This is a terrible idea. But not for the reasons that are getting the biggest play.
Kind of predictably, the whole thing is being cast as a kind of a culture war fight--by focusing on post 1450, the history of the world becomes the story of the Rise of the West and the reaction of the rest of the world to it.
You can watch videos of teachers passionately defending the need to teach PoC. kids the heritage of places China, India, Africa, etc. as something independent of the West's intervention in those places.
There is something to that. But there are other issues here.
An interesting essay that profiles 'liberal' Chinese who come to have strong distaste with democracy when they come to live in it chinachannel.org/2018/06/01/dou…
A few thoughts:
1) Interesting how almost every single one of these people conflates 'liberalism' with 'democracy.' It is quite possible to have deeply illiberal democracy. That might even be the global norm--especially for places with newly minted middle classes.
2) Democracy as practiced in the West is, IMHO, better than other systems for mostly one reason: it provides a system of conflict resolution that does not require coups, civil wars, or violent suppression of the other side to manage disputes or power transitions.
I'm actually 100% OK with a reduced number of Chinese academic visas. I have argued for this before, actually. This is the thread why I remind you why.
There are a strange number of people who are protesting this move on economic grounds. Academia is a huge market! and all of that.
Look folks, I'm pretty traditionalist. Universities and education are about more than the $ brought in. The question we need to ask is this:
Is the current number of Chinese students on American universities conducive to the health of the American university classrooms, the university system more broadly, the education and career prospects of the Chinese students themselves, and the future of Sino-American relations?
This is a 13 page precis of the man's oeuvre. It was written for the Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, & Conflict, and whoever was the editor of that work should get an award because they turned Peterson's often very baroque academic prose into very clear and cogent English.
This particular presentation of his ideas is very heavy on the neuroscience. He is able to build on this neuropsychological foundation a theory of 1) how emotions and desires drive human action and mediate our experience with the outside world
So I am totally reevaluating everything I said about Jordan Peterson the other day. I underestimated this guy. I have started listening to his lectures and reading his academic articles… and I gotta say, the sheer chutzpah of what this guy is actually trying to do is astounding.
I don't think any of the book reviews or think pieces have actually gotten to the bottom of what Peterson is all about. What his project is. Why he does what he does. This is a man who, I kid you not, is trying to rebuild Western civilization from the ground up.
No joke. There have been a flurry of reviews of P. Daneen's new book on the failure of liberalism. It is a very zeitgeisty sort of work. Left&right, European or American, everyone in the West seems to agree that the model is failing. We have a crisis of faith in the liberal order
This is so obviously false it is hard to know where to begin.
1) There are *plenty* of ye olde bad-guy narratives. Romance of the Three Kingdoms (& the oral tradition it sprang from) are a text book example of turning source material full of grays into a contest b/t good & evil
A few more examples from even more ancient Lit. The Ramayana and the Mahabharata are two of the clearest cut bad vs. good stories ever told. Sure, *you* might find Rama morally ambiguous, but Vedic era Indians sure didn't.
Greek literature has The Persians. Roman lit has the
Aeneid. She talks bout medieval French lit but forgets the Song of Roland. She talks bout renaissance li but neglects Tasso & Aristo. For Shakespeare, she uses Hamlet instead of Macbeth. Milton's Satan, anyone? No, good guy vs. bad guy fights didn't start with 19th c nationalism