow military personell of the time did was a war crime made them apoplectic. I was the sinner the preacher just couldn't get to the alter and it dumfounded the others. Therefore I was the department a$$hole. Anytime any discussion about the war occured My Lai inevitably came up. Well Hell. I wasn't part of that and never knew anybody that was. I can't say why they did it but it damn sure wasn't me. I do understand the frustration of fghting an invisable enemy but I could never gun down unarmed women, kids and old folks. It puts me to much in mind of my Indian grandmothers peoples history. If I thought someone was an enemy combatant I would turn them into a maggot farm in an instant. That very fact got me labeled as a physcopathic monster to be very afraid of. The biggest problem that really pissed off the rest of the faculty was that students liked my classes and they were always full the first 3 hours after early enrollment was opened. I was always realistic about my thoughts and did not bullsh*t the students about their chances in their fields of endevor. I told them it takes 6 months to 2 years to find a job in their chosen fields and you will start at the bottom unless daddy owns the company.

What this rambling rant comes back to is that reality scares the sh*t out of the folks living and teaching in their Ivory towers. War is as real as it gets.The smell of a torn up body can be overpowering but you can get used to it. Not a pleasent memory but you can live with it. Military history is about reality. What caused it and what the reprecussions of same are. Living and teaching in an Ivory tower and being of a generation of antiwar folks has much to do with the demise of military history as a relevant subject. That is until other wars start AND THEY ALWAYS WILL you need to know and understand what is and will really happen. " REALITY " It scares the hell out of those in a theoritical world.

Being a highly educated individual I can't say these are the thoughts of an old fart but these are the musings of aged flatulence.

The Old Okie

Steve

Just like to say I believe Steve has hit the nail on the head. It is my personal opinion that not only do to the reasons listed above, I think the academia dislike the fact that ordinary citizens can possess a knowledge base of warfare and the military which rivals their own knowledge of their chosen subjects. Warfare belongs to the common man, which they set themselves up above. I also believe since the biggest part of them avoided military service, they have an inferiority complex concerning their own lack of service and therefore wish to deride anything and everyone associated with military service. I believe they truely despise those of us of the "uneducated masses" having a claim to so important a subject and they can't take from us that claim despite the alphabet soup of degrees which they believe entails THEM to decide what is worthy of education and that which should be left off the curriculum. This is just my opinion, but I guess we just need to tell them "NUTS"!

[Brig]

I think we need to remind them why they're free to teach what they choose, rather than Nazi propaganda...

 

my father has a shirt that says 'My son fought in Iraq so yours could party in college'. he gets a lot of glares over that

[Championhilz]

I think it all depends on which college you attend. I received my BA in history from Mississippi State University, which offered a number of military related courses: I was fortunate enough to have Dr. John Marzalek teach me Civil War History; he wrote what many consider the definitive biography of General William T. Sherman. I also had D. Clayton James, who wrote a three-volume biography of General Douglas MacArthur.

 

I attended Mississippi College for my Master's and my thesis was a regimental history of the 38th Mississippi Infantry, CSA. Not only did the college support my work, they paid my way to Washington D.C. for a week to do research at the National Archives for my thesis.

[Bluehawk]

If any of them actually studied academic military history, then they'd have to drastically alter their departmental philosophies, premises and propaganda.

 

They wouldn't get half as many applicants from and scholarship funding for "disadvantaged underserved minorities."

[mdk014]

I think I should have attended Mississippi State.

 

I think we need to remind them why they're free to teach what they choose, rather than Nazi propaganda...

 

my father has a shirt that says 'My son fought in Iraq so yours could party in college'. he gets a lot of glares over that

[Manchu Warrior]

I was a history major and my school had plenty of military history courses on the books and very good professors willing to teach them. However, there was one small problem. There were not enough students interested in history much less military history and after all education is big business. Just a little side note, if you want to see just how uninterested and uneducated Americans are in history I suggest you watch Jay Leno's "Jay Walking". I use to think it was funny now I shake my head and wonder about the future of this country.

[jpgrl]

My two cents worth is that military history just isn't a mainstream career choice, no matter how interesting everyone on the forum might think it is. I'm in school now, on the 15 year plan, majoring in American history w/ a minor in political science. There isn't a military history concentration at Kennesaw State, but there are enough classes offered with various military themes that I've managed to take quite a few. I think historians in general are a rare breed. That coupled with the unfortunate but widespread distaste for the military (especially apparent at KSU) makes military history a pretty unpopular field, even though the right professor's class will fill up almost immediately. Can you blame college freshman for wanting a more marketable degree like generic business that will give them the most opportunity? Not really...

 

Steph

[Mercenary25]

Colleges are always full of liberals.

 

At my college, my friend told me that he saw group of students protesting in front of Marine ROTC recruitment table at Student Living Center.

[normaninvasion]

I think liberalism has plays a part in why there is a lack of military history being taught, but I think there is a general lack of interest in history in general. I took two courses at Harvard some years ago strictly focusing on WW2. The first was devouted to Hitler's war. The second, the war in the pacific. The professor taught tatics, policy, and focused on major battles. Guiderian's Panzer Commander was on the the reading list! Really amazing courses. So it is out there, granted not common.

[Bluehawk]

I believe it would startle those unaware of it, the degree to which modern public libraries are decimating their history sections in favor of purchasing fiction, travel and How-To publications.

 

Simple fact is, as stated just above, the statistical use of history texts lags far far far behind that of fiction and novels in contemporary public libraries - a condition which was been gaining momentum at least since the 1980s.

 

Local public libraries rarely collect or preserve specimen volumes of history any more at all - indeed are happily selling them off every year (if not tossing them in the dumpster) at the annual book sale.

 

I know this from personal observation, having worked for a time in a large public library.

 

On the positive side, academia and universities do retain most of their special collections so far as I am aware.

[ww2_1943]

I guess I was luck. I had a Civil War class with Dr. Washburn, who could trace his family history to George Bush. He wrote several books on Elihu Washburn, who he is related to. Interesting class. I also had another teacher who was a ww2 reenactor. We got along very well. He would always bring military history up in all of his classes. He taught history and math. He used to show Triumph of the Will in his math class????

I will never forget my first history class in college. The professor stated up front that he was politically incorrect, would not use the term C.E. or B.C.E. and my favorite thing he said the first day of class was that after our final exam he would shake everyone of our hands and wish us each a Merry Christmas.

This was all at the County College of Morris.

When I was at Montclair State University I had a class on the Third Reich.

There was a class offered on WW2, but I was never able to take it. It was offered every other semester. There was also a class on the pacific war in the course book, but it was never offered during my time in school. That school was very liberal, but I got to know the right people. My best friends there were all ex military.

The most Liberal professor there was a Vietnam vet. He would throw that around anytime someone accused him of not being patriotic. This guy dam near calls for the overthrow of the government. Dr. Maxwell. He is an anthropology professor. He may be retired now.

[Sgt_Rock_EasyCo]

I agree with many of the comments. I think that our colleges and campuses are full of old Liberal Draft Dodger types, or at least full of Democratic Liberal Brainiac types. I believe that the lowest common denomonator is that they are not "A" personality types, and they have a natural jealousy of those that are "A" personalities; or at least people that do things that appear heroic like military service, athletes etc..

 

Likely many of these "Professors" were nerd types growing up and were made fun of most of their lives. As wrong as it is to make fun of others, the jocks and stoners were not necessarily nice to the "Honor roll crowd". So many of them pursued non "A" list type professions like become Professors and they teach based upon their dislike of people that get out and do things.

 

They are jealous and think that they know more than everyone else. After all, don't they have the power to make you agree with them??? Want a good grade or not? Now who's the bully?

 

Rock

[willysmb44]

Florida State University was a nastion of liberalism like many schools, but they did have several courses just on military history, including a very popular course on the history of WW2. I didn't take it because my major and minor had me at 15 hours a semester, on top of a full time job and Army ROTC...

[FW12]

I know I shouldn't rock the boat, but I am frankly surprised at the views expressed here. It's easy to take shots at academia, painting professors as draft-dodging, America-hating, "screw-you" commie pinkos. These kinds of ad hominem statements don't really answer the question of why colleges don't teach military history as much. It's a business decision, more or less. If students show the interest, a class will usually be created. But, as some other members here have suggested, the interest just isn't out there. That's a shame, but at least there are folks like us who are interested. And, for the record, I have had many honorable, decent professors. One is missing his left hand as a result of combat in Vietnam where he served as a Ranger. Folks are too concerned with all the "liberal propaganda" being spouted on campuses. Isn't free expression what the veterans of America fought for?

 

Beau

[Brig]

It's not free expression when it comes from a professor. He is considered an influential figurehead...the same reason public school teachers can't spout their religious or political views. The kids they instruct are young, impressionable, and easily influenced. To use your classroom as a venue to preach your views is, in my opinion, a shocking abuse of trust and power

 

I never said all professors spit liberal tree hugging garbage. Granted, I never went to college, but I've met many of my buddy's professors back when he was in school, and there were plenty of conservative ones as well, including some veterans. They're just not as loud

[Cobrahistorian]

Hey all,

 

Well, I've hesitated replying on this until now. Speaking as an Academic AND as a Soldier (I did ROTC and my PhD program concurrently, ROTC won out) I've got mixed feelings on the subject. Lets go back about seventeen years to my undergrad days.

 

College: SUNY Purchase - known "artsy fartsy" Liberal liberal arts college. Major: History, focusing on 20th Century Conflict.

 

I was one of just a few "military history" students. Had a decent time. Challenged professors on their opinions when I thought they were wrong and they welcomed it. One professor made the unequivocal statement that the "Soviets contributed more than any other nation to win WWII". I stood up and said "contributed more of their own body count, maybe, but that simply doesn't hold water. US production capacity is what allowed Soviet Russia to survive." Got a standing ovation from the three WWII vets in my class. There WAS a bigger focus on the part of faculty on "social history" even when talking about conflict. I took a WWII class and when it was over, I was still wondering if any battles had been fought from 1939-45!

 

Overall experience: Mediocre. Told I wasn't going to get anywhere in military history unless I was Stephen Ambrose (who they subsequently thumbed their nose at)

 

Grad School: Texas Tech University, definitely more conservative, but still a lot of "them damn Liberals" in faculty positions. Major: MA- Museum Science, PhD Military History

 

I had a mix of experiences. My Committee Chair was a 30 year Navy vet, 2 tours as an advisor on PBRs in Vietnam and was what I termed a moderate conservative. GREAT guy. We often had political discussions, since we just sat slightly on opposite sides of that dead-nuts-center line. Lots of fun. A few other professors in the History department were like-minded. Those of us in the Military History program (about 15 of us total) were of mixed opinions, but all had a love for the history, not our own agendas.

 

But this was also the university where I was discriminated against because I wore the uniform and because I was not ridiculously far left-wing. I sat down in a "US Constitutional History" class in BDUs on day 1. Without getting into too much detail, lets just say fifteen minutes into it, I packed my bag, walked out and dropped the class. US Constitutional History is US Constitutional History, not "and Gender Studies", taught by someone with a physically visible bias (made Rosie O'Donnell look feminine).

 

I think Manchu hit it on the head. If we want to see more military history taught in schools, we need to enroll and bring those numbers up. Most professors that I've seen welcome a student that questions their "perfect little world" and don't want to spoon-feed their opinions to students. If you're not questioning what's being said then you're sleeping through any good history program.

 

Jon

[m1ashooter]

I concur with all of the posts. I have a BA from West Virgina University. You know the guys who win NCAA championships not in football but in small bore rifle and whose mascot doesn't wear a animal costume of a panther but the skins of a deer and carries a long rifle that shoots. I had a great professor who as a young man was captured by the Nazi's and sent to a concentration camp "coal mine" in Poland simply because he was Jewish. I took every class I could from him including "The History of WW2". As an USAF ROTC cadet I was one of his favoiate students as well as he one of my favorate professors. Even then most of the profs were more interested in anything but military history.

[Cobrahistorian]

As a corollary to my previous post, we are also in the day and age where a PhD student can actually write a dissertation on the history of women's undergarments and it be considered a valid Doctoral thesis, while the detailed examination of the Battle of An Loc (my topic) is shrugged off as "spartan".

 

Oh well...

[aef1917]

As a corollary to my previous post, we are also in the day and age where a PhD student can actually write a dissertation on the history of women's undergarments and it be considered a valid Doctoral thesis, while the detailed examination of the Battle of An Loc (my topic) is shrugged off as "spartan".

 

Oh well...

 

Well, researching women's underwear sounds like a pretty decent way to spend grad school to me.

 

"All those Vargas pinups? Yeah, they're for my dissertation. Seriously."

[drmessimer]

Interesting article. Like to hear your views!

"Why Don't More Colleges Teach Military History?

Despite its enduring public appeal, and a country at war, the subject gets little respect on campus

By Justin Ewers

Posted April 3, 2008

Five years into the war in Iraq, military history seems to be experiencing a golden age. Hollywood has been cranking out war movies. Publishers have been lining bookstore shelves with new battle tomes, which consumers are eagerly lapping up. Even the critics have been enjoying themselves. Two of the last five Pulitzer Prizes in history were awarded to books about the American military. Four of the five Oscar nominees for best documentary this year were about warfare. Business, for military historians, is good.

 

 

Except, strangely enough, in academia. On college campuses, historians who study military institutions and the practice of war are watching their classrooms overflow and their books climb bestseller lists—but many say they are still struggling, as they have been for years, to win the respect of their fellow scholars. John Lynn, a professor of history at the University of Illinois, first described this paradox in a 1997 essay called "The Embattled Future of Academic Military History." The field, he wrote, with its emphasis on predominantly male combatants and its decidedly non-theoretical subject matter, "has always been something of a pariah in U.S. universities." For years, military historians have been accused by their colleagues of being, by turns, right wing, morally suspect, or, as Lynn puts it, "just plain dumb." Scholars who study D-Day or the Battle of Thermopylae may sell books and fill lecture halls, but they don't have much success with hiring committees.

 

This state of affairs, needless to say, vexes military historians to no end. As the Iraq war plods along, shackled to frequent—and often misleading—comparisons to Vietnam and World War II, scholars with a deep understanding of war would seem to be in high demand. But, at many prestigious schools, they are not. "Military history today is in the same curious position it has been in for decades: extremely popular with the American public at large, and relatively marginalized within professional academic circles," writes Robert Citino, a professor of history at Eastern Michigan University, in a recent issue of the American Historical Review, the flagship journal of the historical profession. "While military history dominates the airwaves...its academic footprint continues to shrink, and it has largely vanished from the curriculum of many of our elite universities."

 

CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE

 

(This thread has been edited in line with the forum policy of posting only excerpts from copyrighted articles)

This is a subject near and dear to my heart. I was a history professor at San Jose State University from 1984 to 2002. I am a military historian, and for a time I taught the history of United States Aviation, which was largely the history of the United States Air Force. When I went ot work at SJSU we had a well developed military history program, but it was already under fire from the left. In the time I was at SJSU I saw the AFROTC kicked off campus, and our military history program virtually evaporate. When I left in 2002 there was still a two-semester military history course offered and it was always full. SJSU still has the Burdick Military History Center and the annual military history symposium, but the university doesn't support them. The reasons for this have been accurately described in the previous posts, but I'll add my two cents. For the most part, universtity faculities are made of of very left-leaning people who are products of the American university system and often former social activists. For many reasons, too many to list here, we have entered a time of so-called "political correctness" in which being sensitive to the feelings of others is more important than social and political reality. Under political correctness, being sensitive and engaging in violence for any reason are mutually exclusive conditions. With that mind set, the military is reduced to the basic element of being violent and therefore not sensitive and not politically correct. Therefore, the academic senates and curriculum committees of most, if not all, universities, rule against providing courses that "encourage violence and glorify war." The thrust, in fact the direct order, is that each history course must "celebrate diversity," give equal or greater emphasis to women's and minority contributions to history," and avoid any topic that might be construed as "controversial" Controversial means anything that someone in the class would find objectionable. One of the left's major objections to teaching military history is that it "encourages nationalism and, therefore, jingoism." A thread that runs through all left wing intellectual thought is that we must expunge nationalism and adopt a one world society, thus eliminating the need for armies and war. That, briefly, is what I think is the reason that military history subjects have virtually disappeared from the universities. drmessimer

['Flage Guy]

Tremendous discussion and posts. Having observed and known personally many people involved in academia through the years (I'm 57), I'll say right off that there is more truth to Sgt-Rock-Easy-Co's post than some would care to admit. (By the way, Rock- 3 cheers for Joe Kubert ). I'm willing to bet that there would be a lot more youngsters interested in military history nowadays if such interest had been nurtured more at home; sadly, too many have been brought up by self-involved "forever-adolescent" parents, Leftist media and schools, and Oliver Stone-style versions of U.S. and military history. Also, it's interesting to note that the main thrust of Western Academia's "anti-military" sentiment is directed at the U.S. Military; this offers a huge insight into the main reasons as to why military history courses are so scant in the university system (why bother with "redneck baby-killer" G.I.s, when you can indulge in glamourizing Castroites, Viet Cong, P.L.O., etc.?). And as some have noted, when they are available, they are usually slanted Leftward, with the U.S. depicted as a bunch of "imperialists".

 

Cyrus the Great, prior to his invasion of the Median Kingdom, noted that decades of peace and luxury for the Medes had rendered their men "soft and effeminite", making them ripe for the picking. I believe that this is a big part of our own problem, and incrementally being made ignorant of our history has had a hefty price tag.

[Bluehawk]

... decades of peace and luxury for the Medes had rendered their men "soft and effeminite", making them ripe for the picking. I believe that this is a big part of our own problem, and incrementally being made ignorant of our history has had a hefty price tag.

Well stated.

[jgawne]

Having worked in higher ed all my life, I know some of the issues regarding this topic. I also know that when they do run such classes they tend to get maxed out. Sadly ever history opening today requires someone schooled in post colonialism, south american, women's, or (insert obscure subject) history.

 

 

IF your school has a military course in the catalog (meaning it has already been approved to run), go to the registrars office and ask them how many students need to be in a class for it to run. (don't even bring up the specifics at that time).

 

Now go and find people who would take that class if it was offerd. Have then sign a list saying they want to take that class and would sign up for it if it was offered.

 

Bring the list of people to the history department head (make an appointment first), and show them that if the class was offered there are more than the minimum number of students that would take it. This also works for adding second sections as well. If they blow you off, then make an appointment with the Dean, and make a pitch to him.

 

If they say they have no one to teach it, that's normallya cop out. There are a zillion out of work history people that would teach the section ina second to bring in some money and get more teaching experience.

[101CH47]

Fortunately some still do - http://www.msstate.edu/dept/history/mbarbier.htm

 

Sadly the school I graduated from in 1979, Ole Miss, no longer has a military history program. I find that rather ironic, since it was a military history class there prompted my life long interest in military history and a 26 year career in the military.

[T-Bone]

interesting to note that the main thrust of Western Academia's "anti-military" sentiment is directed at the U.S. Military... with the U.S. depicted as a bunch of "imperialists".

 

And THEY have the nerve to say Empire Builder like it is a bad thing!

 

I say annex Mexico, Manifest Destiny! Bully!

 

T- BONE

 

More like TR-Bone today.