The Decaying Evolution of Education...

[belfastboy]

" A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another." - Mao Tse Tung -

Yes, and we all know where Chairman Mao went with that one

 

[JimWagner]

The Cultural Revolution. Now that was a true decay of education.

 

[LizzieMaine]

One of the great ironies of history is that those who set out to create a Heaven on Earth ended up unleashing the exact opposite instead.

Every country should experience a revolution every fifty years or so, just to keep complacency from setting in.

 

[ChiTownScion]

And, after he succeeded in leading a class revolution, he probably racked up the largest mass murder rate of any human being on earth ever, which means he topped Stalin and Hitler, two other revolution leaders.

I've often hear that bantered about, but I've yet to read any credible documentation to support it as fact.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I've often hear that bantered about, but I've yet to read any credible documentation to support it as fact.

A lot of the "democide" figures floating around come from the late R. J. Rummell, who wrote a book called "Death By Government." Many of his figures, and his methodology for defining exactly what constitutes "death by government," have been called into question over the years. His figures for the Soviet gulags, for example, exceed the number of people who were ever actually in the gulags by over twenty million.

 

[Fading Fast]

I've often hear that bantered about, but I've yet to read any credible documentation to support it as fact.

I do not have Lizzie's memory, and have no sources to cite, but purely from memory, there was to my mind a lot of well-document work done in the '90s that showed that Mao had insane blood on his hands from his "Great Leap Forward" and other programs and purges that approached 70 million. Let me emphasize, I sincerely believe that the work was well documented, but it is from memory and I cannot back it up with factual references today.

And if the numbers cited - for Mao or Stalin - were reduced by a factor of 50% or 75% - they were still so far beyond the pale of evil that the judgement doesn't change - at least for me.

And one last point - this was not from right-wing crazy stuff, but in sources like the New York Times or Time Magazine.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I tend to be very careful about "death toll" figures because they're so easily manipulated, either for political reasons or by the free use of estimates where exact numbers are not available. The figures we have for the Holocaust are reliable because of the thoroughness with which they were maintained by the Nazis -- and most of those files were captured intact at the end of the war. The information we have on other death tolls is nowhere near as thorough -- and many historians, especially Robert Conquest, had to revise their numbers substantially downward as more documentation became available.

Interpretation is another point of controversy even when you have figures -- you could easily say that Winston Churchill murdered three million residents of India thru the Bengal Famine, but I don't think many people here would be willing to do that, because Churchill's "one of the good guys."

 

[ChiTownScion]

Interpretation is another point of controversy even when you have figures -- you could easily say that Winston Churchill murdered three million residents of India thru the Bengal Famine, but I don't think many people here would be willing to do that, because Churchill's "one of the good guys."

I have a particular aversion to the accusation of "murder" in these matters in that murder has both a strict definition and a high burden of proof as to all elements of that definition as far as the law. Hitler & the Nazis are of course the best case for the claim, not only by reason of the records referred to by Lizzie, but because the accounts of the Wannsee Conference do so much to establish malice aforethought-- indeed, purposive premeditation.

It's a much more difficult accusation to prove when it comes to the Holodomor of Stalin or the Turkish persecutions of the Armenians, let alone the persecutions that occurred by directive or acquiescence under Mao.

 

[Fading Fast]

I am very open to the "big" numbers being meaningfully wrong, but I believe I have read enough documented accounts not from right-wing propaganda to feel comfortable that Mao and Stalin rank in the top five (and probably number 1 and 2) of all time murderers based on their purges, programs and policies that were evil. But if you don't, I am not looking to convince you otherwise - there is plenty of material for all to read and make their own decisions.

 

[LizzieMaine]

What bothers me is when people use death tolls like some kind of scorecard thing -- there seems to be an absolute mania with some people to say that "(Whoever) was worse than HITLER!" This kind of thing trivializes deaths, no matter what the cause, and makes it seem like the person doing it really couldn't care less about the individuals involved -- as long as their deaths can be used to score points. (Or in the case of Conquest, the "non-existence" of people who weren't actually born being figured into the "death tolls" to make them more impressive.)

You could just as easily say "capitalism and colonialism have killed two billion people," or however many you want to throw out there, but doing so would be just as much a trivialization. And it also reduces complex historical figures into moustache-twirling comic book villians. I don't even like it when people do it with Hitler himself, because it transforms him to some kind of unique figure instead of the logical consequence of a series of events that had been building in Europe for the better part of a hundred years.

 

[MikeKardec]

"it's still a very small, interconnected/incestuous, world" - YEP. with a couple of the major players being the Rothchilds and Murdocks...

Quite possibly, though I've always tried to not worry about those sort of people. I knew some of the old studio heads and still know some of that sort in the book world (they play in movies too but mostly in Europe) and I'm happy to say that what the do is above my pay grade.

But they really don't make the creative choices in fictional entertainment, they don't play that far down the totem pole. I was speaking more of the Creative Executive, Agent, and Producer with an output deal sort of character. They are the recipient of 100 years of Hollywood's specific cultural education and operate like little robots according to the conditioning and DNA they have inherited. It's a bigger incestuous world than the one you mention but while there are fewer blood relatives than there were before deregulation and the expansion beyond three networks, it's still a very homogeneous population operating in a very loud echo chamber.

If I were running a film school, the first thing I'd do is force every professor and every student to watch "Sullivan's Travels" over and over and over again until they got the message.

There's very little that's funny left in entertainment and the people who can still make it work should be celebrated. But I'd argue it's good times and that narcissistic thing that has dragged humor down. My vote for source of good humor, however (and respectfully), is bad times, pogroms, famine, the depression, the Nazis, the blitz. People who survived that sort of thing 1) didn't take themselves too seriously, 2) had an eye for people who did which gave them an eye for humor, 3) knew how to find humor because it was such a rare commodity. Many of the great old writers and lyricists were "survivors" or the children of survivors. Quite often one of the younger siblings in large families. To compete for the attention of the adults and older siblings they had to be performers, be funny, bring a tear, tell a story.

The American (and European) entertainment industry may today exist in a world of theoretical existential threats ... but theoretical is one thing, Cossacks burning your village is another. I fear too few of today's survivors have access to, or the education to survive in Hollywood (a very different Hollywood regardless of that still existing 100 years of culture) and they also lack that supportive yet competitive environment of the family that "made it out."

When times get truly bad I believe we'll have two things: First, funny people and good music. Second, leaders. They may be more than we would like, we'll have to watch them carefully because they always try to grab more power than they should even if it's for "our" own good, but we will see leaders again, for better or for worse.

 

[philosophygirl78]

Quite possibly, though I've always tried to not worry about those sort of people. I knew some of the old studio heads and still know some of that sort in the book world (they play in movies too but mostly in Europe) and I'm happy to say that what the do is above my pay grade.

But they really don't make the creative choices in fictional entertainment, they don't play that far down the totem pole. I was speaking more of the Creative Executive, Agent, and Producer with an output deal sort of character. They are the recipient of 100 years of Hollywood's specific cultural education and operate like little robots according to the conditioning and DNA they have inherited. It's a bigger incestuous world than the one you mention but while there are fewer blood relatives than there were before deregulation and the expansion beyond three networks, it's still a very homogeneous population operating in a very loud echo chamber.



There's very little that's funny left in entertainment and the people who can still make it work should be celebrated. But I'd argue it's good times and that narcissistic thing that has dragged humor down. My vote for source of good humor, however (and respectfully), is bad times, pogroms, famine, the depression, the Nazis, the blitz. People who survived that sort of thing 1) didn't take themselves too seriously, 2) had an eye for people who did which gave them an eye for humor, 3) knew how to find humor because it was such a rare commodity. Many of the great old writers and lyricists were "survivors" or the children of survivors. Quite often one of the younger siblings in large families. To compete for the attention of the adults and older siblings they had to be performers, be funny, bring a tear, tell a story.

The American (and European) entertainment industry may today exist in a world of theoretical existential threats ... but theoretical is one thing, Cossacks burning your village is another. I fear too few of today's survivors have access to, or the education to survive in Hollywood (a very different Hollywood regardless of that still existing 100 years of culture) and they also lack that supportive yet competitive environment of the family that "made it out."

When times get truly bad I believe we'll have two things: First, funny people and good music. Second, leaders. They may be more than we would like, we'll have to watch them carefully because they always try to grab more power than they should even if it's for "our" own good, but we will see leaders again, for better or for worse.

Re: Creative choices - They do and they don't.... Its hard to say but there is certainly a manipulation factor from those types of dynasties.. You can easily look up owners and shareholders of Comcast, WB Entertainment etc and see the direct links.... Peter Lynch is another perfect example - manager of the famous Magellan Fund, the highest yielding fund EVER, and two of his bestsellers are co authored by a Rothchild...

Now, dont get me wrong, I understand the importance such elites contribute to the power of our nation here and around the world, and I support that for it, but the web is Very Very Deep and Rarely tied to a particular party or ideology, aside from Imperialism of course...

 

[MikeKardec]

I don't even like it when people do it with Hitler himself, because it transforms him to some kind of unique figure instead of the logical consequence of a series of events that had been building in Europe for the better part of a hundred years.

I agree. If circumstances hadn't created Hitler writer's would have. In fact the Third Reich is utterly surreal in what perfect caricature villains they were. In 100 years will anyone believe the philosophy and the costumes and all? If you want fictional bad guys they are just too good to be true. It's got to be a goal to bust the Nazis down to size even if it makes them seem less evil. I don't like them posthumously remaining in control of their message.

 

[LizzieMaine]

There's very little that's funny left in entertainment and the people who can still make it work should be celebrated. But I'd argue it's good times and that narcissistic thing that has dragged humor down. My vote for source of good humor, however (and respectfully), is bad times, pogroms, famine, the depression, the Nazis, the blitz. People who survived that sort of thing 1) didn't take themselves too seriously, 2) had an eye for people who did which gave them an eye for humor, 3) knew how to find humor because it was such a rare commodity. Many of the great old writers and lyricists were "survivors" or the children of survivors.

I think there's a lot of truth in that. So much of today's comedy comes out of a mindset that's exactly the opposite -- that smug, sneering Harvard Lampoon style of snarky comedy that's pretty much dominated mass-produced mainstream humor since the '70s, all of it proceeding from a privileged upper-middle-class-white-boy mindset that directs the laughs downward from the top of the pyramid. It isn't the disempowered laughing to cut the powerful down to size, it's the empowered laughing as they grind the Gucci loafer down a little harder on those beneath.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I agree. If circumstances hadn't created Hitler writer's would have. In fact the Third Reich is utterly surreal in what perfect caricature villains they were. In 100 years will anyone believe the philosophy and the costumes and all? If you want fictional bad guys they are just too good to be true. It's got to be a goal to bust the Nazis down to size even if it makes them seem less evil. I don't like them posthumously remaining in control of their message.

That's why I loved "Hogan's Heroes" -- a show whose creators and writers were almost entirely Jewish, and who knew *exactly* what they were doing.

 

[MikeKardec]

Re: Creative choices - They do and they don't.... Its hard to say but there is certainly a manipulation factor from those types of dynasties.. You can easily look up owners and shareholders of Comcast, WB Entertainment etc and see the direct links.... Peter Lynch is another perfect example - manager of the famous Magellan Fund, the highest yielding fund EVER, and two of his bestsellers are co authored by a Rothchild...

Now, dont get me wrong, I understand the importance such elites contribute to the power of our nation here and around the world, and I support that for it, but the web is Very Very Deep and Rarely tied to a particular party or ideology, aside from Imperialism of course...

I have no opinion about the following except that I don't really like "Big Power" power players in sort of a theoretical, I see what they do but know I don't know all about it, sort of way ... but, now that you got me thinking about it, I have to assume that if you are an international influence agent of some sort and you have that sort of power, no matter what you do with it is going to "be" imperialism of some sort. Got to think about that more ...

I think there's a lot of truth in that. So much of today's comedy comes out of a mindset that's exactly the opposite -- that smug, sneering Harvard Lampoon style of snarky comedy that's pretty much dominated mass-produced mainstream humor since the '70s, all of it proceeding from a privileged upper-middle-class-white-boy mindset that directs the laughs downward from the top of the pyramid. It isn't the disempowered laughing to cut the powerful down to size, it's the empowered laughing as they grind the Gucci loafer down a little harder on those beneath.

Hollywood, as you are completely familiar, has an interesting history in this regard. Disempowered Immigrants built it, then gave a home to other Disempowered Immigrants as long as they behaved themselves and remembered who was on top. Their culture was so powerful a force that even Accepted Outsiders behaved exactly like the Alphas and were accepted to a certain extent because they were so obedient to the general culture or meme.

Now the children and grand children of all of the above have taken over and the frighteningly belligerent, wonderfully emotional, fantastically creative, energy is drifting away. The children all come from "nuclear" families from the upper middle class (at a blistering minimum) and with top MBA style educations. The old Alphas fought wars with one and other but also took great pride in actually making movies. The younger generation fights wars against other companies for sure but most horribly is the constant destructive civil war that is the Hollywood corporate existence and is more important than ANYTHING. Today, having to make a movie is a threat to a studio executive, it's the last thing they want to do because they might have to take responsibility for it. They want to be "in the movie business" because that's what gives their identity power, but they really don't want to make movies because that could threaten their job and thus their identity.

In the modern age I know of one studio that made their creative executives take a credit (so they'd care about the movies more than their petty battles) that was Miramax (guys who are not know for being easy to deal with, however) ... their record stands for itself.

In the years when we had a TV, I LOVED Hogan's Heroes!

 

[MikeKardec]

Hmm. By Hollywood's civil wars I meant within the corporations themselves ... I'm not proofing myself!

 

[MikeKardec]

Whether you drive a Lexus, Maz, or beat up Toyota, does not make you more guilty than another to ignore the very real problems you mention. It is a difficult question to ascertain: who is truly at fault or holds the 'most' responsibility for the above stated issues.... Whoever it is, there is one fundamental reality: whoever is placed in charge of reform, assistance or programs, needs to have a thorough understanding of economics, finance, and rehabilitation. Unfortunately, the groups who most often cry for that change are faulty in that aspect of education...

I couldn't agree more. Much needs to be done and, if people would stop trying to turn it all into ammunition to use on one and other, I doubt it would really be that hard. Shotgun a good many ideas, honestly analyze their effectiveness of each but never ever choose just one way forward. Education is a big aspect. My students were always ready to complain about the world they were being handed but they were not learning to do anything except critique it. A bit of realistic rationing is always a good idea but as long as the world population is growing we have to move forward. I taught film and creative writing. I did not meet engineers and chemists and physicists. But I wish I had, I think we'd have been a better mix.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Take every one of those kids and put them to work in a factory for a year. They'll learn things there they never imagined in school.

 

[MikeKardec]

Incredible amount of meaningless Minutia being posted here....
Bottom Line...Our American Educational system K thru 12 and on into College has been reduced to a Ninth grade HS level compared to the 1950's early 60's. maybe even lower.
Education today as well as in 1960's comes down to Parenting and Ones ability to Think Out of the Box on ones own initiative ...
Flame away...

As one of the Minutia makers I must say I totally agree with you. My flame is a fog of ice. On the other hand, I assume we are all having a good time.