/his/, I just had an interesting conversation with a student at my uni. She said that she wanted military history and history, political science, and so on classes about war and violence removed from university curriculums nationwide, and also literature or film classes that assigned books or films that show violence or war in a positive way.
I asked her why, and she said that the humanities, including military histories, have often been used to push a violent, hegemonic narrative of militarization and to legitimize violent agendas and violent actions in the mind of students. She said the reason that there is so much violence in western culture is because from a young age children are taught military history, watch war movies, and are encouraged to study military history and literature about war and military adventure in college. She said she was protesting against militarized education like the teaching of war novels and military history in schools.
What does /his/ think of this idea? I disagree with it and think it is stupid, but is there a valid defense of these ideas?
It really doesn't seem like a problem at all to disprove.
You can just say might makes right, or however else you want to say something about human nature or nature in general.
I suppose the real problem is how do you convince her that modern intellectualism doesn't absolve us of violence. A lot of people tend to believe that because we are in the modern era and have witnessed the horrors of the past, that we are somehow exempt from having such terrible things occur again.
Violence is literally on our doorstep at this very moment, with the rise in nationalist and anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe; the increase in radical policies in the current US candidates; and even the instability in the euro-sphere can erupt any month now.
To paraphrase Umberto Eco: when your children want to play pirates and spaniards, make them play pirates. When your children want to play cowboys and indians, make them play indians. When your children want to play CNT and Falange, buy them a rifle.
Considering how fucking huge the humanities and military history is it's obviously it's often been used to push a militant agenda. Just as much as it's been used to forced to push every political and ideological position to ever exist.
And legitimizing violence? A huge part of studying history is about trying to legitimizing the most horrible things we can imagine because it's our only chance to understand it. We have to consider the strangest and most sickening opinions there is because anything else would be to be intellectual dishonest.
And if intellectual honestly isn't a virtue you even consider to tangle with then you have absolutely nothing to do at at universities.
She think part of history should be banned because she finds it offensive. She's no better than gooks denying the rape train they had in china during WW2 because glorious nippon never din do nuffin.
This reminds me of a VICE op-ed recently that claimed academia was "militarized" because some college alumni got government jobs like desk jockeys for county law enforcement, and was trying to say this was equivalent to them being conscripted as modern janissaries
I played Call of Duty earlier and thought about how true it is though that violence is so fucking prevalent in western culture, you just kill people and get "rewards" like "Homicide Master Mark I" when the majority of the playerbase is under 14 . It's almost everywhere but it's pointless to censor war/violence, humans are retarded and will continue to kill each other over trivial shit
it's kind of funny, most of the articles in the journal op posted argue similar, except what they argue is only anti-war activism should be taught when military history is being taught instead of descriptive lectures about famous battles and wars that "endorse" them
>I asked her why, and she said that the humanities, including military histories, have often been used to push a violent, hegemonic narrative of militarization and to legitimize violent agendas and violent actions in the mind of students.
This is the most retarded shit I've ever heard in my life.
And I'm well versed in SJW jargon.
No idea what you're talking about OP.
I disagree with her position. War and violence are... Unique in American culture. I'm assuming you're American. But even if you're not American, war and violence has literally shaped the world as we know it today. Wether or not she believes education propagates violence, it's the undying truth that war always has, and always will exist; for it is human nature to disagree and fight.
I believe war and violence is deeply inherent and praised in American culture due to how our country was created, as well as how we've survived and succeeded. True, many bad things come from war, but many good things come as well. Peace, above all. As well as advances in medicine, technology, boosts in the economy, the feeling of a untied nation.
Hell, the reason why she lives in a privileged world such as our own, was because men lived and died to make it so. War should always be studied, for above all, it's what has shaped our world, our present, and our future.
Heard similar arguments, this is my response. Sometimes it results in the prof saying "I see that you're angry, that's good because I'm getting you to think and explore new ideas, and break beyond your oppressive social constructs."
If anything, war should be taught to students to remind of the realities of total war. There is no glory in sending entire divisions of men to be mauled by shellfire in places like Verdun.
The limited colonials wars of recent memory (Iraq/Afghanistan for Americans) have been so tame in comparison that many people callously disregard war as a terrible thing simply because it's not so bad for Americans. Meanwhile, more than a quarter million humans have died in Syria since the outbreak of civil war there.
Firearms aren't necessarily tied to violence. Guns are just another way for American males to show off their "masculinity" alongside eating huge burgers or driving huge trucks. It says nothing about your ability to handle and endure combat.
If she's American and If she were placated, then how would she learn how the us broke away from uk? How slavery ended would be a mystery to her. She would miss out on what made many presidents electable. Why FDR got a third term. violenece is the primary reason the world is the way it is today. She'd be lost and confused.
>Guns are a way to show off masculinity
Or, or, or theyre just another hobby in the world, like coin collecting or basketball.
I personally collect firearms because they fascinate me, I find them enjoyable to shoot, and i like the history they share. Not because I feel emasculated.
>to show off their "masculinity"
I'm pretty sure most gun enthusiasts like guns because it's fun to shoot two liter bottles out in the woods with them, not because they're having a mid-life crisis or something.
Anyone planning to join the military should be forced to read and write an essay on pic related, in addition to watching two hours of LiveLeak battles.
I do not think you can effectively prevent war without studying war, so even if I were to accept her claims about increased violence I am inclined to favor the continuation of war studies.
I also think that in a democracy, every citizen has to care about its nation's foreign policy, and they cannot do so without having at least the base level understanding of war (nonrigorous though it may be) that literature and film and the like provide.
I would love to analyze the incidence of violent crime domestically in times of war.
I imagine if the student's theory has any merit, you would see a marked increase in violence during wartime, at least since the first televised conflicts.
>She said the reason that there is so much violence in western culture is because from a young age children are taught military history, watch war movies, and are encouraged to study military history and literature about war and military adventure in college
Feedback loops in media consumption and production, not militarist didaction, are to blame for the tremendous volume of militaristic content. Imposing an organized suppression from the top down will almost certainly fail.
We should start teaching systems theory in high school so that, among many other benefits, the public can finally dismiss this sort of trifling authoritarianism into extinction.
Also, your friend should explore a wider variety of pacifist traditions. The Mohists, for example, offer a pacifistic justification for a global deterrence not unlike the one we use today.
If I had 20 grand to spend on an automatic weapon I would willing have a midlife crisis.
Having a tacticool "assault rifle" (even though true and real assault rifles are pretty much illegal) is just another side of the hobby. I buy rifles because they have history. Someone else might because theyre big into the military; modern history if you will. Nothing wrong with it, just another side of the hobby.
>you only like guns if you are going through a midlife crisis
>you only like big / fast cars because you're compensating for a small dick
>you only like X because you're somehow defective!
Basically, "stop liking what I don't like": the post
a valid defense of these ideas
Only if the institution aught be based on a society that is forbidden to talk about things. What gives 'rights' is the society, What gives humanity to the humanities is the remarkableness of groups of people in societies.
Since it was alright for every society since your own contemporary one to discuss all aspects of humanity in the humanities - except those generally MILITARISTIC societies that force upon their mass means of mind control through speech and expression regulation - If the current one you partake in by association says you can, you aught in most senses.
Tell her, the society also allots you the ability to tell her that's a profoundly naive perspective of reality, and at least, borrows nothing from the field of psychology which might validate some of her generalized propositions.To assume she has the freedom of expression to be so fucking stupid, she should feel lucky to learn about anything and everything that might unfuck her sense of necessary ignorance for 'world peace'.
Then remind her, that her piece of the world she has these dumb ideas in is government by a monopoly of violence, and her I pods are evidence of that. There is also a relative 'order', where other people with nuclear bombs are shipping those ipods over rather than engaging in Armageddon. That she is a silly little girl.
>all these edgy manchildren extolling the virtues of war
I don't think any of us have the right to say whether or not war is good or bad unless we've been through the worst it has to offer. It's very likely no one here ever fought at Ypres or Kursk, so we should probably shut the fuck up.
>What gives 'rights' is the society
>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
>they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
BY THEIR CREATOR
GET FUCKED FAGGOT
THE RIGHTS OF MAN ARE PRIMARY AND SUPERIOR TO ANY EARTHLY GOVERNMENT
>Youre advocating not discussing war, which is basically the OPs post.
They're advocating not discussing whether war is good or bad until you've had an ontological experience of war.
That's very different to not discussing war.
Take remedial literacy.
What she should really want gone is romanticism in curriculum. Nobody turned from farmer to soldier because they learned that the Spanish Armada sank in 1588. They enlisted because propaganda romanticizes or demonizes some historical event as a great moment of patriotism or unjust crime. This has nothing to do with military or political history specifically, because any subject so romanticized by stressing emotional connection and ideology over dry fact and speculation will push some narrative of confrontation, struggle, and ultimately violence.
Ive been studying international relations, and now i want to invade poland.
It sounds like bullshit altogether, but her argument only works for media and popular culture, since the academic study of war can only educate us on why war occurs and how it can be stopped.
What is the policy argument for the justification of the social sciences?
>since the academic study of war can only educate us on why war occurs
Oh really? Try reading Chris Browning.
>and how it can be stopped.
I've learnt more than I cared to about how to organise a genocide in my historical studies.
>I've learnt more than I cared to about how to organise a genocide in my historical studies.
And anyone intelligent enough to manufacture a reality where it's a possibility for them to do so would be knowledgeable of how to regardless of whether they had been taught it.
>I'm not denying that the average person is fully capable of genocide.
They're capable of taking part, but certainly not of organising it.
I was saying that regardless of whether a malevolent genius capable of creating a situation where genocide is a possibility ever attended a lecture on it or not, they would be very able to organise it.
Most ancient genocides set precedents in the minds of the people at the time, many probably never had known what a genocide was prior to seeing it happen. The concept, targets and the means can be arrived at totally independent of academic research.
>What is the policy argument for the justification of the social sciences?
In layman's terms -
That persons are needed to make maps so a country knows what the hell is going on where, that persons are needed to explain poverty and race so a country can keep its populace as employed and happy as possible, and that a country needs people who have a theoretical understanding of how it can keep its rivals at bay without actually fighting them and its allies happy without being a pushover...
Part of the purpose of universities, as much as some people don't like it, is to educate civil servants, including those who will be interacting with the military. A lot of people buy into the line that education that involves the study of subjects aimed toward civil service/gov means that they're cutting down on critical thinking in order to train office drones, think a Seattleite hipster's 90s movie image of "society" as a whole. In reality, this isn't true. In critical discourse, the idea of the study of war, conflict, and military subjects is seen as posing a threat to critical thinking unless that study and focus is actively condemned: the academic journal OP posted, Critical Military Studies (look it up), is entirely predicated on the idea. In reality, you can pursue education with the intent of "serving society" (inasmuch as it might be a social construct) ranging from handling papers for your local mayor's office to either a. actively fighting a war or b. actively, professionally discussing conflict and violence as a history or poli sci nerd (or a philosophical ethicist), without sacrificing your individuality, humanity, or critical thought.