Jump to content

Why Don't More Colleges Teach Military History


BEAST
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

 

We don't have to annex Mexico, Mexico is annexing us a little bit every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Sgt_Rock_EasyCo
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

 

What he said. I'm just an old grunt.

 

Rock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sgt_Rock_EasyCo
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 :lol: ). 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.

 

Amen to that.

 

Rock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 tactics, 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.

 

 

Was that at the extension school? The regular faculty debated this in the early 1990s. A significant and younger (mostly female portion of the history faculty declared that military history was "evil" in its substance and focus.

 

Because of the tenure system, things will stay this way until someone respected writes an essay about how blinkered historians cause policy problems.

 

By the way, i once had a strenuous argument with the Chair of the Department about reenacting. The history faculty all thought and think that reenactors are stupid, dorky (and that is the pot calling the kettle black) "small" 'amateurs' , one step above gas store attendants. Pointing out however that reenactors actually can change and significantly help interpret history (like Stuart reid did regarding the 1745 rebellion) is poo-poohed, because for many of the history elite, being 'popular" and "accessible" is not "good". It is intellectual elitism gone amok.

A great many of the baby-boomer academic historians I have known were personally, losers, people who would have been mediocre high school teachers at best and/or would have been lucky to be store managers in the 1940s.

A great many can't do much else but teach.

I reckon most regular folks will figure out over the next ten years that $50,000/year to attend a liberal arts college doesn't make financial sense. We'll see what happens then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Flage Guy
The regular faculty debated this in the early 1990s. A significant and younger (mostly female portion of the history faculty declared that military history was "evil" in its substance and focus.

 

Why am I not surprised at that? A true textbook example of how idiotic and childish too many of our so-called "academics" really are... :pinch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

normaninvasion

Was that at the extension school? The regular faculty debated this in the early 1990s. A significant and younger (mostly female portion of the history faculty declared that military history was "evil" in its substance and focus.

 

It was at the extension school. Interesting note on the regular facultys view, doesn't suprise me. Dispite overwhelming liberal viewpoints in academia. I still feel that there is a total lack of interest in basic history on lower levels. Do to the fact that America is lagging behind other countries in math and science this is more focus on these subjects in lower education, history takes a back seat and many take this view into later life. I would like to believe that if there was more interest in history, there would be more demand for higher level classes and whether someone is left or right we could all agree that war and battle are subjects worth studying and learning from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Kurt Barickman

My daughter just signed up for classes this fall at Hamline University in St. Paul, MN. I noticed in the catalogue a History of Warfare in the history dept. Description stated it would focus on 20th Century Warfare. Curious about that class. I do know they have a real conservative professor in their law school there but no clue about this instructor. YOu guys should have to work with these people, so many 60s peacenik types. Most never in the military or worked a labor job in their life. :crying:

 

KUrt Barickman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kurt:

I've always noticed that folks with a Leftist worldview have a real strong bent towards wanting to be Teachers, Lawyers, Politicians, involvement in any type of public media, etc.. There seems to be among them this consuming "young-at-heart" (I'm being very polite with that term) desire to just make everyone think in their terms. Conservatives (the genuine ones, anyway), on the other hand, tend to lean more toward sacrifice of pleasure and preferrence in favor of duty, maintaining traditional values and, of course, the importance of a strong Military in a free Nation. You're right- a number of level-headed people are in the teaching profession, but not nearly enough. I think that for their numbers to grow, there will have to be more of them getting truly upset at what is happening to our culture. The Leftists' near-total control of Academia will make this a tough proposition, though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...