<p>Thanks, idad. I thumbed through Privilege by Ross Douthat in a Borders once and have been wracking my brain ever since trying to remember the title and author. Who are the other two conservatives on the Swarthmore faculty (besides Kurth)?</p>
<p>"a counter-Islamic terrorism strategy of inciting Sunni versus Shi’ite violence across the region.</p>
<p>Hardly a “specialist” who doesn’t recognize that Shia Iran is the main backer of Sunni Hamas, and Sunni Syria is the main backer of Shia Hezbollah.</p>
<p>(He needs more time out of the classroom.)</p>
<p>Harvard used to have a literature seminar called “Fetishism” – examining how certain objects or concepts (such as Elvis, high heels, and Harvard) take on enormous symbolism and obsessive attention. Don’t know if it is still offered, but I remember that description jumping out at me the first time I read the course catalog.</p>
<p>The title qualifies as bizarre, the stance is PC, but doesn’t this sound like a great course (and course description)?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Race, Class and Gender in American Films.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think he probably recognizes that. He also recognizes that some of those marriages of convenience against a common enemy would become somewhat strained in the context of a open conflict between Sunni and Shi’ite factions in the region. As I noted, his suggestion is decided not from the non-violence camp. He is proposing that the United States condone complete elimination of Sunni political power in Iraq.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This might help. It’s a professor’s blog entry on how to get your course blacklisted by the right wing academic bashers:</p>
<p><a href=“The Secret of My Success | Easily Distracted”>The Secret of My Success | Easily Distracted;
<p>
</p>
<p>I have a lot of trouble with the definitions these days, so perhaps you could clarify for me:</p>
<p>Economists in favor of huge government deficits are conservative, right?</p>
<p>Political scientists in favor of the US meddling in internal governments around the globe? Conservative, right?</p>
<p>How would you characterize a religion professor whose latest book suggests that solutions to environmental issues can be found in the Bible? Liberal? Conservative?</p>
<p>How 'bout an Africa historial who believes that the best thing the West could do to assist development in Africa would be to end all aid programs? Liberal? Conservative?</p>
<p>How ‘bout professors who place high expectations on their students’ academic performance? Liberal? Conservative?</p>
<p>I know what he is proposing. But from the article I read, he lacks both significant historical perspective, and political awareness. There was no recognition, for example, that Iraqi Kurds ARE Sunnis! (though not Arabs)</p>
<p>More critically, the article lacked any substantive understanding of the impact of a wholly Shiite Iraqi state living next to a much larger and more powerful Iranian one. There was no acknowledgment of the historical basis of the state of current Iranian/U.S. relations. Now I happen to believe that the single best thing the U.S. could do in foreign policy would to pursue rapproachment with Iran - others may disagree and that’s okay. But to not acknowledge the elephant in the room that comes with elimination of “Sunni political power” in Iraq is so shortsighted and so shallow as to be one of those deadly laughable moments.</p>
<p>He seriously needs more time outside of the classroom.</p>
<p>You informed us in another thread that it was a “straw man argument” that the “elite” colleges were run by liberal faculty, and that there were maverick professors of all political stripes found there. So use whatever definition you had in mind when you made that statement. I’m just curious because I found the article you posted about the decline of religion in Europe by Kurth interesting. I wasn’t trying to be snarky–just curious. You don’t have to answer, I just thought you might know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, he comments on both of those issues and others. His whole premise is based on inherent tensions within the Middle East that our foreign policy has minimized by providing a convenient unifying target. He is quite clear in highlighting the historic and cultural divisions between Arabs and Persians in the region. Specifically, that the Iraqi Shi’ia and Iranian Shi’ia are unlikely to form a monolithic block over the long haul specifically because of those long standing cultural divisions.</p>
<p>In effect, he is proposing exactly what you are proposing: not only acknowledging Iran’s position in the region, but working to strengthen it to the point where Iran serves as a very real threat to Sunni interests in both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. He is essentially saying that it is NOT in the US interests to continue supporting Sunni interests in the region to the exclusion of Shi’ia interests. It is in our interests to not have a dog in the Sunni/Shi’ia hunt. This would obviously not make the Saudis and Egyptians happy, but I sense that he doesn’t much care – that aligning with the Sunni dictatorships in the region isn’t doing much to help US interests.</p>
<p>Inherent in his writing is that the whole concept of the nation-state has no meaning in the region; that the Middle East is fundamentally defined by borderless ethnic, cultural, and religious affiliations and that the US has made a fundamental miscalculation in attributing nation-state viability based on arbitrary European drawn boundaries.</p>
<p>My skepticism about his writings is that he is essentially proposing that it is in the US interests to destabilize the region and promote conflicts within the Islamic world that might very well include open warfare (i.e. Saudi/Egyptian suppport of the Iraq Sunnis, Pakistan/Iranian showdowns, etc.) I think that is a potentially pragmatic approach from the standpoint of American interests.</p>
<p>But, as already noted, the most basic facts of current Middle East conflicts, Shia Iran supporting Sunni Hamas, and Sunni Syria supporting Shia Hezbollah undermine his most basic premise. It’s like a big “Duh”…</p>
<p>Of course, behind all of this (and behind the work of most American policy wonks, both conservative and liberal) is the notion that the U.S. really gets to decide. Hasn’t worked out that way in North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, China, India, Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil, or most of Africa, but…well…never mind.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not really. He’s advocating just the opposite. American “getting to decide” is our current policy of propping up the Sunnis in the face of what would be total annihilation if the Iraqis were left to decide for themselves. He is suggesting that we step aside and let them have at it.</p>
<p>He is also advocating that we stop “trying to decide” that Iran should be weakened and start embracing the notion of Iran as a regional power.</p>
<p>I just shook my head during Bush’s speech tonight as he went on about how more American troops are needed to wipe out the “terrorist insurgency”. That is a Sunni Bathist “insurgency”. I suspect that, were we to step aside, Sadr and the Shi’a militias would make quick (and ugly) work of wiping out the “insurgency”. </p>
<p>Sure beats the alternative…we are just sitting there holding off the inevitable and providing an easy target for everyone. Let the Iraqis sort it out. If the Saudis and Syrians want to continue sending resources to support the Sunni “insurgency” and the Iranians want to continue sending resources to support the Shi’a militias, so much the better. Every dollar they spend in Iraq is a dollar they can’t send to Bin Laden or Hamas or Hezzbollah. </p>
<p>Kurth is banking on the fact that an all-out shooting war between the Sunnis and Shi’as in Iraq would escalate as various Islamic players choose sides.</p>
<p>I know it’s cold, but after four years, why should I really care if Iraqis insist on killing each other?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s Robert Nozick, and he was a Libertarian. I happen to have the notes from that course of his, and he, generally, started off his courses with lighthearted remarks and extremely casual explanations in a hope to convince students that philosophy need not be as esoteric and complex as it is reputed to be.</p>
<p>Thanks for the correction, nspeds. My memory aint what it used to be. I do remember, however, that Nozick was a libertarian. </p>
<p>And you’re right, profs like to make their courses sound enticing. My S reports that some of his profs’ jokes aren’t as funny as the profs seem to think they are.</p>
<p>Fendrock:</p>
<p>Re Godiva chocolate. I once sat at dinner next to some scholar who’d studied the marketing of French chocolate as a luxury item. I blinked. When I was a child in France, chocolate (usually milk chocolate) was not a very prestigious item of consumption. Later on, when my brother went to Brussels on business, he had standing orders to bring back some Belgian chocolate–the best, it was claimed by everyone we knew. The scholar confirmed my impression. French chocolate was not a world-class product.<br>
So how to raise its cachet? Through consumer education. French consumers were bombarded with messages that the darker the chocolate, the more gourmet it was. In other words, appeal to their food snobbery. It’s worked. Fancy packages also helped do the trick. </p>
<p>So there you have it: production, consumption, marketing, packaging. That scholar had studied it all. So had the main character in the film, Chocolat.</p>
<p>Fetishism should not be a surprising class. </p>
<p>It is, after all, a major issue in human psychology; abnormal psychology deals with fetishim regularly – How to approach a client with a fetish that is annoying him or her. What are the causes of fetishes? What is the history of fetishism – all these issues are very germane to any psychologist/psychiatrist, and, perhaps, to the layman as well.</p>
<p>If this is what they are teaching in college, I shudder at the choices my daughter will have to make.
For God’s sake, can’t we get back to real education? WHy all the freakin TRASH?!</p>
<p>Isn’t studying science alone against the conservatives? I mean, shouldn’t we all be learning that god made the world and loves us and that’s why gravity exists because god loves us and doesn’t want us to float away?</p>
<p>Please, I don’t see liberals trying to censor what is learned in colleges. It’s up to students what courses they take, it not up to conversatives and it’s not up to parents either.</p>
<p>So what should your daughter be studying?</p>
<p>Let’s say she took a course on chocolate. Chances are that would be an opportunity for her to read some classic texts in economics and anthropology, to learn something about foreign countries where cocoa is produced, etc… </p>
<p>The point is that before passing judgment on a course, people should read the whole syllabus and not just the catalog description.</p>