Yo, reduce this consensus taker.
by BradfordCornelius Hunter authored the blog entry The Minimal Cell. There are related discussions ongoing in other threads. One of which is a reaction to some insightful commments made by TT commenter Eric echoing a point made by Stephen Meyer. Meyer highlighted the fact that in all cases where we find symbolic coding systems originating we find a causal source having the intelligence required to discern the abstract linkage between a construct and that which it represents.
M. pneumoniae's DNA is very similar to the DNA of other living organisms. It is not the same though. The genome of this species is noted for being very small. And as is always the case there is sequencing of nucleotides that is unique to the species.
Another TT commenter. David S. raised the issue of scientific consensus. It is the scientific consensus that irreducible complexity, a concept made famous by Michael Behe, is implausible. David was lectured about the painstaking accumulation of scientific data that precedes a formulation of consensus which of course is not preordained. 
The consensus about M. pneumoniae is that an organism with a much simpler genome once preceded it in the timeline of natural history. Instead of organisms with relatively simple genomes containing hundreds of genes there were organisms with small fractions of this number. 10 genes? 25 genes? 5 genes? Gene duplication is cited as a mechanism for the development of complexity. Consensus.
What is the painstakingly generated data supporting the claim that there is no floor to the number of genes or the complexity of a genome showing irreducible complexity to be bogus? RNA world to the rescue! The consensus was there prior to the RNA world notion which tells you something about consensus. But an RNA "genome" having self-replicating property is the reassurance the consensus crowd needed. Observe the replication and poof- the outcome of a cell is down line in the causal pathway. Natural selection explains it all. Or does it?
What would natural selection winnow in a prebiotic soup? How would that outcome lead to a cell? Consensus is the illegitimate offspring of philosophical bias.
March 12th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Economist Thomas Sowell describes this kind of consensus as the “Vision of the Anointed.” In his 1995 book, of the same title, Sowell makes an observation that fits right in with what some of us have been trying to say here for the last couple of threads. He writes in the first chapter of his book:
Is it just me, or is what Sowell has been describing above have a familiar ring to it?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 12, 2010 @ 12:43 pm
March 12th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
JAD quoting Sowell:
John,
Take the Iraq war and see if any of the above points apply to the justification of the invasion made by the Bush administration.
Comment by olegt — March 12, 2010 @ 12:50 pm
March 12th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
There is a theoretical floor.
The minimal genome or cell size is dictated by the requirements to create a self-replicating Turing machine approximation.
von Neumann worked on the problem, the conceptual entity was not small, say 150,000 parts.
Mathematicial Hofstadter also articulated the difficulty in Godel, Escher, Bach.
Albert Voie published a peer-reviewed summary of the work so far. Voie told me that minimal number of parts is dependent on the form of physics we are dealing with, but I assume it is not small given what it takes even with optimal computer languages to build a self-replicating Turing machine.
Physisict Yockey's book outlined the problem in terms of information theory and was highly critical of chemical evolution. He argues the problem of information is not one of chemisitry or physics. Thus RNA world advocates are solving the wrong problem!
It would be fruitful to revisit von Neumann's work.
Finally, I've pointed out at UD, the problem of solving for complexity is like the problem of solving a password. Just because you can solve a two or three letter irreducibly complex password does not imply you can solve a 500-letter irreducibly complex password. Darwinists have even essentially argued that creating a function with fewer parts implies one with more parts is not irreducibly complex. This is like saying a 500-letter password is not irreducibly complex because someone on the same computer system uses a three letter password. The illogic and non-sequiturs are breath taking.
Finding a minimal genome could actually worsen the case for evolution, because if replication happens with less complexity, the simple replicators will prevail over the more complex replicators. This was painfully obvious in the Spiegelman monster experiment!
Natural seleciton would, metabolically speaking, favor simple replicators not the rube-goldberg machines we see in biology.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — March 12, 2010 @ 1:03 pm
March 12th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Salvador Cordova:
That statement is consistent with empirical results. So what does this say about consensus and objective assessments of nature?
Comment by Bradford — March 12, 2010 @ 1:14 pm
March 12th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Left or right, elitism is still elitism. Consensus that is consensus only because it is based opinions that survive by silencing dissenting voices is a serious problem in political discourse. In science it should be completely unacceptable.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 12, 2010 @ 1:37 pm
March 12th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Well, bacteria do comprise the vast majority of the world's biomass. But other organisms have apparently found a few niches where they can survive. Plankton seem to be doing well. There are a few other organisms, such as insects, that make of the balance.
Comment by Zachriel — March 12, 2010 @ 1:50 pm
March 12th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
It's not you. The above aptly describes the global warming movement and ID critics as well.
1. Catastrophyism and the creationist threat to education.
2. Gotta get that legislation passed immediately. (Sounds like the approach to health care reform as well.)
3. Gotta get the gubbermint into this. That's the whole point. Makes you feel powerful by proxy.
4. Of course. Those tards know nothing. Arrogance substitutes for introspection. Watch the Dems walk the cliff on health care. Would they do that if they were even a bit introspective? No, arrogance precedes a fall.
Comment by Bradford — March 12, 2010 @ 7:36 pm
March 12th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
BTW, Sowell is the real African American intellectual. Brilliant, scholarly and a gentleman to boot. He published the above in 1995. How prophetic.
Comment by Bradford — March 12, 2010 @ 7:38 pm
March 12th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
Speaking of crusades and using the government to impose a viewpoint, the New York Times reports today how Texas conservatives win curriculum change:
Comment by olegt — March 12, 2010 @ 10:30 pm
March 12th, 2010 at 11:55 pm
A bill known as the Paycheck Fairness Act, was passed by the House some time ago. It is now being considered in the Senate. The bill would authorize the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to collect payroll data from companies and analyze it based on race and gender. If a company is found to lack a "balance" they could be subjected to fines or other remedial action. What's wrong with this? Several things. First, it is not predicated on prior evidence of wrongdoing. It has a fishing expedition or Orwellian look to it. Big brother peering over your shoulder and looking to see if anything is wrong. Second, there may be good reasons for not having a "balance." My best friend owns a construction company which employs all males (about 15) except for one female whose job ironically is a troubleshooter dealing with various state, federal and local agencies and their regulatory dictums. Why all males? The nature of the business attracts males who work on roofs, siding, floor plans etc. for whatever reason. If cited for a balance violation he'd have a tough time finding female help to do this type of work. There really is a break down in common sense throughout the USA.
On Olegt's point about Texas my view is that the truth should be told and let the chips fall where they may. Easier said than done I realize but that should be the overriding perspective.
Comment by Bradford — March 12, 2010 @ 11:55 pm
March 13th, 2010 at 6:46 am
I've been reading Dr. Hunter's blog as it's also linked via Uncommon Descent.
His posts are all variations on the same theme, problems with evolutionary theory. Does he propose alternative ideas anywhere?
Comment by zykander — March 13, 2010 @ 6:46 am
March 13th, 2010 at 8:36 am
Bradford wrote:
Bradford, by your logic we also shouldn't file income tax returns because that, too, means that the government is peering over our shoulders even if there is no evidence of wrongdoing.
Is there language in the bill suggesting that it's going to enforce the gender balance in the work place? I thought it was about equal paychecks for equal work. If I am right then your friend has nothing to fear because his men and woman perform different jobs.
What exactly does that mean? Government intervention is OK as long as it's done by Republicans?
Comment by olegt — March 13, 2010 @ 8:36 am
March 13th, 2010 at 11:29 am
Sorry, I thought this was a thread for census takers.
Comment by Mung — March 13, 2010 @ 11:29 am
March 13th, 2010 at 11:33 am
The presence of one living species in a niche does not exclude the co-habitation of another species in that same niche unless you define a niche so narrowly as to make the term meaningless. So what's your point?
Comment by Mung — March 13, 2010 @ 11:33 am
March 13th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
First, it is not predicated on prior evidence of wrongdoing. It has a fishing expedition or Orwellian look to it. Big brother peering over your shoulder and looking to see if anything is wrong.
Not at all. If the information is related to taxes then there is a reasonable basis for it. Should the government monitor personal checking accounts to ensure that no money laundering is going on? Why not have an agent stationed in your home to ensure no laws are broken there?
Comment by Bradford — March 13, 2010 @ 12:36 pm
March 13th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Hunter believes that life is the result of divine creation.
Comment by Bradford — March 13, 2010 @ 12:38 pm
March 13th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Bradford wrote:
Actually, Bradford, the government sort of does. Cash transactions of $10,000 or more must be reported to the IRS. As to stationing agents in your home, well, that would be unreasonable. Police officers do patrol streets precisely for that purpose.
That aside, I'm interested in your take on the other two points I made.
Comment by olegt — March 13, 2010 @ 12:41 pm
March 13th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
It means that if George Washington owned slaves the truth of that makes it fair to include in a history book. By the same token the fact that he was a great leader and indispensable to the success of the American Revolution should also be included. When emphasis is placed on one fact to the exclusion of another relevant historic fact then the hidden promotion of an agenda is at work.
Comment by Bradford — March 13, 2010 @ 12:45 pm
March 13th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
To guard against drug crimes and the like the $10,000 regulation was created. Patrolling streets obviously differs from checking account monitoring. Is there anything you think the government should be restrained from doing?
Comment by Bradford — March 13, 2010 @ 12:50 pm
March 13th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Bradford wrote:
I doubt that any school history books focus on Washington's slave ownership at the expense of his role in the American Revolution. Did you make it up or do you have actual examples of that?
On the other hand, the New York Times reports that the Texas conservatives
That smells like actual, not hypothetical, government-imposed censorship to me. Thoughts?
Comment by olegt — March 13, 2010 @ 12:57 pm
March 13th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
The conditional if was used to make a point. When you write if… you're not making anything up by posing a hypothetical. You may be underestimating the ability of some to ignore genuine history. I came across a textbook on modern Amercan history which had little coverage of WWII and much coverage of the unrest in the 60s.
Taking out Thomas Jefferson is a very unwise move.
Comment by Bradford — March 13, 2010 @ 1:32 pm
March 13th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
BTW, although Jefferson coined the separation phrase in a private letter his actions as President were at variance with the way that phrase is understood by many today.
Comment by Bradford — March 13, 2010 @ 1:34 pm
March 13th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Bradford wrote:
That's a bit disingenuous, Bradford. Let's look at that paragraph you wrote:
There is an if in that paragraph, but it refers to George Washington's ownership of slaves, not to the story itself. After reading that paragraph one may reasonably infer that the story actually happened.
Comment by olegt — March 13, 2010 @ 2:11 pm
March 13th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
The RNA world is a dead end and cannot lead to a cell. The simple reason is natural selection. It would winnow out against progress to the molecular machines needed for a cell.
The reason is quite simple. RNA replication is based upon forming the reverse complement of a strand of RNA (i.e. like making a negative, or the opposite of something). Then, when the reverse complement is formed on that new strand, you get back to a strand like you started with (i.e. the negative of the negative, or the opposite of the opposite).
This process cannot be performed on a molecular machine as such.
You can only construct the reverse complement on a strand whose bases are available for pairing with complementary bases. To replicate the pieces of a molecular machine, it would first have to be taken apart.
Natural selection will favor the replication of those strands that are not already entangled with other attachments. It will favor sequences that do not form complicated secondary structures that inhibit replication.
Comment by eric — March 13, 2010 @ 2:44 pm
March 13th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
On target. The RNA World cannot replicate any rube-goldberg machines at all. At most it can only replicate individual strands of RNA. It cannot build up to a cell. (See my previous post.)
Comment by eric — March 13, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
March 13th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
You need to chill Olegt. There are textbooks which report both aspects of Washington's life and others which omit the reference to his owning slaves. Nothing disingenuous here.
Comment by Bradford — March 13, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
March 13th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Eric:
Good to see you back Eric. Your comment brings up a more general point. What conclusions are we to draw if nature indicates that natural selection would mitigate against a process that leads to a cell? The common assumption has been that natural selection would abet such a process.
Comment by Bradford — March 13, 2010 @ 2:53 pm
March 13th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Bradford, and I thought you said it was hypothetical! So no, it wasn't?
Comment by olegt — March 13, 2010 @ 2:54 pm
March 13th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
I wonder if the Texas textbooks have anything to say about the eugenics movement, which was very much part of the mindset of progressive educators and policy makers from 1900 to about 1945.
Here is an article, by Alan Stoskepf, describing how an advocacy view of eugenics became part of not only university but high school curricula.
In particular teachers, as Stoskepf goes on to explain, were taught a very progressive view of eugenics.
Of course I am not trying to argue that eugenics should be taught the way it was back in the 1920’s and 30’s, which was not really teaching but a form of advocacy.
I think the history of eugenics should be taught as “a cautionary tale” of what happens when a small influential and ideologically motivated group of people use a new, but poorly understood, science (genetics) to create a crisis that in turn is used to shape social policy.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 13, 2010 @ 2:56 pm
March 13th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
If some textbooks do not include references to Washinton owning slaves then the hypothetical references a possible hidden agenda explaining why that is.
Comment by Bradford — March 13, 2010 @ 2:58 pm
March 13th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
I give up, Bradford, decyphering your hypotheticals is above my pay grade.
But what about the Paycheck Fairness Act? Does it have a provision for enforcing gender balance?
Comment by olegt — March 13, 2010 @ 3:01 pm
March 13th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
You're right about the balance referring to same position within the company. What employers do not like about the proposed new law, which would amend one already existing, is a shift in evidentiary obligation from complaintant to employer. You can have a valid reason for paying one employee more than another even when they both have the same job title. One may be more experienced, more skilled, have a better track record. The burden of proof currently lies with the one filing the complaint to show that it was sexual discrimination and not one of these other reasons. A new proposal would provide replacement with a "business necessity" standard. That's a high bar for one could argue that a moderate increase in business efficiency or income is not a necessity. It's one more of a plethora of proposed and establshed regulations by the governing lords.
Comment by Bradford — March 13, 2010 @ 3:29 pm
March 13th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Bradford wrote:
OK, so your friend has no reason to complain then.
Well, if you have a bona fide reason for paying one employee more than the other then reasonable people should agree with you.
It would be hard to argue whether a moderate increase in business efficiency or income is or is not a necessity, but that is not the question addressed by the law. Here is what the law says. If you have two equally qualified employees, a man and a woman, doing the same work, you can lower their salaries by 1% (assuming they were equal to start with) if you want. But you can't cut the woman's salary by 2% and keep the man's unchanged. There is no business necessity in doing that. An equal pay cut achieves that goal.
Comment by olegt — March 13, 2010 @ 4:19 pm
March 13th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Thanks. I enjoy the exchanges, but perhaps too much. Its still difficult to find the time that it could absorb, if I let it. But for the moment at least, I'm indulging.
It is assumed that it must abet such a process because ("help us Obi Wan") "you're our only hope."
The alternative of design is too terrible for some to consider.
Comment by eric — March 13, 2010 @ 4:27 pm
March 13th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
34 comments (35 now)- 9 belong to olegt and not one of those 9 is on-topic.
But I understand why- given the nature of the OP what can olegt say about it that would support his position?
Comment by ID guy — March 13, 2010 @ 4:56 pm
March 13th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
34
Partly my fault. I somewhat derailed my own thread.
Comment by Bradford — March 13, 2010 @ 6:27 pm
March 13th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Comment by Bradford — March 13, 2010 @ 6:31 pm
March 14th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
The point I was going to make with my allusions to Thomas Sowle etc. is that there are two kinds of consensus: (1) There is a consensus that is empirically based, or what is objectively the best way to interpret the evidence? (2) There is a consensus based on a shared world view.
I would argue that #1 is that only position that deserves to be called scientific.
Is the consensus here one that was derived from the evidence, or one that is based on a worldviews of the scientists examining the evidence?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 14, 2010 @ 12:40 pm
March 19th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
I had thought, based on this comment and numerous others on the internet as well as headlines blaring that Thomas Jefferson had been removed from textbooks in Texas, that a grave historic travesty had taken place. Just to add some perspective to this:
Source: Gail Lowe, Chairman, Texas State Board of Education. I added the highlight to her quote.
Comment by Bradford — March 19, 2010 @ 9:54 pm
March 19th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
I heard this member of the Texas Board of Education on Hardball the other night and along with her stance outlined above her rational was that it was more appropriate to present the writings of those she felt most influenced Jefferson (Aquinas et. al.) rather than the writings and opinions of Jefferson himself. The agenda was clear to anyone listening.
Comment by Acipenser — March 19, 2010 @ 10:25 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 2:22 am
Sorry Acipenser, it is neither. Jefferson is prominently mentioned within the context of what is being taught- US history and government.
This is all fine stuff and very appropriate for a course on world history or European history during for a 100 year period following Jefferson's drafting of the Declaration of Independence. It is of tangential concern to US history courses.
What an absolutely moronic statement. The fact that Jefferson is given a prominent place in American history books is consistent with his important role in it. Jefferson's appearance is not besides the point. It is the point.
Ah, now we're getting close to the wound. Jefferson's influence in that context would be pertinent to the relevant world history course. Jefferson's influence on the American Revolution is not underplayed. After all US history is the operative point here.
As I pointed out this could be mentioned as a point of tangential concern to US history.
Those thinkers who influenced Jefferson also influenced other founding fathers. Therein lies their importance to US history. It is progressives who have an agenda which they like to hide. They love the emphasis on enlightenment philosophy perceiving it to be agenda friendly. I'm not missing the opportunity to point out that their hidden agenda is exposed by their clumsy attempts to conflate world and US history.
Comment by Bradford — March 20, 2010 @ 2:22 am
March 20th, 2010 at 9:12 am
The subject was World History, and the topic was people who influenced revolutionary movements. Leaving out Jefferson, one of the most influential revolutionaries in world history, is simply not a tenable historical position.
Comment by Zachriel — March 20, 2010 @ 9:12 am
March 20th, 2010 at 9:44 am
OK Zach. Provide me a link showing the relevant passage in a world history course taught in Texas and how previous mention of Thomas Jefferson within that context which was altered. You may be right about the world history course but there is a good deal more to say about Jefferson's role in non-US revolutions. I'm interested in finding out exactly what would have been taught about Jefferson which is not going to be taught now. Specifics and not the vague references to Thomas Jefferson being removed from Texas textbooks.
Comment by Bradford — March 20, 2010 @ 9:44 am
March 20th, 2010 at 9:59 am
This from the Texas Freedom Network:
So what specific revolutions did Thomas Jefferson influence other than the American Revolution and how would you document the extent of that influence? How is Enlightenment defined and how does Thomas Jefferson fit into that concept and not for the writings of James Madison or Alexander Hamilton? The new standard incidentally is much easier to document. We know the above writers were influential but the former standard restricts us to a political revolution and Enlightenment perspective. The latter standard uses the much more general term- impact.
Comment by Bradford — March 20, 2010 @ 9:59 am
March 20th, 2010 at 10:36 am
The change is senseless from a historical vantage.
Vietnamese Declaration of Independence, Ho Chi Minh, 1945: My fellow countrymen, All people are created equal. They are given by their creator certain rights that nobody is able to take away. Among these are the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Comment by Zachriel — March 20, 2010 @ 10:36 am
March 20th, 2010 at 10:43 am
Another quote from the same source:
That covers a lot of revolutions. Why Enlightenment ideas as opposed to some others? For example, how did Enlightenment ideas impact Lenin, Castro, Ayatollah Khomeini? Is the analytical perspective too narrow?
Not without good reason I might add.
Jefferson's ideas were the product of prior influences. What specific ideas from the American Revolution were unique to Jefferson?
We could turn this around of course and ask what Jefferson's deist notions had to do with subsequent events of world history.
Comment by Bradford — March 20, 2010 @ 10:43 am
March 20th, 2010 at 10:52 am
Zach:
Not at all. The additional writers had great impact on world history. If anything I would have added some ancient Greeks to the list and likely some more thinkers as well.
Bradford: So what specific revolutions did Thomas Jefferson influence other than the American Revolution and how would you document the extent of that influence?
This perfectly illustrates the problem. Ho Chi Minh was an authoritarian ruler who paid no attention to human rights in governing. His influences were more consistent with Marxist-Leninist philosophies of governing. That is how that bit of history should be taught.
Comment by Bradford — March 20, 2010 @ 10:52 am
March 20th, 2010 at 11:04 am
Um, you forgot to add the reasons. The Enlightenment was one of the most important political and philosophical movements of the age, and influenced history far beyond its own time.
It's hard to imagine how anyone can argue against the influence of Jefferson on political revolutions. For instance, Jefferson had a profound impact on the French Revolution, a revolution which reshaped global history.
Yes, and the U.S. enslaved millions, ethnically cleansed the native populations, and invaded other countries to take their land and resources.
In 1945, Ho was a hero to his people. He asked for American help. Roosevelt, before his death, had determined that the Vietnamese should be independent. Instead, the U.S. supported French colonialism, and then undermined the democratic process.
Your question concerned the influence of Jefferson on revolutions. That question was answered.
Comment by Zachriel — March 20, 2010 @ 11:04 am
March 20th, 2010 at 11:24 am
I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held at the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the communist Ho Chi Minh.
Comment by Zachriel — March 20, 2010 @ 11:24 am
March 20th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
You have not defined what you mean by Enlightenment. There are many factors relevant to historical influences. This is very much subject to analysis and interpretation.
The American Revolution had an impact on the French Revolution and French writers and non-writers had a much bigger impact. Your focus is narrow. The French Revolution was very much a contrast to the American version. That in itself indicates that Jefferson's influence was not as profound as is alleged.
The US did not enslave. Slavery was institutionalized long before the American Revolution. The US sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives to end the practice. Ethnically cleansed? Frontier settlers were not Nazis and Indians were great warriors. The USA also saved Europe twice in the 20th century. This is why Texans need to actively take part in deciding to limit the influences of the far left on what we teach our children.
All the foregoing is completely irrelevant to the point that it was Marxist ideals and not Jeffersonian ideals which held sway with Ho Chi Minh.
No it was not. Are you claiming that it was Jeffersonian ideals which brought about the murderous excesses of the French Revolution and the subsequent rise of Napolean?
Comment by Bradford — March 20, 2010 @ 12:09 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Zach:
Completely irrelevant to the point about Thomas Jefferson's impact on the history of that region.
Comment by Bradford — March 20, 2010 @ 12:11 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
You don't know what the Enlightenment was, but are taking a position on its history.
You were pointed to a credible cite about Jefferson's global influence.
They bred slaves in the United States. If you don't know the basic facts of U.S. history, why are you taking a position?
Um, their Declaration of Independence quoted Thomas Jefferson. Apparently, Ho being "an authoritarian ruler who paid no attention to human rights in governing" is relevant, but pointing out that his attempt to hold national elections is not.
Comment by Zachriel — March 20, 2010 @ 12:29 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Bradford wrote:
Therefore we should avoid any mention that Thomas Jefferson's ideas influenced revolutionaries around the world. Is that your point, Bradford?
Comment by olegt — March 20, 2010 @ 12:30 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Hardly Zach. I know how it is defined and also know that the wording used is highly ambiguous.
If this is the best you've got then you have little to offer. My reading related to Jefferson and related historic figures vastly exceeds your commentary. The extent of Jefferson's influence, as compared with other great historic figures, is very much subject to dispute.
Don't get snarky. I've forgotten more American history than you know.
Yes. What a bit of hypocrisy that was.
Elections were held in the Soviet Union too Zach.
Comment by Bradford — March 20, 2010 @ 1:01 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Olegt:
Many historic figures influenced revolutionaries around the world. Historians must decide what to include and what to omit in their necessarily truncated renditions of what took place. There were many who had greater influence with the revolutionaries in France, Iran, Russia, Cuba and Vietnam, among other places, than Thomas Jefferson.
Comment by Bradford — March 20, 2010 @ 1:10 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Brdford wrote:
That would be great. However, it was the board of education, specifically its conservative members (aided by the rest of the Republicans), who decided to strike out Jefferson's name. No historians were consulted according to the article in the New York Times:
Comment by olegt — March 20, 2010 @ 1:21 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Here's your opportunity Olegt. I've cited specific revolutions in the time frame mentioned. Cite historians and their writings which show Jefferson as a predominent influence in those revolutions.
Comment by Bradford — March 20, 2010 @ 1:37 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Bradford,
In my opinion, that question should be left to historians, rather than politicians. What do you think of that?
Comment by olegt — March 20, 2010 @ 2:02 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
To some extent I agree which is why I would like the name of a single historian who thinks Jefferson had any significant influence on Iranian, Cuban, Russian, Vietnamese or Chinese revolutionaries.
One thing is troubling though about the expertise card. It is selectively played. I do not see doctors, health care administrators and insurance experts formulating health care legislation. I see politicians, most of whom were lawyers before getting elected to office. I don't see businessmen and women formulating job and stimulus bills. I see politicians who more often than not have no track record running a successful business.
Comment by Bradford — March 20, 2010 @ 5:46 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Bradford,
You're moving the goal posts. Jefferson may not have had much impact on the Chinese revolution, but it hardly matters. His impact on the earlier revolutionaries is beyond any doubt. If you'd like to find out about his specific influences, begin by reading this page at the Library of Congress: Thomas Jefferson: A Revolutionary World.
If you want an example, here is Tadeusz Kościuszko, the leader of a Polish uprising against Russia, who was so moved by the American Declaration of Independence that he went to the States to personally meet with Jefferson. Jefferson has also influenced the French and Haiti revolutions.
I don't understand why you wish to defend the actions of the Texas conservatives. They're clearly doing this because Jefferson was not religious enough.
Comment by olegt — March 20, 2010 @ 7:04 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Olegt:
Jefferson did have an influence beyond our shores during the time in which he lived. He had little impact on latter 19th century and 20th century revolutions which were a major part of the designated time frames for this issue. That's significant. It is my belief that social sciences should attempt the same degree of precision as is sought in the physical sciences. If a 150 or 200 year historic period is identified as conforming to such and such a norm then there should be demonstrable accuracy to the claim. That means either amending the claim in this case or confining the historic period to a shorter term
Not so. Thomas Paine was an atheist and is in good standing in my book and in the view of most conservatives. So is Thomas Jefferson for that matter. His church state views have been tragically distorted. I'd blog on that but do not wish to alter the fundamental nature of TT. Perhaps at my own blog where then I'd open up the comment section for it. That is if there is interest in this.
This is about teaching broad overarching lessons of history. Zach gave the store away in how he characterized US history. It was a very narrow and incomplete vision of US history and a pernicious portrayal of the USA. Concepts have consequences which is why historic themes are vital. The left engaged in historic revisionism around the middle of the 20th century. By the end of the century what was taught to my children was very dissimilar to what I was taught. History did not change. The textbooks and attitudes did change. Change flows in both directions.
Comment by Bradford — March 20, 2010 @ 7:36 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
The Enlightenment was an important political and philosophical movement emphasizing the primacy of reason. It was highly influential on the early Americans, including on the construction of the syllogism that constitutes the core of the Declaration of Independence.
While you were provided an outline from an authoritative source, you claim there is a dispute, but don't say what that dispute is, claim that the age of the Enlightenment is also subject to dispute, but don't say what that dispute is, and don't provide an argument for either position, much less support.
Yet knowledgeable people agree that, had elections been held, Ho would have won overwhelmingly. Instead, after having supported French colonialism, the U.S. refused to allow those Geneva agreed elections to go forth.
Exactly. But the decision wasn't made by historians, who nearly all agree that Jefferson was of paramount importance to ensuing revolutionary movements in Europe, including the French Revolution which remade Europe.
Vietnamese Declaration of Independence, Ho Chi Minh, 1945: My fellow countrymen, All people are created equal. They are given by their creator certain rights that nobody is able to take away. Among these are the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Comment by Zachriel — March 20, 2010 @ 9:22 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
That doesn't redeem your statement that the U.S. didn't enslave people. Every child born of a slave was enslaved.
Comment by Zachriel — March 20, 2010 @ 9:22 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Bradford wrote:
That won't fly, Bradford. Jefferson remained influential in the 19th century. In his 1835 Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville called him "the most powerful apostle democracy has ever had." We can argue about Jefferson's precise place in world history, but we'd have to eventually consult professional historians and political scientists, something the board never did.
But we can avoid that argument if we look at Dunbar's amendment and see whose names replaced Jefferson's. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Sir William Blackstone. Aquinas and Calvin had a greater impact on political revolutions around the world than Jefferson? Seriously? Can you marshal any support for that?
Comment by olegt — March 20, 2010 @ 9:25 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
I already agreed that Jefferson was influential in the first half of the 19th century. I then pointed out that historians would be hard pressed to link him as a significant influence on revolutionaries in the latter half of that century and during the 20th century. That's a significant point as that entire period was encompassed as relevant by one of the leading organization critics of the Texas conservatives.
The amendment changed the emphasis from an Enlightenment influence to a historic impact and yes those individuals had an impact.
Comment by Bradford — March 20, 2010 @ 9:45 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Zach, do try and apply some historic precision and perspective to your statements. Most Americans lived in states where slavery was outlawed even before the Civil War. The nation struggled with the issue and eventually overcame it at the cost of much blood and treasure. That's a more complete account and an indication that the USA makes attempts to right wrongs. Not every nation does.
Comment by Bradford — March 20, 2010 @ 9:52 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Yes and how is reason defined?
Good propaganda but irrelevant to the issue of Jefferson.
Ho did not practice what he preached.
Comment by Bradford — March 20, 2010 @ 9:58 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
Neither did Jefferson.
We take that as the best you can do towards a retraction.
Comment by Zachriel — March 20, 2010 @ 10:09 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
Think about what you typed. Conservatives in Texas were criticized by you and others for removing the reference of Jefferson to Enlightenment ideals and revolutionary influences. Now you accuse Jefferson of hypocrisy in an effort to defend Ho Chi Minh, a despotic ruler. A few more Jeffersonian defenses like this and I may have to donate to the Texas conservative cause.
Comment by Bradford — March 20, 2010 @ 10:23 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Zach did the USA make changes in textbooks or did Texas?
Comment by Bradford — March 20, 2010 @ 10:28 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Um, because Jefferson was of great influence to Enlightenment ideals and revolutionary influences.
So? That doesn't mean Jefferson wasn't an important influence.
Comment by Zachriel — March 20, 2010 @ 10:28 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
Jeffersonian influence was limited both in time and scope. That's unfortunate but most of the revolutions since the time of Jefferson, particularly those of the last 150 years, were anti-Jeffersonian in their values.
Comment by Bradford — March 20, 2010 @ 10:39 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Bradford wrote:
Bradford, are you seriously stating that Aquinas and Calvin had a greater influence on post-1750 political revolutions than did Jefferson? If your answer is, incredibly, yes, then could you back up this claim with some sources?
Comment by olegt — March 20, 2010 @ 10:54 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 11:22 pm
Jefferson was no doubt a great man, with great influence. I strongly recommend the compendium of letters between him and John Adams, his primary intellectual adversary.
As an aside, Jefferson turned out to be dead wrong about the French revolution of 1789. Similar to our own revolution, he viewed it as another noble thrust towards enlightenment, away from theocracy and monarchy. But, alas it was not to be. After storming the Bastille, and beheading a few nobles, the French revolution quickly degenerated into disorder and anarchy. From this chaos and instability, within 10 short years, Napoleon was able to seize power and make war throughout the Europe. The Utopian ideals — largely supported by Jefferson — faded rather quickly, leaving social instability in its wake.
Jefferson, not Adams, bet on the French and lost big. His idealism and service to the U.S. was monumental, but as an advocate for France, I believe history has shown the conservative Adams to be more prescient.
Comment by David S — March 20, 2010 @ 11:22 pm
March 21st, 2010 at 1:09 am
If you examine each revolution on its own merits you find it very hard to place the revolutions from 1750 to now into a pattern where an easily organized group of historic figures stand out as "influencers of revolutions." The assumption that this reduces to that kind of dynamic needs to be questioned. If I had to finger one individual as being most influential I'd nominate Karl Marx but even his influence was subordinated to the local influences of each "Marxian revolution." I question the utility of the revolution influence mindset. I think the circumstances of the nations experiencing revolutions were of far greater causal importance than the philosophical legacies of great thinkers of the past.
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2010 @ 1:09 am
March 21st, 2010 at 8:39 am
A fundamental difference is that the American Colonies already had established parliamentary institutions. They weren't replacing their system of government, just separating it from Britain.
Comment by Zachriel — March 21, 2010 @ 8:39 am
March 21st, 2010 at 9:34 am
That in no way justifies dropping Jefferson. You can hear echos of the Declaration of Independence in independence movements all around the world. According to David Armitage, over half of the 192 nations of the world have such declarations, with most having directly borrowed the "structure and literary form" of Jefferson's document.
Armitage, The declaration of independence: a global history, Harvard University Press 2007.
And finally,
Comment by Zachriel — March 21, 2010 @ 9:34 am
March 21st, 2010 at 9:34 am
That's hilarious, Bradford. You are unable to defend Dunbar's amendment and unwilling to criticize her, so you change the subject. OK then.
Comment by olegt — March 21, 2010 @ 9:34 am
March 21st, 2010 at 10:38 am
Olegt:
There's no historic reason why Dunbar should have to defend against an unfounded charge. The charge is that Jefferson has influenced revolutions from 1750 to the present time. On the face of it that is very dubious. He did in his time- a very brief part of that 260 year period. So let's make this very simple. Take any revolution from 1900 to the present time and show Jefferson influencing it. Just one. This should be an easy historic documentation exercise.
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2010 @ 10:38 am
March 21st, 2010 at 10:45 am
Zach, are you aware that some of the worse regimes in history had nice documents showing that they granted human rights to their citizenry. Do I have to dreg up some official documents from Nazi Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union? It's nice that Ho Chi Minh thought of the Declaration of Independence. All men are created equal… Wow. Too bad this was a totally meaningless concept to ordinary Vietnamese.
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2010 @ 10:45 am
March 21st, 2010 at 11:01 am
Bradford,
I won't take the bait. There is no need to concentrate on the last 100 years or on the Chinese revolution. There is enough evidence that Jefferson's influence was strong for more than a century. He continues to be quoted to this day (Ho Chi Minh is one example, Poland in the 1980s is another).
But at any rate, whatever period you take, his influence on political revolutions is indisputably greater than that of Aquinas or Calvin, whose names have replaced his. Try to argue with that.
Comment by olegt — March 21, 2010 @ 11:01 am
March 21st, 2010 at 11:01 am
Let me help out. Iraq democratically elects its public officials and has laws which protect human rights. This very much contrasts with the Saddam Hussein regime. Do you wish to credit Thomas Jefferson for this?
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2010 @ 11:01 am
March 21st, 2010 at 11:05 am
OK. Now you're starting to think like a physics professor and not an ideologue. If it is true that Jefferson had real influence during a specified period of time then kids should be taught what that period of time was. It ought not extend beyond that time as a decent respect for truth and scholarship would not allow this.
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2010 @ 11:05 am
March 21st, 2010 at 11:21 am
Bradford, you've set up a straw man. Fight the real one: how on earth can one argue that Aquinas and Calvin had exerted influence than Jefferson on political revolutions from 1750 to present?
Comment by olegt — March 21, 2010 @ 11:21 am
March 21st, 2010 at 11:22 am
Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence were the basis for many other Declarations of Independence. You were provided scholarship and examples, including the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. What more evidence of Jefferson's importance to world history could you want?
The principles of the Enlightenment and reason are exemplified in the *syllogism* at the heart of the Declaration of Independence.
Comment by Zachriel — March 21, 2010 @ 11:22 am
March 21st, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Why is this question important? Why is it important to focus on political revolutions? What do you think the answer to that is? When I read about the various ones I find few common denominators with respect to personal influences from the past.
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2010 @ 5:22 pm
March 21st, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Who wrote the Constitution Zach. Do you know? Why is that not played up? Many nations have modeled their own constitutions after ours. Laws have palpable effects unlike most declarations which can be used as showcases by insincere leaders.
I'm rather fond of the phrase "All men are created equal"
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2010 @ 5:27 pm
March 21st, 2010 at 6:18 pm
The U.S. Constitution: The Major Work-Horse
The Declaration of Independence: The Major Show-Horse
Combined, they make a heluva team.
You guys have outdone yourselves with a truly remarkable and interesting discussion above. I really enjoyed it. Well done.
Comment by David S — March 21, 2010 @ 6:18 pm
March 21st, 2010 at 7:04 pm
David S:
Thanks David. I sometimes explore other sites having comment sections. Many have more comments and outdo TT for quantity. But I do not find many where substantive exchanges take place. Those kind of exchanges can be found at Telic Thoughts.
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2010 @ 7:04 pm
March 21st, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Bradford wrote:
I can't believe I'm reading this. In case you aren't playing games and really don't get it, here is the answer.
Certain countries appeared as a result of political revolutions. USA, USSR, and PRC, to name a few. If studying the birth of these countries is not important then I don't know what is. Wow, just wow!
Comment by olegt — March 21, 2010 @ 7:37 pm
March 21st, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Many nations have adopted from the U.S. Constitution. And many others have parliamentary systems instead. This doesn't relate to the subject at hand. Topic in World History: the influence of great political philosophers on political revolutions from 1750 to today, and why Jefferson was removed from the list.
Comment by Zachriel — March 21, 2010 @ 8:58 pm
March 21st, 2010 at 10:04 pm
OK. Why are you predisposed to think that political revolutions are causally linked to long deceased thinkers?
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2010 @ 10:04 pm
March 21st, 2010 at 10:14 pm
It does. What we do not teach our children is as important as what we do. At the outset of the exchanges the complaint was made that Jefferson's removal from this one aspect of historic commentary was tracable to a negative view of him particularly with respect to church state issues. The church state part might be right but it is not conservatives who look at Jefferson through this prism. The American Revolution pushed a number of great thinkers to the forefront of history- Madison, Hamilton, Adams and Franklin among them in addition to Jefferson. Their impact on history is arguably on a par with Jefferson. The question I have is not why is Jefferson excluded. I'm willing to include him in with others whose impact on western civilization is significant. The greater question is why the narrow focus and so few mentioned historic figures. Enlightenment is a code word for many. In forums where commenters are not as careful as you and Olegt you can readily get the code out in the open. Take a trip over to PZ's blog when the subject comes up and you get an earful. I have yet to see you contrast reason with its distinguishing historic opposite. Give it a try even if you have to sacrifice some pretend historic objectivity in the process.
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2010 @ 10:14 pm
March 21st, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Bradford wrote:
Because we discover causal chains leading to them, Bradford. When you learn that Tadeusz Kościuszko admired Jefferson and even commissioned his portrait, does it not occur to you that Jefferson's thinking may have influenced the leader of the Polish uprising? I can haz design inference?
Comment by olegt — March 21, 2010 @ 10:17 pm
March 21st, 2010 at 10:26 pm
Re-read the question. Long deceased does not describe the relationship between Jefferson and Kościuszko. We're dealing with world history spanning centuries and I've already indicated my agreement with you that Jefferson's influence went beyond US shores during and shortly after his lifetime. You also appeared to agree with me that his influence waned by the 20th century. Yet critics of Texas conservatives insist on framing Jefferson within an Enlightenment context and an inapplicable time frame. Why?
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2010 @ 10:26 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:34 am
Bradford,
You have completely avoided the question I asked a while ago that goes straight to the heart of the nature of the amendment: why would anyone think that Calvin and Aquinas (and Blackstone) exerted more influence on revolutionaries post-1750 than did Jefferson?
Matthew Crow, a history Ph.D. candidate at UCLA, weighs in on this question at History News Network: Why is Texas Afraid of Thomas Jefferson?
Comment by olegt — March 22, 2010 @ 4:34 am
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:24 am
olegt:
Some thoughts.
The premise of the question seems sound, but as usual, it doesn't hurt to think it through. I'm not an historian, but I think it could be argued that Calvin's and Aquinas's overall impact on history has been absolutely massive. Philip Jenkins has noted that the most successful social movement in the 20th century was world Christianity, especially the Pentecostal stream, which grew from zero to hundreds of millions worldwide, without benefit of government, military, or standard economic engines. In just the last two decades of that century the number of professing Christians increased 10-fold around the world.
You know as well as I do that this influence is powerful in the U.S.; you may not realize that the "center of gravity" of world Christianity is no longer here but in the global south and in Asia.
Apart from the Bible, Aquinas and Calvin stand among perhaps four or five historical figures who have most profoundly shaped present-day Christianity. I never heard of Aquinas in my school days, and barely heard of John Calvin. I'm guessing the same is true for you. In a course on world history their influence should be acknowledged. I don't know why they got included under "political revolutions," but I can affirm that they need to be included.
So why did the Texas board put them in the political revolutionary category? Calvin wrote on (and practiced) political theory. I don't know if Aquinas did. I could speculate. It might be that they would not affirm the premise of your question; they might say, "Of course Jefferson was more important, but we've already covered him so much in U.S. history, to bring him out even more under world history would distort his place in the world." One possible reason is that they knew Aquinas and Calvin needed to be placed somewhere and couldn't find a better place.
Or it could be the result of conservative bias on their part. I suppose we should all be shocked, utterly shocked, to find that worldview or ideology is influencing education! It would be the first time ever!
No, what's unique about this is that the NY Times doesn't feature liberal distortions of history the way it did this one, if it is indeed a distortion. The NY Times doesn't have the same interest in bringing liberal distortions into the light. And that, by the way, explains why I've kept the focus where I have in the other related discussion.
Comment by TomG — March 22, 2010 @ 6:24 am
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:10 am
Olegt:
That's not what they did. They changed the substance of the question itself to a focus on historic influence and away from revolution. But let's take a look at your source and dissect the first two paragraphs:
This is the first hint of an agenda. Distribution of goods? Wow. There's an invitation to socialism. That's the job of our rulers. They are the ones who should see to it that the economy is run so as to maximize prosperity and economic (but not political) egalitarianism. What do you think he means by this out of context paraphrase of Jefferson Olegt?
Very deceptive. The time period actually encompasses only half of the 18th century but includes all of the 20th century and the 21st up to present time. Why do you think this is consistently underplayed? The answer was apparent in a prior exchange between me and Olegt. When you look at the revolutions since 1900 in detail it is clear Jefferson's influence was nil. But we cannot have that admission can we. It undercuts the critics of the Texas conservatives.
Baloney.
BTW Olegt, you've ignored my question about selective usage of the expertise card. You note his PhD. Why were doctors, medical administrators and insurance executives shut out of the health care process in favor of lawyer politicians- the predominant profession among lawmakers? Why are businessmen shut out of real input on jobs and stimulus bills? Expertise has an unmistakable academic flavor to it. But then again academics lean to the far left by a huge margin in sharp contrast to the general population.
Comment by Bradford — March 22, 2010 @ 9:10 am
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:17 am
Once again from the Texas Freedom Network which has criticized the Texas conservatives:
Note the change in emphasis from a more narrow revolutionary focus to the broader issue of historic trends.
Exactly. The thrust of the standard is changed so do not pretend the supporting thesis is still exclusively focused on revolutions.
Comment by Bradford — March 22, 2010 @ 9:17 am
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:24 am
Thanks, Bradford, that answers what I was puzzling about in my comment above.
Comment by TomG — March 22, 2010 @ 9:24 am
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:35 am
The Enlightenment was an important social, political and philosophical movement. You can't just ignore it because Texas conservatives think it's some sort of code—any more than you can ignore Romanticism because teenagers giggle when you first say the word.
Jefferson had a profound influence on Polish history that reverberates even today.
Yes, it's watered down, and doesn't address one of the most important facets of modern history, independence movements that have reshaped the world.
In 1776, much of the world was controlled by a few European powers. Jefferson's Declaration was the seminal document that led to independence movements all over the world. His ideas are encapsulated in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. What more could you ask for in terms of his global influence on the history of independence and human rights? There is no other figure since then that comes close.
Comment by Zachriel — March 22, 2010 @ 9:35 am
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:45 am
Nice try, Bradford.
They didn't change the focus away from the revolutions. The wording stayed the same, only the names changed. Read the transcript of the March 17 Hardball with Chris Matthews, where Cynthia Dunbar is talking about the subject:
And don't try to change the subject to healthcare legislation. If you want to discuss it then open another thread.
Comment by olegt — March 22, 2010 @ 9:45 am
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:49 am
The principle characteristic pegged to Enlightenment is reason. That tells us volumes. Reason is a very vague and subjective term. But it does exist and predated the Enlightenment by thousands of years. That's why I've repeatedly asked for distinguishing contrasts- and received no answer.
It was not a document that led to the independence of colonial nations. This is history distorted.
You're so impressed by a piece of paper which most of the UN nations show no real respect for. If Jefferson's ideals mean anything they should be respected in practice. They are not. Most of the earth's people are ruled by autocratic politicians.
Comment by Bradford — March 22, 2010 @ 9:49 am
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:57 am
She makes a good point. Madison had a greater impact on history than Jefferson and arguably so did Franklin. The US would not have gained independence without French assistance and it was Franklin who secured it. He did much more as well. The list of names is highly questionable even from a revolutionary perspective. It is inadequate from the broader perspective of historic impact.
I will continue to raise the expertise issue as it is clear arguments by authority are linked to positions and exclusive of other POVs.
Comment by Bradford — March 22, 2010 @ 9:57 am
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:03 am
Bradford, you can't explain this away! You could argue about replacing Jefferson's name with those of Franklin or Madison, but that's not what the board did. You might as well follow Tom's example and admit that this is a poorly disguised attempt to elevate the significance of Christian theologians in a school curriculum.
Comment by olegt — March 22, 2010 @ 10:03 am
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:07 am
If liberals wish to discuss revolutions in the context of history they need to dwell on effects of them. The American Revolution was noteworthy because it was a successful one on so many levels. Much of its success is owed to James Madison
http://www.americaslibrary.gov...
The constitution is of immense importance to legal historians.
All the verbiage in proclamations means little if not followed up by enforceable laws. Not only did the constitution make possible a very workable government, it codified concepts of freedom in a related Bill of Rights.
Most revolutions have brought about subsequent regimes which became as corrupt and autocratic as their predecessors. Madison ensured this would not be so in the wake of the American Revolution.
Comment by Bradford — March 22, 2010 @ 10:07 am
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:12 am
Bradford wrote:
Therefore let's strike out Jefferson and replace him with Aquinas and Calvin. That surely makes sense!
Comment by olegt — March 22, 2010 @ 10:12 am
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:16 am
Olegt:
Whether you like it or not Aquinas, Martin Luther and others had great historic impact. So did Mohamed. Although I'm not one of his admirers my respect for historic accuracy leads me to think his importance should be emphasized. I'm not arguing for replacement but rather for broadening a too narrow field of names. If you're going to teach history then teach it well. That means including important trends and historic figures with proper perspective.
Comment by Bradford — March 22, 2010 @ 10:16 am
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:20 am
Gee whiz. The Enlightenment had specific views on reason. You can't just pretend the Enlightenment didn't exist just because you think "reason" is some sort of code. Their views were highly influential, not only in their own time, but throughout succeeding history. The Enlightenment ended with the rise of the Romantics.
The entire idea of a declaration of independence begins with the American Declaration of Independence. Over half of the 192 nations of the world have such declarations, with most having directly borrowed the "structure and literary form" of Jefferson's document. Jefferson's ideas are even incorporated into the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This has been pointed out to you before, but you continue to ignore it.
Half the world lives in democracies. But Jeffersonian ideals permeate even authoritarian regimes, who as you point out, must as least give lip service to those ideals.
According to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s measure of democracy, half of the world’s population now lives in a democracy of some sort.
Comment by Zachriel — March 22, 2010 @ 10:20 am
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:23 am
No question, Martin Luther had a great historic impact. However, his impact on the revolutions of the 18th and later centuries is less clear. It's less clear to me what historic impact Aquinas had. His name would belong in a philosophy class.
Anyway, Bradford, as much fun as it is watching your contortions, I've got to get back to work.
Adios.
Comment by olegt — March 22, 2010 @ 10:23 am
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:27 am
The more you listen to progressives argue for Jefferson the more apparent it is that they are the ones with the wedge strategy. Jefferson is valued for the church state argument, the Enlightenment "values" and most recently for social justice causes as this quote courtesy of an Olegt link reveals.
Is it any surprise to wedgies that their strategy will be resisted by those not sharing their metaphysical focus?
Comment by Bradford — March 22, 2010 @ 10:27 am
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:40 am
Enlightenment values, "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness," as well as tolerance and the use of reason to resolve conflict, are among the greatest contributions Americans have made to the world. Jefferson was central to that contribution, and the effect is still being felt today.
Comment by Zachriel — March 22, 2010 @ 10:40 am
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:31 pm
The values mentioned stem in large part to an Anglo-Saxon tradition of individualism and the legal tradition of the Magna Carta. That's a more exact explanation.
Comment by Bradford — March 22, 2010 @ 12:31 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:33 pm
olegt,
olegt, I object strongly. That's a serious enough representation to count as a lie. I don't appreciate you twisting my words that way.
Did I call it a "poorly disguised attempt?" No, I affirmed that they needed to be included. Are you implying that only by some underhanded subversion, some "disguised attempt" could Christian theologians find a place in world history? Aquinas and Calvin were two of the most significant figures in European history. They belong in world history on that account.
If you can misinterpret me that badly, why should we trust your opinion on what the Texans did?
Notice also that Bradford gave correcting information, which I acknowledged, that answered my question of why they were included under political revolutionaries. They weren't. Your 9:45 am comment would counter that if it quoted the Texas standards, but it doesn't. Matthews steered the question a certain way. What counts is what the standards say.
Comment by TomG — March 22, 2010 @ 1:33 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Of course they belong in world history studies, but Jefferson's influence is indispensable to understanding the independence movements that shaped the modern world. There is clearly some other motivation at work in Texas. The Jefferson matter is just representative of other changes to the curriculum there. Indeed, Bradford goes so far as to suggest that studying the Enlightenment is suspect.
Comment by Zachriel — March 22, 2010 @ 1:55 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:04 pm
What a joke.
Chris tingly-leg Matthews' go-to guy admits that all of the changes are legitimate, but, like Zach, he notes that there is something fishy about the pattern of these legitimate changes.
Why, they are "conservative", these balancing emphases. They are indicative of a "worldview".
Well then, surprise, the need to balance the curriculum with these changes shows that there was a "liberal" bias indicative of a "worldview".
And if removing reference to Jefferson one time out of many is "conservative" then selecting him to emphasize every chance is "liberal".
Hmm, Dunbar must want prayer in school then, let's ask. Let's figure out her real motivation. Maybe Jefferson is just not quite Christian enough for her. The fact that liberals think this shows that their infatuation with him is suspect.
The fact that their knowledge of the relevant history begins and ends with Jefferson and the Enlightenment shows the bias needs correcting.
No culture war here.
Comment by Pez — March 22, 2010 @ 2:04 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Jefferson's influence is indispensable to understanding the independence movements that shaped the modern world. The change is not legitimate.
Comment by Zachriel — March 22, 2010 @ 2:07 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:30 pm
What about the other Founding Fathers who had as much or more impact? Why not slip under Jefferson to the very references he and the others were drawing upon but have been ignored? Why not erase the existing bias girded up by a liberal worldview? And what about the fact that it is not merely about 'independence movements'?
Since I had to Google Blackstone:
http://www.blackstoneinstitute...
Comment by Pez — March 22, 2010 @ 2:30 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:33 pm
And if you don't think there is rampant biased reporting on this, as evidenced by the Times article, try this Google and check your headlins.
http://www.google.ca/search?cl...
Comment by Pez — March 22, 2010 @ 2:33 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 3:35 pm
TomG wrote:
Tom, you previously wrote:
I interpreted that as an acknowledgment that conservative board members wanted to get their favorite theologians into the curriculum standards and placed them where they do not belong. Indeed, their impact on political revolutions from 1750 to present is insignificant relative to Jefferson's. It is subterfuge in my view.
Yes, the paragraph in question, 113.42 World History Studies, Section 19 (C) in TEKS for Social Studies (PDF) read before the amendment:
Cynthia Dunbar moved to amend this paragraph as follows:
The highlighted portion is missing in the TFN blog, but if you watch the video of the proceedings here (Item 3, about 3:30 minutes) you'll find out that it was there.
So the amended paragraph is still about the impact on post-1750 political revolutions and neither Aquinas, nor Calvin, belongs there.
Comment by olegt — March 22, 2010 @ 3:35 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:43 pm
But you said it was subterfuge in my view; that I had admitted it was a "poorly disguised attempt" etc. That was the misrepresentation.
So I still wonder why we should trust you on any representations.
Comment by TomG — March 22, 2010 @ 4:43 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:54 pm
I would agree with this but would like some indication of a common denominator between the revolutions in this time period. There were many in the world if the term is loosely used. Citing documentary references as Zach did with Ho Chi Minh does not cut it. I've mentioned many specifically and would gladly engage in an analysis of each which I believe reveals the truth as to the real genesis of them.
Two more points:
There is a big difference between an influence which is causally indispensable to an outcome and one which adds seasoning. Jefferson's influence on the French and Haitian Revolutions were of the seasoning variety. Both would have taken place without him. From a historic perspective the better and more accurate linkage is between the American Revolution and the Revolutions in France and Haiti. It was the American Revolution that was the chief influence.
Second, Tom is correct about the historic importance of Aquinas, Calvin and others for that matter who are placed in a "religion" category. No serious world history course should omit references to individuals like this. They may not belong under a political revolution heading but they belong in the textbooks.
Comment by Bradford — March 22, 2010 @ 4:54 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Pez:
The best linkage would be American Revolution to x Revolution. The French thought American Revolution. Thomas Jefferson was not foremost in their minds. The larger revolution he was a part of was. If one insists on individualizing the linkage then other personalities have equal or better claim.
Comment by Bradford — March 22, 2010 @ 5:22 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:49 pm
Bradford, you've been provided scholarly cites, and pointed to declarations of independence from around the world. Here's another.
Declaration of Purna Swaraj, 1930: We believe that it is the incredible right of the Indian people, as of any other people, to have freedom to enjoy the fruits of their soil and have the necessities of life, so that they may have full opportunities of growth. We believe also that if any government deprives a people of these and oppress them, the people have a further right to alter or abolish it.
Then you've granted the point, as the topic concerned political revolutions.
Comment by Zachriel — March 22, 2010 @ 5:49 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:59 pm
And you've been provided with the knowledge that some of these declarations come from dictators, making a mockery of Jeffersonian ideals. Actions speak louder than words Zach. A rapist who touts sexual harassment remedies should not be taken seriously.
Comment by Bradford — March 22, 2010 @ 6:59 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:01 pm
With respect to Calvin and Aquinas- yes. But the list is a very poor one for a number of reasons. It needs modification. Stop the robotic defense of the status quo.
Comment by Bradford — March 22, 2010 @ 7:01 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:08 pm
LOL! Those rights are incredible, aren't they!
Comment by chunkdz — March 22, 2010 @ 7:08 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Is this Enlightenment thinking?
Comment by Bradford — March 22, 2010 @ 7:08 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Declaration of Purna Swaraj, 1930: We believe that it is the incredible right of the Indian people…
So was the man who penned the Declaration.
It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious middle temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half-naked up the steps of the viceregal palace, while he is still organizing and conducting a defiant campaign of civil disobedience, to parley on equal terms with the representative of the king-emperor. – Winston Churchill, 1930
Comment by Zachriel — March 22, 2010 @ 7:15 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:22 pm
It would seem that many forgot what Jefferson told the King: that these rights come from God.
Comment by chunkdz — March 22, 2010 @ 7:22 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:25 pm
You don't improve the list by making it worse.
The Enlightenment ran aground in the French Revolution. The Byronic figure of Romanticism, inspired, mystic and passionate, replaced the cold reason of the Enlightenment. That ideal, too, came crashing down.
Comment by Zachriel — March 22, 2010 @ 7:25 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Perhaps ol' Winston was familiar with the writings of Charlie Darwin.
Comment by chunkdz — March 22, 2010 @ 7:57 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:17 pm
True; and it wasn't Jefferson who figured that out first: See video short 6 here (4 minutes 24 seconds).
Comment by TomG — March 22, 2010 @ 8:17 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Further on that: Who wrote the Magna Carta?
Go to that website o if you're interested to know. Or here, where you'll find this reminder of its place in history:
Comment by TomG — March 22, 2010 @ 9:28 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:19 pm
Zach from an earlier comment:
Note that the prior passage asked for an explanation about the impact of Enlightenment ideas up to the present time. Here is a comment from Zach made subsequently:
So if the Enlightenment ran aground by the end of the French Revolution (around 1800) then why are we even discussing the next 200 plus years in an Enlightenment context?
Comment by Bradford — March 22, 2010 @ 10:19 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Tom G:
Observe the Magna Carta year- 1215. Middle Age territory is it not? Enlightenment? Yet this document can be arguably asserted as being a quintessential expression of the power of human reason and a fore runner of the spirit of the American Revolution. This would be an accurate approach to history in my view.
Comment by Bradford — March 22, 2010 @ 10:27 pm
March 23rd, 2010 at 5:10 am
Now you're really talking like a revolutionary, saying the Enlightenment wasn't the source of freedom, liberty, and virtue.
You're right, of course; and this is why the former wording of the Texas history standards needed changing. Too many people grow up thinking freedom came from the Enlightenment. It didn't. It came from shared beliefs (a worldview, in today's terms) that the king was under a law higher than himself; that humans have a built-in propensity toward self-centeredness that must be checked, especially in the case of those holding great power; and that all persons have equal worth and value. These crucial beliefs came out of one (and only one) source in history. The Enlightenment tried to set this source aside, to cast off its authority over political philosophy. It was a lot more successful doing that in France than in America.
Comment by TomG — March 23, 2010 @ 5:10 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 7:32 am
TomG:
Excellent point. The Texas conservatives may have fumbled the football but they were headed toward the appropriate goal line.
Well said.
Ouch. A stinging rebuke to the Enlightenment movement.
Comment by Bradford — March 23, 2010 @ 7:32 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 7:56 am
Oh gee whiz, Bradford. According to that, you don't even need to study history—at all!
The past is not dead. In fact, it's not even past.
Yes, the Magna Carta is an important document in world history, and is assuredly part of any curriculum based on historical studies. As we trace the threads of history, we certainly pass the Magna Carta and the Reformation. The American Declaration of Independence is also a seminal document, crucially important for understanding the modern world.
The problem is that politicians in Texas are making these decisions, not historians—often contrary to historical consensus. You've been provided scholarship and examples of Jefferson's influence, Declarations from India to Flanders. Over half of the 192 nations of the world have such declarations, with most having directly borrowed the "structure and literary form" of Jefferson's document. When people talk national independence, they look to Jefferson's words and arguments for inspiration. What more evidence of Jefferson's importance to world history could you want?
Concepts of freedom are as old as Greece, or older. But modern national independence movements are essential to understanding the modern world, and these movements start with the Americans, with the Declaration of Independence of the United States forming the basis of those aspirations.
Comment by Zachriel — March 23, 2010 @ 7:56 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:01 am
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Magna Carta is included in the TEKS for Social Studies, which you would have known had you followed my link to it. In point 19 (B), immediately preceding the amended point 19 (C), the curriculum standards say this:
After Dunbar's amendment, the standards look a bit strange: the Magna Carta and the Ten Commandments are in, but the Enlightenment is out.
Comment by olegt — March 23, 2010 @ 8:01 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:02 am
Wrong Zach. You do not need to study history through a restrictive prism which directs interpretations through false paradigms. The Enlightenment had little to do with revolutions in the era following the French Revolution.
Comment by Bradford — March 23, 2010 @ 8:02 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:04 am
The Magna Carta and the Ten Commandments are definable entities. They are based on reason. The Enlightenment is a vague reference to silly putty thinking.
Comment by Bradford — March 23, 2010 @ 8:04 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:07 am
Sorry Zach but your side set the precedent for this. Health care decisions were made by politicians contrary to the will of the people. And they were not made by experts like doctors, health care administrators and insurance executives. Precedent set. Don't let it bite you in the arse.
Comment by Bradford — March 23, 2010 @ 8:07 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:08 am
Bradford wrote:
You've got it precisely backwards, Bradford. The first two stressed the higher power, while the third elevated reason.
Comment by olegt — March 23, 2010 @ 8:08 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:13 am
The political structure of the modern world is based on two broad historical trends; the colonization of the globe by great European powers, then the ensuing breakup of those empires by independence movements.
The Declaration of the Independence of the United States lays out the justifications for independence, an argument based in the Enlightenment ideals of reason. It states those reasons out of "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind." It's not rebellion for its own sake.
* Inherent rights.
* Purpose of government.
* Prudence.
* Transgressions.
* Unsuccessful appeals.
* Independence.
It's a syllogism, and the structure is repeated over and over again over the next two centuries. Jefferson's words are even encasulated in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Comment by Zachriel — March 23, 2010 @ 8:13 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:16 am
Thank you Olegt. It took 144 comments but I finally drew this out. Reason is defined by your view of God. It really has nothing to do with noble ideas embedded in the Magna Carta or very useful moral norms which have stood the test of time and are a core of our legal system values. Don't steal, lie, commit adultery, honor your parents, don't murder… All reasoned behavioral norms but ah its that higher power stumbling block. At least it is out in the open now where it should be. The rest of you enlightened ones can now come out of the closet.
Comment by Bradford — March 23, 2010 @ 8:16 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:20 am
Bradford,
I am not denying the virtues of either the Ten Commandments or the Magna Carta, just pointing out that you are demonstrably wrong.
And I might add that poo-pooing the Enlightenment makes you look like Cynthia Dunbar.
Comment by olegt — March 23, 2010 @ 8:20 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:27 am
Without the demonstration.
Too bad about that Magna Carta date. And the one attached to the Ten Commandments is even more problematic for the enlightened crowd crowing about reaon. Sorry Olegt, but if the American Revolution and Jefferson's part in it can be linked to anything it is best linked to Anglo-Saxon peculiarities which include the Magna Carta at its core.
Comment by Bradford — March 23, 2010 @ 8:27 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:29 am
I have not seen her but she is probably better looking than me.
Comment by Bradford — March 23, 2010 @ 8:29 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:35 am
Bradford, you're either being deliberately obtuse or forgot to turn on your brain this morning.
Here is the first paragraph from the Wikipedia article on the subject:
You and Tom have previously stressed that the Magna Carta placed the king's authority to "a law higher than himself."
Think that through.
Comment by olegt — March 23, 2010 @ 8:35 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:06 am
Sure, olegt. "Reason" was placed at the center during the Enlightenment. The result was the French Revolution (see my last comment). It was also the seed planted that led through Descarte, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Wittgenstein, the existentialists, and finally the postmodernists who have abdicated reason. The whole thing began with a quest for knowledge independent of God. It led down a clearly identifiable path to a crisis in epistemology, in which knowing itself became unknowable.
Here's a nice summary:
I don't suppose you know that history (excuse me, that World History).
What's the point? Just this: the Enlightenment claim on reason proved in the end to lead to unreason. The Enlightenment used the word reason and also reason's methods, but it set reason on unreasonable grounds, which ultimately makes suspect its claim on reason.
Comment by TomG — March 23, 2010 @ 9:06 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:28 am
Tom, if for some reason you think I'm fond of postmodernists, you will be sorely disappointed. I cheered on Alan Sokal's famous hoax. But stupid ramblings of pomos are no reason to declare the Enlightenment a failure. In any event, the Texas board attempts to erase the very word Enlightenment from the curriculum are dumbassery of the first class. Pardon my French.
Comment by olegt — March 23, 2010 @ 9:28 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:35 am
We haven't been arguing whether Enlightenment thinkers were correct, but their impact on history. By learning about them, we can hope to learn from their successes and their failures, their aspirations and their limitations, and their enduring influence on the modern world.
If the enemy is an ass and a fool and a prating
coxcomb, is it meet, think you, that we should also,
look you, be an ass and a fool and a prating
coxcomb? in your own conscience, now?
Comment by Zachriel — March 23, 2010 @ 9:35 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:04 am
Zachriel, maybe you weren't arguing over the Enlightenment and reason, but olegt has been.
olegt,
Pardon your French (Revolution) but if pomo was a directly traceable result of the Enlightenment, as I have argued it was, then it is in fact a good reason to doubt the Enlightenment's success. If A—>B, where B is the abandonment of reason, and the arrow represents a direct causal relationship, then the reasonableness of A may surely be questioned.
Comment by TomG — March 23, 2010 @ 10:04 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:21 am
Tom, your logic is strange. Jerry Falwell is a directly traceable result of Christianity. That's not its main accomplishment, though.
Comment by olegt — March 23, 2010 @ 10:21 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:24 am
Um, that's a non sequitur. Of course we're discussing the role of reason in the Enlightenment. It was considered a preeminent value. The Enlightenment is an important historical period, essential for understanding history and the modern world.
Of course it failed. It was destroyed by its own creation. Like Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. Nevertheless, the Enlightenment has had a lasting historical influence, in particular, on the modern political structure of the world.
Comment by Zachriel — March 23, 2010 @ 10:24 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:29 am
Olegt:
Here is the first paragraph from the Wikipedia article on the subject:
Yes think it through Olegt. That higher law has tangible expression. The Ten Commandments was already mentioned. But your linkage of reason to atheism is at the core of Enlightenment arguments although few have the integrity to acknowledge this. Sure you can say that the higher power was not brought into play by you but you need not render a judgment on God's existence. Since moral laws and principles associated with the higher power are codified and based on reasoned analysis, even lacking the assumption of a deity, you are arbitrarily assigning and excluding reason from historic perspectives. The Magna Carta is eminently more reasonable than a plethora of documents that were created during the Enlightenment era. Think about it.
Comment by Bradford — March 23, 2010 @ 10:29 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:33 am
Zach:
Do you and your fellow liberals have a conscious Zach because based on the bribes needed to secure passage of a bill against the will of the American people Reid, Pelosi and Obama look like assess and Stupak like a fool.
Comment by Bradford — March 23, 2010 @ 10:33 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:35 am
Explain how Falwell is analogous the the French Revolution or its reign of terror.
Comment by Bradford — March 23, 2010 @ 10:35 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:39 am
Reason was an integral aspect of the ancient world and all that followed as was irrational behavior. There is plenty of both in all historic eras. When you look at specifics of history that is very apparent.
Comment by Bradford — March 23, 2010 @ 10:39 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:39 am
Sigh.
Comment by Zachriel — March 23, 2010 @ 10:39 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:41 am
Are you denying the importance of the Enlightenment to world history, or are you denying that there even was an historic period we call the Age of Enlightenment?
Comment by Zachriel — March 23, 2010 @ 10:41 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:03 am
olegt,
Your inability to see the logic in it is strange, and your analogy is too.
The difference is in the causation arrow. I would argue, as many others have, that secular modernism (Enlightenment thinking) taken to its logical conclusion leads to postmodernism. In a sense modernism and its historical and logical outworkings were both necessary and sufficient causes for postmodernism. Without the Enlightenment brand of thinking, postmodernism never would have happened. With Enlightenment thinking (and its logical/historical outworkings), postmodernism was inevitable.
Christianity was a necessary cause for Jerry Falwell but not a sufficient one. That is, without Christianity there never would have been a Jerry Falwell, but given Christianity, Jerry Falwell was not inevitable.
There's another strange thing about your analogy: you think Jerry Falwell was all bad. I don't. If you want to argue me toward your conclusions, you'll find it more effective if you don't use your conclusions as part of your argument.
Comment by TomG — March 23, 2010 @ 11:03 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:05 am
Zach, I think you must have missed a few comments along the way. We're having a discussion about olegt about a particular aspect of this issue, and you keep saying, "No, no, we're not talking about that, we're talking about this instead!"
We actually are talking about that.
Nobody here has argued that the Enlightenment didn't happen or that its influence on world history should be minimized. The discussion with olegt is about the nature of the Enlightenment and its influence.
Comment by TomG — March 23, 2010 @ 11:05 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:13 am
Quoting from Zach's link:
Don't confuse advocated reason with based on reason in fact.
Comment by Bradford — March 23, 2010 @ 11:13 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:26 am
Perhaps. Perhaps you should point to specific comments.
The original discussion concerned the Texas world history curriculum, and whether Jefferson should have been removed from a list of figures whose writings influenced political revolutions.
Sometimes, it's hard to tell.
In any case …
We're not. What matters to history is the Enlightenment attitudes towards reason, and the influence of those attitudes.
Comment by Zachriel — March 23, 2010 @ 11:26 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:29 am
Tom,
Jerry Falwell was not an inevitable consequence of Christianity, but someone like him was. Likewise, Jacques Derrida was not inevitable, but the movement he represented would have emerged anyway.
In the grand scheme of things, both Derrida and Falwell are fairly inconsequential. Christianity and the Enlightenment certainly are. They both should be studied in World History. That Dunbar would try to erase the word Enlightenment doesn't sit well with me and it shouldn't sit well with you.
Comment by olegt — March 23, 2010 @ 11:29 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:41 am
What inevitable consequences are historically evident as a result of the advocacy of reason (by some philosophers)?
Comment by Bradford — March 23, 2010 @ 11:41 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:44 am
How about religious tolerance and the separation of church and state? You may or may not like these, but you can't argue that these are historically inconsequential. Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, both representatives of the American Enlightenment, were directly involved in bringing those about.
Comment by olegt — March 23, 2010 @ 11:44 am
March 23rd, 2010 at 1:00 pm
I think that it is mistaken to look at the enlightenment as some kind of monolithic movement. For example, if we look at founding fathers like Jefferson and Madison, and contrast their thinking with the so called enlightenment leaders of continental Europe we can see a number of differences.
First, Jefferson and Madison were not anti-religious and fought tirelessly to establish freedom of religion first in their home state, the commonwealth of Virginia, where Baptists were being persecuted by the established Anglican Church, and then specifically Madison who helped frame the Bill of Rights, of which the First Amendment provides freedom of religion for all Americans. In their fight to secure religious freedom for all Americans they allied themselves to Baptist minister John Leland.
“Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another," Leland wrote. "The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence; whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians."
In other words, according to Leland, freedom of religion is a right that puts the beliefs of all men, religious or non-religious, on the same plane. Jefferson and Madison agreed with this.
Second, though well educated and highly gifted as thinkers, Jefferson and Madison were not elitist in their thinking. Their approach to government was a populist one. Government was of, by and for the people.
Finally, Jefferson and Madison did not try to impose their enlightened thinking on others. Their thinking centered on liberty, and true liberty is not something that can be imposed. If it is true, it is something people innately desire. Jefferson would add that it is because liberty is something that they were endowed with by their Creator.
Contrast that with some of the so called enlightened thinking that was behind the French revolution.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 23, 2010 @ 1:00 pm
March 23rd, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Jefferson borrowed very heavily from George Mason. It was Mason who detailed human rights, including religious freedom, before Jefferson wrote the Declaration.
He had this to say about religious freedom:
Another clear, common sense indication that the so-called 'wall of seperation between church and state' was intended to keep the government out of religion, not to keep religion out of government.
Comment by chunkdz — March 23, 2010 @ 1:57 pm
March 23rd, 2010 at 5:04 pm
JAD:
Good point. If it was not monolithic (and it is not) then that point needs to be conveyed to students. In addition the utility of the category is questionable for historic analysis.
Olegt, you really need to reassess your thinking with respect to navel gazing as that is an apt description of Enlightenment thinkers. You've been critical of philosophers in the past. Is this thread a sign that your thinking on that has evolved? BTW let the swamp creature with the long nose and big ears know that Bilbo is innocent- right Charlie Brown?
Comment by Bradford — March 23, 2010 @ 5:04 pm
March 23rd, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Neither was the Romantic Era, Iron Age, Baroque, Medieval Period, Jazz Age, or the Renaissance.
Just so we know what we're dealing with here.
Comment by Zachriel — March 23, 2010 @ 6:07 pm
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:57 pm
What type of events are predictable based on reason advocacy?
Comment by Bradford — March 23, 2010 @ 8:57 pm
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:30 pm
Thank you! Here are some things that happened during the French revolution that maybe they should also learn about.
And…
I am not Catholic, indeed I have often been critical of the Catholic church when, during it’s history, it has been involved in corruption. Criticism is fine, but persecution is unacceptable.
So that is how enlightened people, who think they are more rational than anyone else, behave. Ironically, we see this same kind arrogance, and contempt for the beliefs of others on display among the so called “new atheists.” Indeed if you read their literature you’ll see that some of them look back nostalgically on the so called "enlightenment" as some kind of fabled golden age. That’s puzzling. I thought rationally enlightened and superior people would know their history better than anyone else.
Once again the American founding fathers, even the ones that are considered enlightened, had profound respect for the religious beliefs of their fellow citizens.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 23, 2010 @ 10:30 pm
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:17 pm
True. That goes to show you that one person's conception of reason is another's superstition. Enlightenment enthusiasts believe that belief in God, or better said unbelief, is a defining mark of reason. In a predominantly atheist society they would come out and say this. But in a pluralistic society like ours there is a need to be more subtle. So when they say people of reason you know that a wink and a "you know what I mean" attitude goes with it.
They know the interpretive messages that must be conveyed to their students. The truth is that the Magna Carta and modified English traditions explain the American Revolution better than the Enlightenment just as the Oliver Cromwell experience explains the causal origin of the freedom of religion clause better than Jefferson's colorful phrase about separation of church and state. BTW, who would you consult with to get an explanation- Jefferson or the actual constitutional author?
Comment by Bradford — March 23, 2010 @ 11:17 pm
March 24th, 2010 at 12:16 am
JAD wrote:
It would help to provide some original quotes, John. Who knows, maybe memory doesn't serve you right this time.
Comment by olegt — March 24, 2010 @ 12:16 am
March 24th, 2010 at 12:21 am
Bradford wrote:
Bradford, unless you've been inside their heads, how do you know this? Ahhh, I know how! You make it up. Seriously, why don't you ask us? I, for one, don't subscribe to this silly caricature. I have said many times, on this very board, that religion is rational. Want me to say that again? Let me know how many times. I respect people who believe in God. Write that down before you forget, Bradford.
Comment by olegt — March 24, 2010 @ 12:21 am
March 24th, 2010 at 1:52 am
olegt,
Sam Harris participates in a discussion/ debate on NPR entitled “The State of the Enlightenment,” Harris is certainly a defender of the enlightenment. So much so that he thinks (I'm paraphrasing) that we need convince religious people to get rid of superstitious wishful thinking because it is a threat to scientific progress. Here is the programs intro:
I didn't have to remember a thing. I just googled it. If you want to find more I suggest you do the same. (Harris makes his point about 10 minutes into the program.)
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 24, 2010 @ 1:52 am
March 24th, 2010 at 6:24 am
Yes, they should. By the way, the Enlightenment is traditionally considered to have ended with the French Revolution and the rise of Napoléon. Do you think historians neglect the guillotine?
Historical studies don't quite work that way, but one of the defining events of the Enlightenment is the syllogistic argument of the Declaration of Independence. From an allegorical perspective, touched on above, reason led to Frankenstein's monster, as told by the Romantic, Mary Shelley.
Comment by Zachriel — March 24, 2010 @ 6:24 am
March 24th, 2010 at 7:35 am
This is another content-free accusation. The word was removed from one sentence in the standards that we know of. Was the Enlightenment entirely removed from the standards? How do you know?
They are probably the best thing that ever happened to the growth of Christianity. It was a Baptist who founded Rhode Island for religious freedom. It was Christians who came over on the Mayflower for religious freedom. Religion itself has gone sour when its institutions have been handed the power of the state or anything equivalent (I'm working on an article on that).
Church-state separation only got bad when the state began creating religion-free zones where the vast majority of the populace were required by law to spend the vast majority of their growing-up years; when that religion-free zone began outlawing not only state expression of religion (by teachers and administrators) but also citizen expression of religion (by students, at sports events, graduations, etc.); and when "religion-free" began also to mean reducing or eliminating mention of legitimate historical reference to religion ("Thanksgiving was a day for thanking the Indians").
I was going to advise you not to take the bait, John, he's trying to waste your time, but I see you've already supplied an answer.
Same suggestion to you, Bradford. A passing familiarity with the literature would answer olegt on both of these questions. Maybe Bradford's statement doesn't apply to olegt, but it reflects the kind of thing I've seen all over the place. If olegt doesn't know the New Atheist literature, then he's in no position to argue it, and if he does, then you don't need to trot it out for him again.
Zachriel, I continue to have the hardest time figuring out what you're driving at with your comments, so I'm going to ask you a direct question. Do you think anyone here is arguing that the Enlightenment should not be included in a world history curriculum? What do you think the argument is about?
Comment by TomG — March 24, 2010 @ 7:35 am
March 24th, 2010 at 8:16 am
TomG,
I'm not saying that militant atheists don't exist, my point is that equating atheism with militant atheism is wrong. You wouldn't like it if I said that Christians are by and large like Jerry Falwell.
Comment by olegt — March 24, 2010 @ 8:16 am
March 24th, 2010 at 8:22 am
JAD didn't make that equation.
Bradford didn't either:
He didn't use the word "all" with respect to "Enlightenment enthusiasts or atheists.
Comment by TomG — March 24, 2010 @ 8:22 am
March 24th, 2010 at 8:29 am
I've listened to the NPR passage John linked to and I couldn't find anything that can be remotely characterized as "look[ing] back nostalgically on the so called "enlightenment" as some kind of fabled golden age." Sam Harris laments the rise of the religious right, but he does not want us to go back to the 18th century. Did I miss something?
Comment by olegt — March 24, 2010 @ 8:29 am
March 24th, 2010 at 10:39 am
Bradford questioned the utility of the category of the Enlightenment for historic analysis. If the category doesn't have historical utility, then it clearly doesn't belong in a world history curriculum.
The original discussion concerned the Texas world history curriculum, and whether Jefferson should have been removed from a list of figures whose writings influenced anti-colonial revolutions.
Comment by Zachriel — March 24, 2010 @ 10:39 am
March 24th, 2010 at 10:48 am
In fact, many prominent Enlightenment thinkers were theists and deists.
If it were an open, pluralistic society, there would be no reason to couch their beliefs in winks and nods.
Comment by Zachriel — March 24, 2010 @ 10:48 am
March 24th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Okay, no one used the exact words “fabled golden age“, but Rick Shweder (the first guest on the NPR program) described the enlightenment this way in a NY Times (11-27-06) op-ed piece.
Shweber wrote, “The Enlightenment story has it own version of Genesis” What does he mean by that? Fable? Myth?
If you listen to what he says, you’ll hear Shweber touching on many of the same themes that he writes about, in his op-ed, during the program. Did Harris agree with anything that Shweber said? Yeah, he did agree with a couple of things. For example, he did concede that modern enlightenment types like himself felt that their backs were up against a wall. But he did not agree with Shweber’s claim, “the enlightenment myth” that reason will someday triumph over ignorance and superstition and transform society, is just that– a myth. Clearly Harris believes in the enlightenment, not merely as a period of history, but as a cause, an uncompleted project, an unfulfilled dream.
Shweber continues…
I did not say that Harris wanted to go back to the 18th century, but it is very clear that he thinks that the enlightenment of the 17th and 18th century was the beginning of something good, the idea that society can be established on reason alone. I think he honestly believes that the enlightenment provided “a blueprint for how to remake and better the world.”
Like Dawkins, Harris sees religion as a kind of destructive malignancy. If you read Harris’ book, The End of Faith, you’ll see he has no use for religion of any kind.
Yes, I think you did.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 24, 2010 @ 5:02 pm
March 25th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Here are a few references that demonstrates how romanticized the 17th and 18th Century social/political/ideological movement referred to as the Enlightenment has become in the minds of some atheists.
First, here are the views from a website inspired by the so-called “new atheists” (Harris, Hitchens etc.)
Second, here are some choice excerpts from an article entitled “Re-enchantment: A New Enlightenment” by SUNY (Buffalo) professor Paul Kurtz which also romanticizes the Enlightenment.
And finally here is the view of Conrad Goeringer. Outreach Director, American Atheists.
Well, I guess no one came out and said that the Enlightenment was something of a "golden age." So I will have to admit that maybe I exaggerated there a little– but not much.
All these atheists describe the Enlightenment as an historically significant and exciting, if not very exciting, period of time.
Once again, notice what the "New Enlightenment" website proclaims, “What followed was the making of life on earth progressively more wonderful. It was like watching popcorn pop.”
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 25, 2010 @ 5:48 pm
March 25th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
JAD wrote:
Not by much, huh?
Comment by olegt — March 25, 2010 @ 5:52 pm
March 27th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
.
Comment by Pez — March 27, 2010 @ 9:27 pm
March 28th, 2010 at 3:45 am
As for getting their "favorite theologians" into the curriculum, Aquinas happens to be considered one of the top 2 or 3 philosophers of all time, and yet, as Allen MacNeill just stated over on UD:
I would bet that goes for just about anyone else graduating highschool these days. I'd certainly never heard of him, or John Calvin, or America's greatest thinker, Jonathan Edwards, etc., until well into my 30s, in spite of 18 years of schooling. So, indeed, a grave imbalance exists that needs correcting.
If it takes Republicans to do so, so be it.
Comment by Pez — March 28, 2010 @ 3:45 am
March 28th, 2010 at 9:16 am
Philosophy may be given short-shrift, but manipulating the curriculum on political history is inappropriate. Bradford went so far as to argue that the Enlightenment doesn't even represent a useful historical concept. This is clearly a political decision, not one based on historical scholarship.
As this is a thread on consensus, expert scholars should make most decisions concerning what is or is not important in a given field, not a highly politicized state agency. Determining emphasis on one field or another is appropriate for the political process, as that entails preparing students for adult life, but even then, advice should be sought from educators and other experts.
Comment by Zachriel — March 28, 2010 @ 9:16 am
March 28th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Consider the following counterfactual view of history: The Civil never happened because a young United States congressman, elected to congress shortly after the ratification of the Constitution, decided that slavery was morally wrong and decided to dedicate his entire adult life and political future to ending it. Despite being plagued with poor health, enduring public ridicule and political betrayal, this man soldiers on year after year introducing bill after bill to congress, as well as using his oratorical skills and the sheer force of his personality to first bring about an end to the slave trade, but also to try to end the institution of slavery altogether. Finally three days before his death in 1833, at the age of 73, the U.S. Congress votes to abolish slavery throughout the entire country. It is outlawed in every state of the union.
As a result there was no Civil War and 600,000 young men from both the north and the south never died. Would we consider such a man to be a great man? Would we consider what he accomplished to be a great accomplishment?
Of course, that is not the way it happened in our country. Yet, what I described as a counterfactual here actually happened, virtually as I have described it, in Great Britain which did abolish slavery in 1833. But, how many people reading this know who I am talking about? I suspect very few. Personally, I didn’t learn about this man till long after I graduated from college, and I started out as a history major. Ironically, just before the Civil War Abraham Lincoln said that every schoolboy knew the name of _____ _____. (Can you fill in the blank?) Why did this important piece of history lose it’s importance?
Let me suggest that one of the reasons that this person has been almost entirely dropped from our history is that he does not fit “the template.” Contrary to the view that all significant social change in the late 18th early 19th century was driven by secularists or “closet secularists,” the movement to end slavery was spearheaded by people who were profoundly religious, and more specifically profoundly Christian. The so-called “Enlightenment” can rightly claim credit for a number of things that have happened in the modern world. However, they cannot honestly suggest, even implicitly, that every positive social change, that has happened since the 18th Century, was because of secularism. Ironically, writing people out of history, who don’t fit the biases of a preconceived template, is hardly an enlightened way of thinking.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 28, 2010 @ 2:54 pm
March 28th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
JAD, is the answer Wilberforce? I could Google this but I get the larger point.
Comment by Bradford — March 28, 2010 @ 4:13 pm
March 28th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
JAD wrote:
Two points, John.
(1) Wilberforce doesn't exactly belong in "our" history. As you noted yourself, he was a British abolitionist, and in 1833 the United States was already a sovereign country. So for you, Wilberforce is a figure from world history.
(2) Here is a BBC history page for William Wilberforce. It mentions his religious leanings right away:
Wikipedia isn't exactly silent on the subject of Wilberforce's religion, either:
Not exactly a state secret, is it?
Comment by olegt — March 28, 2010 @ 5:19 pm
March 28th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
Olegt:
I was informed that the Texas curriculum was about world history. If so then Wilberforce would certainly be relevant. Yet who aside from some history buffs, some Brits and a few nerds have heard of this guy?
Comment by Bradford — March 28, 2010 @ 6:08 pm
March 28th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Concepts like the advocacy of reason and its effect on history would be useful if those positing the linkage were able to causally tie specific events in history to it with more than vague navel gazing surmising or conversely cite specific contemporary trends and identify those linked to reason advocacy and those not and then make short term predictions based on the differences. There is a contemporary parallel- the one contrasting people of reason with people of faith. Who is in what camp and who are the representative power brokers for them. How are their public policies different? What are the effects of these policies? If these questions cannot be answered then we are looking at navels and not useful paradigms.
Comment by Bradford — March 28, 2010 @ 7:11 pm
March 28th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
We are not talking about what experts deem to be important but what citizens deem important to teach their kids.
The task of expert scholars is not to make decisions about what our government does it’s to in research and persuade those who are given that task.
Hopefully these folks will represent their constituency if they don‘t there is always he next election.
If the experts are unsuccessful in convincing the representatives of the people it’s the job of the experts to research more and make a better case.
This goes for the science as well as history curriculum that we citizens agree to teach our kids.
That is why it’s called representative democracy and not benevolent oligarchy. It might be sloppy and inefficient but time has proven again and again that it’s the best way.
As a citizen I would try to make sure my kids were taught that in history class.
No matter what the experts said.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 28, 2010 @ 7:50 pm
March 28th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
The Enlightenment was a very real philosophical, political and cultural movement of the 17th and 18th centuries. Don't confuse your notions of reason with reason as understood by people of the Enlightenment. The Declaration of Independence was a pinnacle of the Enlightenment. Ben Franklin's Plan for Attaining Moral Perfection, not so much.
Comment by Zachriel — March 28, 2010 @ 8:44 pm
March 28th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
If you read carefully, you would know that our position is that citizens certainly should decide what is important to teach their children. But if you purport to teach history, then you should teach them history and not manipulate the truth.
If the scholarship is already clear, then more research doesn't resolve the political problem. Political partisans shouldn't decide historical questions.
Comment by Zachriel — March 28, 2010 @ 8:49 pm
March 28th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
Much of the claims have centered around this. The Declaration of Independence is not the causal genesis of the Revolutionary War. Neither is it the reason why actual independence was gained. The motives for those fighting and the reasons for their success are the main meal and the cake itself. The Declaration the icing. Examining history is detail reveals that philosophers are accorded credit that is way out of proportion to historic impulses. Much more mundane factors like economic incentives, cultural estrangement from a power an ocean away, the fortuitous circumstance of the convergence of a great group of leaders and the geopolitical interests of the powerful French nation had a more significant impact on the course of history.
Comment by Bradford — March 28, 2010 @ 8:52 pm
March 28th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Who gets to decide what is history and what is manipulating the truth? If I understand you, you believe it should be “expert scholars”.
I just profoundly disagree.
If the scolarship were clear there would not be a discussion.
Teaching history in a way that is not supported by the people will not resolve a political problem it will only alienate the folks who pay those expert’s salary.
They don't, they decide what we teach our kids in public schools. If you don't like it there is always the next election or home schooling.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 28, 2010 @ 9:05 pm
March 28th, 2010 at 9:10 pm
It's a statement of those reasons.
The Declaration of Independence was written to generate international support. A decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. The Declaration reverberated throughout Europe, even in Britain. As such, the Declaration did help gain actual independence.
It would be difficult to overstate Jefferson's importance to the American cause, and to the cause of anti-colonial revolutions that followed. The very idea of a Declaration was new, and over half of such declarations directly borrowed the "structure and literary form" of Jefferson's document.
Yes, those were all important factors. Aquinas, not so much.
This is still tangential to your statement that the Enlightenment is not a useful historical concept. An interesting discussion could be had of the limitations of the Enlightenment, where they went wrong, the rise of the Romantics.
Comment by Zachriel — March 28, 2010 @ 9:10 pm
March 28th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Most people rely on historian who take the time to research primary sources.
Really now?
There are two basic ways to learn about history. By studying primary sources, or by learning from someone who has. As not everyone can study primary sources, not even historians can study every aspect of every hsitory, that means most people learn history from historians. How did you think it was done?
The scholarship is clear. The Enlightenment was an important political and philosophical movement, and Jefferson is critical to understanding the rise of anti-colonial revolutions that have reshaped the world. Even Gandhi borrowed from Jefferson.
The power is with the Texas Education Agency. Speaking out is entirely appropriate.
If they remove Jefferson from a discussion of global revolutions, because they fear the term "Enlightenment," then they have manipulated history.
Comment by Zachriel — March 28, 2010 @ 9:20 pm
March 28th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Zachriel:
This lacks historic credibility. An actual analysis of the events leading to French participation- the turning point- shows the critical impact of Ben Franklin's genius and the importance of Washington's perseverance. The Declaration is a stirring document and Jefferson was an inspiring writer. But without hands on success in the field and on the diplomatic front the DI would have been little more than a curious artifact of history.
Comment by Bradford — March 28, 2010 @ 9:21 pm
March 28th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
oh contare
quote:
Natural law theories have exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[3] and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The essence of Declarationism is that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.
end quote:
and here
quote:
To understand the natural rights philosophy of the Declaration of Independence, it is essential that we pause to compare and contrast it with the natural law philosophy. We begin with Aristotle. According to Aristotle, man is by nature a political animal. It is his nature to live with others and to establish the family unit. This gives rise to groups of families and household communities, which unite for mutual protection and to satisfy human wants and needs. These in turn join together to create the city-state. This is the origin of civil society. Government, then, is natural to man. The study of history and anthropology, we should note, confirms Aristotle’s view. There is no evidence that mankind has ever lived in complete isolation. “A man alone,” it is said, “is either a saint or a devil,” and not of this world.
Aristotle was part of what is called the natural law tradition in Western thought, which began with the ancient Greeks. The idea of natural law stems from the belief that there is a higher law governing political rulers and the affairs of mankind which emanates from God. This higher law, said Aristotle, is knowable through reason. St. Thomas Aquinas, the thirteenth-century theologian who adapted Aristotle’s teachings to Christian beliefs, wrote that revelation, that is, God’s word as revealed through scripture, supplemented reason as a source of understanding the natural law.
end quote
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 28, 2010 @ 9:26 pm
March 28th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
People volunteered from across Europe to serve the American cause. Many leaders in the British parliament recognized the validity of American grievances, and it energized anti-war politics there. In the Colonies, it energized anti-monarchism.
You're been provided numerous cites about the influence of the Declaration over anti-colonial revolutions, including direct quotes from Declarations around the world. You've gone so far as to say the Enlightenment doesn't represent a valid historical period.
Comment by Zachriel — March 28, 2010 @ 9:49 pm
March 28th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
The modern world was shaped by two forces, great European colonial powers, and the ensuing rebellions against those empires. (You might take a look at before and after maps.) Though Natural Law is a important component, Aquinas is not at the heart of anticolonial rebellions in the same sense as Jefferson. (As you mention, the concept of Natural Law long predates Aquinas, and it's not certain that Locke borrowed from Aquinas or from other sources.)
Comment by Zachriel — March 28, 2010 @ 9:59 pm
March 28th, 2010 at 10:06 pm
Another demonstration that the imbalance needs to be corrected and such influential and yet virtually unknown philosophers as Aquinas need to be taught.
Aquinas and the roots of revolution.
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/hum...
Protestantism and the Enlightenment.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...
A basic literacy has been ignored by the powers that be. Too bad it takes conservatives and Republicans (gasp) to try to correct it.
Comment by Pez — March 28, 2010 @ 10:06 pm
March 28th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Rah, rah. Note the year 1776. Years passed before the French got serious. Years of observing the staying power of Washington's troops and the machinations of Franklin which got the job done in the end.
As was the case with the Revolutionary War, more mundane local causes and nationalism were the predominant influences.
Nice icing to the cake.
Comment by Bradford — March 28, 2010 @ 11:25 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 10:36 am
December 1776: the month LaFayette enlisted in the American cause.
Jefferson: A declaration of the rights of man, as the preliminary of their work, was accordingly prepared and proposed by the Marquis de la Fayette.
Bradford, you've been provided multiple cites, including Declarations of Independence from around the world directly borrowing from Jefferson. In reply, you repeat your position without support. You have claimed the Enlightenment doesn't represent a useful historical concept. If multiple cites to historians and historical documents don't sway you, it's hard to know what would.
Your position amply illustrates the problem in Texas.
Comment by Zachriel — March 29, 2010 @ 10:36 am
March 29th, 2010 at 10:53 am
Zach:
Your comment illustrates what is wrong with intellectuals and their grip on America. When nation rulers want to promote their regimes they are inclined to make their rule look as attractive as possible. What is more attractive than the DI? You can sit in the board room with your cronies and order that copies be distributed to the press with some nice notation attached about how Fidel or Stanush or whoever the ruler is wants to promote the welfare of the people. The only ones taking them seriously are intellectuals isolated from the flow of real life.
Comment by Bradford — March 29, 2010 @ 10:53 am
March 29th, 2010 at 11:10 am
Poor America! She should revolt and free herself forever from the oppression of the intellekshual elite! Down with the eggheads! Homeschooling for all!
Comment by olegt — March 29, 2010 @ 11:10 am
March 29th, 2010 at 11:16 am
Homeschooled kids are better educated and better adjusted. But as I'm respectful of liberty I'd merely advise it. Leave the heavy handed autocratic rule to statists.
Comment by Bradford — March 29, 2010 @ 11:16 am
March 29th, 2010 at 11:22 am
Why stop at home schooling, Bradford? Let the kids go to college at home and then work from home as well. Just to be safe safe from those bullying intellectuals. Not to mention the higher quality of education.
Comment by olegt — March 29, 2010 @ 11:22 am
March 29th, 2010 at 11:57 am
olegt,
As Bradford has already pointed out we have not been talking just about U.S. history in this thread but also world history. Most students study world history, or the history of western civilization, both in high school and college. Certainly, the history of slavery and the abolition of slavery is an important issue and William Wilberforce is a key, if not the key figure, in the history of the abolitionist movement world wide.
It is good that you are familiar with Wilberforce. There has been renewed interest in his life and work in the last 10-15 years mainly due to the efforts of protestant evangelical scholars and writers. For example, evangelicals have backed several projects that have helped to educate the general public about Wilberforce’s life including new books, a documentary and a feature film. Links:
http://www.thebetterhour.com/t...
http://www.thebetterhour.com/t...
http://www.amazinggracemovie.c...
If it hadn’t been for these efforts I doubt that there would be much known about Wilberforce today. For example, I first learned about Wilberforce about 15 years ago after reading a book by Chuck Colson. Like I said earlier I don’t remember learning anything about Wilberforce in either high school or college. I am not the only one. Here is a guy with a Phd and a law degree who had virtually the same experience.
The point is that people with a vested interest in their own history may know some things about that history that the so called experts may over look due to their own preconceptions and biases. However, some of these things may have importance that goes beyond that groups particular interests. I think the story of William Wilberforce is an example of one of these.
This is why it is important when we are deciding about what to teach students in a democratic society that we bring all view points to the table. True you can’t teach everything, and the process can get messy and at times even ugly. However, in my opinion that process is superior to the so called experts working from a so called “secular” world view. The idea that secular experts are some how more objective or neutral than anyone else is a myth if there ever was one. After all history does not represent a singular world view but a multiplicity of world views.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 29, 2010 @ 11:57 am
March 29th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Same experience here, JAD.
I heard first about Wilberforce on a Christian blog just a couple of years ago. Big surprise, though, I was at least told about his son and his great(ly misrepresented) debate with the Bulldog.
Another note to fans of literacy, it was not Shakespeare who is most responsible for shaping the English language, but Tyndale. Luther did the same for German, but I never heard these names in school either.
Comment by Pez — March 29, 2010 @ 1:38 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
JAD:
Inclusion. Diversity. When will secularists begin to respect these concepts?
Comment by Bradford — March 29, 2010 @ 3:12 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Actually, I think that there two different kinds of secularism: (1)the modernist kind, and (2) the postmodernist kind.
The first kind, the modernist or “new enlightenment” secularists, like Sam Harris, wants to get rid all cultural or “tribal” groups as well as all religion. The second kind, the post modernists take egalitarianism to the extreme. The result is multiculturalism and political correctness.
My own common sense position is simply to take our countries motto– E Pluribus Unum : Out of many, one– very literally. We can have diversity but we need to come together on some basic things: a common language, just laws and a respect for each others beliefs and differences.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 29, 2010 @ 4:10 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
JAD wrote:
You need to get out more often, John. Perhaps then you'll meet other kinds.
Comment by olegt — March 29, 2010 @ 4:15 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
What other kinds cannot be comprehended within those categories? BTW, the corporate world and even the world of small business, to a much lesser extent, reflect societal norms. Where do you go to escape them? I suspect JAD "gets out" as much as anyone here.
Comment by Bradford — March 29, 2010 @ 4:46 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Bradford,
I neither want to get rid of religion (Type 1), nor take egalitarianism to the extreme (Type 2)—whatever that means. Yet I am all for a secular state.
Comment by olegt — March 29, 2010 @ 4:52 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
I suspect JAD was referring to moral relativism and "multicultural" concepts in noting extreme egalitarianism. One of the difficulties with secularists is their tunnel vision. It afflicts us all. If you have a point of view you are biased. Secularists tend to think that they are neutral in the perspectives. But a secularist, particularly one who is hostile to religion, would find it difficult to credit Wilberforce's own testimony of his motivations. Their difficulty lies in the disbelief both as to the reality of God as well as the reality of any motivating belief in him.
Comment by Bradford — March 29, 2010 @ 5:11 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Bradford wrote:
I wonder how you know that, Bradford. Did you interview some "secularists" and they confided to you their burning desire to rewrite history or are you simply projecting?
Comment by olegt — March 29, 2010 @ 5:14 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Or did you look at what is popularly known as "history" and conclude that this is just what has been done?
Comment by Pez — March 29, 2010 @ 6:10 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
While we are singing the praises of often ignored men of faith
I wonder how many folks here know of the enormous contribution to the cause of Liberty of colonial Baptists like Isaac Backus and Roger Williams .
We can thank folks like them for the American concept of religious freedom that is tolerant of other's beliefs with out being dismissive as apposed to European style secularism.
When we ignore these men we risk forgetting their vision and losing what makes the US unique.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 29, 2010 @ 6:15 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Yes, a great many over the years.
I don't need to read anything into it. Even at Telic Thoughts we've had our share of militant atheists whose reaction to anything remotely resembling what Wilberforce has said about his own motives amounts to "magic" "self deception' and a whole lot of colorful Dawkinesque terms meant to hand wave the issue while needling.
Comment by Bradford — March 29, 2010 @ 6:22 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Who brought up this topic about those evil, ignorant Texans? Oleg? Thanks, it's been very informative.
Comment by Pez — March 29, 2010 @ 6:30 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
It's a good point about Wilberforce, which probably also applies to the Reverend Martin Luther King: Both were Christian men, doing incredibly good deeds, largely motivated by their sense of Christian values and religious duty.
It's doesn't quite fit the narrative
Comment by David S — March 29, 2010 @ 7:30 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
David S:
You're right about Dr. Martin Luther King. Imagine though if both Wilberforce and King had said that their inspiration came from those great Enlightenment thinkers. Do you think that would have been played up or passed over?
Comment by Bradford — March 29, 2010 @ 7:37 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
It would have been played up to the hilt.
You all have gone way above a Texas schoolbook kerfuffle to a wonderful, historical and ongoing debate; namely, What role should Western religion have in our lives?
Comment by David S — March 29, 2010 @ 8:07 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Martin Luther King: I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.'
Comment by Zachriel — March 29, 2010 @ 8:13 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 8:31 pm
Zachriel:
Right Zach. That was a great speech. But did MLK credit Thomas Jefferson as his inspiration or Jesus Christ?
Comment by Bradford — March 29, 2010 @ 8:31 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
King quoted the Declaration of Independence. The whole world knows those words.
You've been provided cites from historians and the Library of Congress, direct quotes from Declarations of Independence from Flanders to India, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and influences from Kościuszko to Ho.
Both. In one of the most important letters in history.
Now we'll go full circle; Martin Luther King, The American war in Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh, the Declaration of Independence and Harlem.
-
O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath –
America will be!
Comment by Zachriel — March 29, 2010 @ 8:56 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Bradford: But did MLK credit Thomas Jefferson as his inspiration or Jesus Christ?
Zachriel: Both. In one of the most important letters in history.
Your answer to my question is that Jesus and prominent Christians were the inspiration for Dr. Martin Luther King. That's what your own quote indicates in fine detail. I've quoted Thomas Jefferson. Does not make me an Enlightenment disciple.
Comment by Bradford — March 29, 2010 @ 9:23 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
You have said you don't even think the Enlightenment is a useful historical term.
Your question was "But did MLK credit Thomas Jefferson as his inspiration or Jesus Christ?" Martin Luther King certainly did cite Jefferson as his inspiration, along with others. He repeated Jefferson's words many times and in many places, just as he often quoted scripture and spirituals. There is no doubt that Jefferson was a source of inspiration for King, even though King was fully aware of Jefferson's failings. He called Jefferson's words America's creed.
Comment by Zachriel — March 29, 2010 @ 9:34 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
When Americans quote founding fathers they are referencing American principles. That's an accurate representation. It is a distortion to indicate that they are referencing the Enlightenment for two reasons. Few know what it actually signifies and those who are aware of the advocacy of reason know that linking a 20th century figure like MLK to the Enlightenment based on a quote of a founding father is vacuous and a mockery of reason itself.
Comment by Bradford — March 29, 2010 @ 9:38 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
He did not cite Jefferson as an inspiration. He quoted Jefferson's quintessential Americana expression. All men are created equal has its its genesis in Judeo-Christian scripture. So to omit that is itself a grave distortion of history. Score one for the Texas conservatives.
Comment by Bradford — March 29, 2010 @ 9:42 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
Bradford, your question was "did MLK credit Thomas Jefferson as his inspiration or Jesus Christ?" The answer is both. We're not going to engage your other comment about the Enlightenment unless you start to acknowledge points.
There is no doubt that King was inspired by Jefferson's words. It's in the Letter from a Birmingham Jail, one of the seminal documents of the Civil Rights Movement. The Letter had the same place in the Movement as the Declaration had in the Revolution: it laid down the justification for confrontation. Dr. King was a highly educated man. So were his fellow Clergy. They knew exactly who Jefferson was, and the historical resonance of his words.
Comment by Zachriel — March 29, 2010 @ 9:47 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
Words inspired by Judeo-Christian scriptural sources.
Comment by Bradford — March 29, 2010 @ 9:51 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 10:06 pm
Yes, in the Letter, King cited Jesus, Amos, Paul, Luther, Bunyan, Lincoln and Jefferson. King would see the quest for justice as the long arc of history. Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.
Good. We'll respond to your other points now.
We can be quite sure that King wasn't advocating for Jefferson keeping slaves. Nor was he advocating for Luther's antisemitism. Or Lincoln's taste in haberdashery. Yes, they're citing principles!
They're not citing the Enlightenment. They're citing the fruits of the Enlightenment. We hope to salvage the best and discard the mistakes. The Enlightenment ended for a reason.
Well, that brings us back to Texas and their attempt to water down the history of that period…
(We mentioned above Ben Franklin's Plan for Attaining Moral Perfection. It's quite enlightening about how an Enlightenment thinker thinks.)
King would certainly have been fully aware of the successes and failures of the Enlightenment. You don't just pretend it didn't happen. The Enlightenment had profound effects on the course of history. Jefferson's influence was global, as detailed above.
Comment by Zachriel — March 29, 2010 @ 10:06 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
Nope. You're not getting away with this. Jefferson's words were inspired by Judeo-Christian sources which means that all subsequent use of them is causally related to Christian influences which were more pervasive than anything else in that era. To leave this out of the history books is bad history and very possibly indicative of dishonest intent.
Comment by Bradford — March 29, 2010 @ 11:26 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 11:31 pm
They are citing fruits of Christianity.
Bradford: Few know what it actually signifies …
If I fault the Texans for anything it is for being too tepid. If it is about truth then history needs to reflect Christian influences; secular sensitivities notwithstanding.
Comment by Bradford — March 29, 2010 @ 11:31 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Bradford wrote:
What else would you do on top of their changes, Bradford?
Comment by olegt — March 29, 2010 @ 11:51 pm
March 30th, 2010 at 12:03 am
Olegt:
If history is about what actually occurred, as opposed to regurgitating politically correct norms and if the linkage of actions to broader ideas is part of the mix (as it would be if you are linking Enlightenment philosophers to subsequent historic events) then drawing links between Christian ideals and historic events is de rigor when the linkage is there. There is no place for picking and choosing your historic linkages based on contemporary values.
Comment by Bradford — March 30, 2010 @ 12:03 am
March 30th, 2010 at 12:07 am
Give us some concrete examples, Bradford.
Comment by olegt — March 30, 2010 @ 12:07 am
March 30th, 2010 at 12:51 am
I cited the example used by Zach. All men are created… By God is understood. It was so obvious in 1776 that no one thought it necessary to underscore the point. And created how? Equal. Equality before our Creator is a central Christian theme. Not in ability or even in final judgment, but certainly insofar as sin is concerned. God favors nobody in that respect but treats us (ultimately) according to what we do. You and I both have the opportunity to obey God. Neither one of us is judgmentally favored in advance. Created equal. All men. The identifiable source goes back thousands of years.
Comment by Bradford — March 30, 2010 @ 12:51 am
March 30th, 2010 at 12:57 am
Of what? Secularists? I guess I should have said that the two kinds of secularism that I was referring to, represent two extreme poles on a continuum. Of course, there is a lot of room in between for numerous other kinds. On the other hand, not many people that I know (when I do get out
) that fall in the middle, identify themselves as “secularists.” They might use the word non-religious, but for the most part they are happy with way ways things are, and are not trying to radically change society.
For the record, I want to live in a secular but religiously tolerant society, not a theocracy. So in that sense even I am a kind of "secularist". It is just not the term that I would choose to describe myself.
My whole point in participating in this discussion is simply to argue that in teaching about history we need to give credit where credit is due. If Christianity, or any other religion, has played a critical role in either shaping western civilization or our countries founding, as I would argue that the evidence clearly shows, we need to acknowledge that. I don’t see why that would that pose any kind of difficulty.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 30, 2010 @ 12:57 am
March 30th, 2010 at 8:17 am
King: The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.
Jefferson's words had many sources of inspiration, including Christian sources. He saw Jesus as a great moral teacher. Jefferson's society was infused with Christian influences.
But there is no doubt that King specifically cited Jefferson, and Jefferson's words as inspiration. Denying that is simply not tenable. King stated it directly, and listed Jefferson with other great moral leaders from history.
It is odd that you would make that statement. You've been provided direct evidence that King cited Jefferson as inspiration, and that he repeated Jefferson's words many times. Ignorance is curable, but only if you're willing to learn.
(Wilberforce was of the Enlightenment, of course.)
Of course. And if you read clearly, in the Letter from a Birmingham Jail, King cited Jesus, Amos, Paul, Luther, Bunyan, Lincoln and Jefferson. King saw the quest for justice as the long arc of history. Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.
That's simply not true. The prevailing Natural Law before the Enlightenment was the Divine Right of Kings, not sovereignty of the people, and the primary moral obligation was duty to one's Lord, with only God above the King. Just ask the good Christian monarch, King George III.
Comment by Zachriel — March 30, 2010 @ 8:17 am
March 30th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Jefferson was heavily influenced by Christianity- the dominant ideal in his society. To omit this from history books is to make a travesty of history and scholarship.
Bradford: I cited the example used by Zach. All men are created… By God is understood. It was so obvious in 1776 that no one thought it necessary to underscore the point. And created how? Equal.
The primary obligation of Christians is to God but Christians are told to respect earthly authorities be they emperors, kings or presidents. Authority still comes from God. People have always been represented. Even in ancient Athens voting rights were retained by a fraction of the populace. The causal chain is Creator God –> Rulers –> People. You're confusing the election of officials with a break in God's sovereignty. God is still in control and no one arises to power whom he does not allow to do so. That's Christian doctrine. From a Christian world view divine rights extend only so far as a king or president would promote the will of God. God may allow the ungodly to rule for a season but the relationship between God, rulers and people has never altered in that the latter two factions are accountable to God.
Comment by Bradford — March 30, 2010 @ 11:23 am
March 30th, 2010 at 11:40 am
Of course. Of course, the vast majority of historians recognize the importance of Christianity, from Constantine unto today. That doesn't address whether King cited Jefferson as an influence, as he certainly did.
We're not discussing your views, but the views prevalent during different periods of history.
That was the view before the Enlightenment. After the Enlightenment, it is God -> People -> Rulers.
At the surrender at Yorktown, the British military band supposedly played "The World Turned Upside Down."
Comment by Zachriel — March 30, 2010 @ 11:40 am
March 30th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
They are not my views. That's standard Christian doctrine which has historic influences.
Bradford: The causal chain is Creator God –> Rulers –> People.
That's theory. In reality the "representative of the people" aspect of governing is very approximate and misleading as we can see today where no one of medium income and power status can attain high office. You can be born poor but you better be on the higher end of the curve by the time you run for a congressional seat. Electoral procedures existed in churches prior to the modern age and existed in the ancient world as well. Expanded influence of the people was a historic trend which may have crested.
Comment by Bradford — March 30, 2010 @ 12:14 pm
March 30th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed. Whether you agree or not, whether it is achieved in practice or not, it has been the prevailing political philosophy for much of the last 200 years, and has resulted in vast changes, including the breakup of the colonial empires. It's a fundamental change.
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,
You pinpointed it yourself when you said God –> Rulers –> People, which was replaced in the Enlightenment by God -> People -> Rulers.
Comment by Zachriel — March 30, 2010 @ 12:42 pm
March 30th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Yes and one that owes its cause to a multiplicity of factors which include ancient Greek and Judeo-Christian influences.
The period of history referenced was the culmination of influences from a number of sources which included western Enlightenment philosophers and the great influence of Christianity.
All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator…
Comment by Bradford — March 30, 2010 @ 1:08 pm
March 30th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Of course.
Of course.
Jefferson's words still resonate today.
Comment by Zachriel — March 30, 2010 @ 1:30 pm