Sunday, April 3, 2011

On April 1st, supporters of Stalin spoke at New York University's "Academic Freedom in the 1960s" conference. Ellen Schrecker, a Yeshiva University Professor and author delivered the keynote address. She wrote The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History With Documents in which she explains that anti-communism in the United States was created by "[z]ealous partisans who often made the eradication of the so-called Communist menace a full-time career," and goes on to say that "in some respects they were the mirror image of the Communists they fought." She also explains that conservatives have a tradition of harboring "characteristic paranoia" that aims to subdue minority groups in an effort to infiltrate their economic and social ideology throughout America. What a gem. (Interestingly enough, this "esteemed" professor has taught numerous courses on American Colonial History, Civil War History, The United States and American Politics.)

Schrecker shared the stage with Rutgers University Newark Professor and author H. Bruce Franklin, who holds to the belief that “[Stalin is] one of the greatest heroes of modern history.” In his introductory essay for his book The Essential Stalin, Franklin writes: “I used to think of Joseph Stalin as a tyrant and a butcher … but, to about a billion people today, Stalin is the opposite of what we in the capitalist world have been programmed to believe.”

I'm not a history buff by any means, so I did a quick online fact check about Joesph Stalin. Under his regime, the death toll is estimated at around 20 million (although some claim the number is closer to 40 million) due to organized poverty, starvation, labor camps, executions, torture, and other sadistic acts. Stalin killed many talented and gifted Soviets during the Purges of the 1930s because he felt anyone with unique abilities posed a threat to his regime.

Additionally, Stalin's forced labor camps, or gulags, incarcerated political dissidents and innocent Soviets for such heinous crimes as showing up late for work (a three-year sentence), telling a joke about a government official (up to 25 years) or committing petty theft and other minor crimes (up to 10 years). No, he certainly wasn't a tyrant and a butcher. Just a misunderstood man with a rough childhood, much like my neighbor. Count me out as one of his billion Facebook fans.

Reverend David Smith, Catholic priest and full-time professor with Emeritus status at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota, spoke recently at a rally outside the state capitol in protest of the United State's support of the nation of Israel. He has been very busy recently at St. Thomas researching, writing, and working to strengthen "peace studies." During this time, he traveled with the Michigan Peace Team to the West Bank and Gaza, living in Beit Sahour near Bethlehem. "He helped Palestinian farmers pick their olives, slept in tents and caves with farmers threatened by Jewish settlers, and joined Palestinian nonviolent demonstrators protesting Israeli-only roads and the separation barrier."

In his long professorship, he has created many courses for St. Thomas in which he linked the Scriptures with justice issues (red flag, anyone?). Eric Foner, professor of American History at Columbia University, was interviewed by bigthink.com in 2009 and spoke about his favorite figures in American history, which include critics, radicals and fridge socialist figures who have "stood outside the accepted political boundaries." He goes on to say that "without the socialists, you would not have had an era where the government took responsibility for the economy," and that "the driving force for the change of good" in our country has been those "people at the margins."

All across the country, professors are teaching young adults about World and American history. What are they teaching them? Valid question. When those of us choose to ask this question and speak up about the ideology of our "academic elite," we often hear one common rebuttal: free speech. Those professors have free speech, the students have free speech, and what takes place in the classroom is a healthy dialog of alternate viewpoints. This rebuttal is a red herring. The issue is not whether professors have a right to free speech, thus students have a right to hear the drivelings of free speech. The issue is why do these professors hold these beliefs. Why do we have American professors who are "big fans" of Stalin, Chavez and Mao Tse Tung? Why do we have American professors who turn taciturn about honest history, including the faith of our Founding Fathers, Israel's right to defend itself, and how socialism is not a "failed experiment" that deserves another opportunity?

Do not let the liberals continue to use rhetorical tactics to avoid the items of significance. We are not debating the merits of free speech. The argument cannot be whether or not professors have a right to speak about such radical, liberal beliefs. The argument must be why they hold those beliefs. Call them out. Call them all out.
Just like an iceberg, we cannot debate what is seen above water, because the issues we are facing begin far below the surface.

2 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. (Comments written by Lexington)

    Great and I mean great post. Coincidentally, I was talking the other day with someone and I made a comment about how several people (including Al Gore, Van Jones, Cass Sustein too I think) are preaching to our kids NOT to listen to their parents. They are telling youngsters that "their parents are old and out of touch." To which I continued, I wonder how much of that deplorable methodology is backed by public money in our public schools? Definitely at the University level- as your article points out in Universities it is rampant. The question became, at how low a level could you find a reportable example of such tactics...? We all know the images of 8 year olds singing the Obama song, but were kids THAT young ever told that Stalin was cool?

    When you take a step back, it really is a multi-faceted strategy designed to erase the identity of a society. What happens when a large number of kids are not forced to mature from a character and responsibility standpoint, thereby lacking certain judgment skills, and as a result witness the madness of MTV without proper (or any) alarm? Is MTV part of the deliberate strategy? It would seem that they fill a role and a duty to the cause and seem to be one in the same with the efforts of say, Rolling Stone. Fit them in with the academic elite crowd your article focuses on, and we're seeing a deliberate or at least very friendly understanding between entities who all seem to want similar ends.

    The Overton Window shifts slowly. Actually, slow is the only way it shifts period. If it moves too fast it gets slapped in the face like a first date gone bad- move too fast and your efforts are counterproductive because you just got shut down and cut off for good. And so the window just sits there like a boring amoeba- moving, but barely. Just like your mind is blown whenyou find out how many wasted gallons of water a year result from a leaky faucet, over time this borning amoeba will truly yield a substantial amount of results. All while barely moving- it may seem like the chaos is moving fast now, but when you consider and realize that we have had a leaky fauct for 50 years, progress is really not that fast, just absolutely constant.


    Where will we be 20 years from now? I believe we need to value and truly realize the aging generation(s) while they are still with us. Even while the baby-boomer generation was the ones who put on Woodstock and were the flower children and we've come to love, they are still the foundation from which our society now stands upon. They were raised by the Greatest Generation. Most of them came around after Woodstock and bought into the American dream. Not all. But in 20 years they will be 85. What then? While I am overwhelmingly impressed by the Patriotism and sacrifice of the "exceptions" of my 1980s-born generation, I fear the group-think, MTV-driven, pop culture, anti-American/capitalist, "where's my handout" members are the vast majority and therefore will decide most elections beginning in, say, 20 years time. What then?

    It is becoming clear that it cannot come to that. We cannot allow this President to be re-elected. Instead, we need someone who will take us back to a brilliance in the basics. This may sting and hurt a lot. The moves that need to be made probably will hurt the economy in the short term and will not be popular, this is much akin to a drug addict curing the name of the clinic who is trying to help him. Furthermore and most importantly, this person I speak of will need to institute permanent changes to our Constitution. 17th Amendment gone. Term limits on Congress, yep. Flat tax, states being given every right back that was ever stripped away from them, check. Bureaucracies, duplicative programs, stupid interventionist foreign policy, game over.

    Do it, we survive. Do it not, and lights out for the brief 230 freedom experiment in a world history full of servitude and tyranny.

    ReplyDelete