How do I hate thee?

The April issue of University Affairs magazine features a story on psychologist Chistopher Burris’ research on hate, which in comparison to its counterpart, love, doesn’t get much attention from researchers.

The general consensus is that hate is an emotion, but Burris argues that hate is a motive. Burris says a motive provides focus directed toward the attainment of a particular goal.

Burris offers up analysis of road rage, movie scenes (e.g., Kathy Bates’ character in the movie adaptation of Stephen King’s Misery), etc. to illustrate various subtypes of hate.

The hate motive does not have to be premeditated nor do emotional experiences inevitably lead to hate. Burris says:

“To the extent that we devalue the other, see them as somehow beneath us or totally unlike us, I believe that becomes the cognitive next step towards the process of hate. And honestly, I feel like once it comes to the point of devaluing the other, hate may be an inevitable consequence.”

All of this got me thinking, not about “big” hate, but about the everyday hate one encounters, particularly in academe. Seems to me two goals that are commonly encountered in the groves of academe are “elevating the self,” and “restoring order.” Denigration and redress, then, are the subtypes of hate all too often exhibited in the “normal” course of university work.

Below is a table from the UA article summarizing Burris’ categories of hate.

Let me count the ways: six subtypes of hate

Subtype Emotional antecedent Goal
Sadism Anticipation, excitement Pleasure
Mutiny Resentment, exasperation Assertion of autonomy
Tethering Loss, fear of abandonment “Securing” the relationship
Denigration Envy, contempt Elevating the self
Redress Anger, disgust Restoring order
Nihilism Loathing, seething rage Destruction of the other

Source: adapted from “Let me count the ways: An integrative theory of love and hate,” by J. K. Rempel, & C. T. Burris, Personal Relationships (in press).

May Day. Workers of the world awaken!

59V0460r.jpg

Workers of the world, awaken!
Rise in all your splendid might
Take the wealth that you are making,
It belongs to you by right.
No one will for bread be crying
We’ll have freedom, love and health,
When the grand red flag is flying
In the Workers’ Commonwealth
(Joe Hill)

On May 1, 1886, hundreds of thousands of North American workers mobilized to strike. In Chicago, on May 3, police shot two workers during a battle between picketers and scabs at the McCormick Harvester Works. At a protest rally in Haymarket Square the next day someone (possibly a police agent) tossed a bomb into the police ranks. Police then opened fire, indiscriminately killing four workers and wounding a hundred others.

Eight anarachist leaders were arrested, subjected to a sham trial, and sentenced to death (with three later pardoned).

International protests followed the Haymarket Massacre and in 1889 the congress of socialist parties known as the Second International called for an annual one-day strike on May 1 to demonstrate labor solidarity and working-class power.

More information on May Day can be found at:
Haymarket Archives
Lucy Parsons Project
Rouge Forum
Haymarket Monument

Union-busting liberals at Columbia U

Over a thousand teaching assistants, grad students and union members from across the US marched on Columbia University last week, demanding that Columbia, Yale and the National Labor Relations Board grant graduate teachers union recognition.

The weeklong strike by Columbia grad students prompted provost Alan Brinkley, a liberal historian, to issue a memo to deans outlining punative actions to be taken against students fighting for union recognition.

Grad students at public universities have had the right to organize since 1996. In 2000, the NLRB granted grad student employees at private universities the right to unionize. Columbia University has hired one the US’s leading union-busting law firms to fight grad student unions and succeed in having the union election ballots impounded, then last year the NLRB recended the rights of grad students at private universities to unionize.

Jennifer Washburn, author of Univerity, Inc., reports in the current issue The Nation on the latest developments at Columbia.

Power of the mix tape

In the past several months, I’ve had a couple of buddies give me cds they’ve made, several of them “mix tapes.” (I’m really into the mix of The Coup, Common, and Michael Franti, btw). Anyway, I’m a mix tape fanatic, from doing tapes for our wedding reception to a series of mix cds for The Rouge Forum. And, I’ve logged a lot of time in the past year-and-a-half listening to several of the Another Late Night mix albums (particularly the cds editions compiled by Kid Loco and Tommy Guerrero).

So the new book (out next month), The Mix Tape: The Art of Cassette Culture, edited by Sonic Youth‘s Thurston Moore, is right up my alley.

Here’s an excerpt of the book from WiredSonic Youth’s Thurston Moore on the power of the mix tape

The first time I ever heard of someone making a mix tape was in 1978. Robert Christgau, the “dean of rock critics,” was writing in The Village Voice about his favorite Clash record, which just happened to be the one he made himself: a tape of all the band’s non-LP B-sides. One aspect really struck me – Christgau said it was a tape he made to give to friends. He had made his own personalized Clash record and was handing it out as a memento of his rock-and-roll devotion.

In those days, tape decks were as essential as turntables and just as bulky. But then Sony came out with the Walkman. I suppose the record industry expected consumers to buy cassettes of the LPs, and some surely did, but hey – why not just buy blank cassettes and record tracks from LPs instead? Of course, this is what every Walkman user did, and before long there were warning stickers on records and cassettes, stating: home taping is killing music! It was a quaint forebear of today’s industry paranoia over downloading and CD burning.

Around 1980, there was a spontaneous scene of young bands recording singles of superfast hardcore punk – Minor Threat, Negative Approach, Necros, Battalion of Saints, Adolescents, Sin 34, the Meatmen, Urban Waste, Void, Crucifucks, Youth Brigade, the Mob, Gang Green. I was fanatical and bought them all as soon as they came out. I was just a dishwasher at a SoHo restaurant – not exactly raking in the dough – but I needed these sides!

I also needed to hear these records in a more time-fluid way, and it hit me that I could make a mix tape of all the best songs. So I made what I thought was the most killer hardcore tape ever. I wrote H on one side, and C on the other. That night, after my love Kim had fallen asleep, I put the tape in our stereo cassette player, dragged one of the little speakers over to the bed, and listened to it at ultralow thrash volume. I was in a state of humming bliss. This music had every cell and fiber in my body on heavy sizzle mode. It was sweet.

On a Sonic Youth tour in the mid-’80s, we decided to get a cassette player for the van. One idea was to install a dashboard unit, but that was pricey. There was a street trend in NYC of hip hop heads blasting rap mix tapes through massive boom boxes, or “ghetto blasters.” So I went into this Delancey Street store and, using the band’s limited funds, bought the biggest boom box on display: a Conion that took 16 D batteries. The Conion – we nicknamed it “the Conan” – was almost like an extra body, about the size of a small kid. My solution was to stand it on end between the two front seats, facing the back. As we drove through the Holland Tunnel and began to distance ourselves from the city, I jammed in the first of the rap compilations I’d made, and the boom box sounded superb.

We had it onstage with us when we played, and I miked it through the PA for between-song tape action. Kids gave us cassettes all across the US – some of them hopeful demos and some mix tapes, and we’d jam them all. By tour’s end, there must have been hundreds of tapes strewn about the van, with their plastic cases stomped and cracked.

These days, CD technology has displaced the cassette in the mainstream, and mix CDs have become the new cultural love letter/trading post. For those of us who think that digital delivers a harsher sound than analog, it’s a sonic nightmare dealing with the new world reality of MP3s. They’re even more compressed and harsh than CDs, and in the case of vintage grooves – be it Led Zeppelin, Bad Brains, or Pavement – sound even more detached from musical vibration.

But even if MP3 music sounds lame, as long as it’s recognizable in form, free, and shareable, it’s here to stay. It will get better as more sophisticated methods of replication emerge. For now, its clunk is glamorized by celebrity iTunes playlists. ITunes has become the Hallmark card of mix tapes – all you gotta do is sign your name to personalize it.

Once again, we’re being told that home taping (in the form of ripping and burning) is killing music. But it’s not: It simply exists as a nod to the true love and ego involved in sharing music with friends and lovers. Trying to control music sharing – by shutting down P2P sites or MP3 blogs or BitTorrent or whatever other technology comes along – is like trying to control an affair of the heart. Nothing will stop it.

Adapted from Mix Tape: The Art of Cassette Culture, edited by Thurston Moore, to be published by Universe in May.

School boards to teachers: “Shut up (about class size)”

School boards in British Columbia want teachers to shut up when it comes to talking with parents about class size. The BC Public School Employer’s Association, which is the bargaining agent for the 60 public school boards in the province, told the BC Court of Appeal this week that it is not unfair to limit teachers’ free speech rights.

The school boards are appealing an arbitrator’s decision that teachers have a constitutional right to express their views about education. Teachers’ free speech rights came to the fore in 2002 after the BC Liberal government stripped class size provisions from BC Teacher Federation contracts and teachers responded by telling parents about the impact of the elimination of class size restrictions.

Last week the BCTF reported that over 43,000 students in the province are in “over-sized” classes. In March, the BC Court of Appeal ruled that teachers have the right to grieve the legislated class size limits and averages imposed by the Liberal government of the province.

Class size is one of a handful of issues examined by educational researchers about which there is little debate. There is overwhelming evidence that smaller class size has positive effects on student achievement, especially for children living in poverty.

The Tennessee STAR (Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio) study was one of the few large-scale, randomized experiments in educational research history. The STAR study found that reduction of class size to 13-17 students produces significant and lasting improvements in reading and math achievement, with greater benefits for students who started in small classes early in their school careers.

Research shows the effects of class size reduction are maximized when several conditions are met:

  • Start in kindergarten or first grade; early intervention is crucial
  • The ideal class size is 13-17
  • If resources are scarce, target at-risk students first
  • To maintain intensity, students should experience small classes all day, everyday
  • Small classes should last at least two years, and three to four years for the longest-lasting benefits.

The Wisconsin SAGE study showed that class size reductions produced sustained increases student achievement as well as:

  • Greater benefits for African American students
  • A Narrowing of the achievement gap between African American and white students
  • Compensating for poor attendance.

==========================
Not unfair limit on free speech, board argues

Teachers have no right to criticize class sizes during parent interviews, lawyer tells court

Janet Steffenhagen

Vancouver Sun
Thursday, April 21, 2005

Teachers have no more right to criticize class-size increases during parent-teacher interviews than Air Canada pilots do to complain to passengers that government isn’t giving their airline enough money, the B.C. Court of Appeal was told Wednesday.

Both are examples of employees with unusual access to captive audiences by virtue of their employment, and employer limits on what they say under those circumstances is not an unfair restriction on freedom of speech, lawyer Keith Murray argued on behalf of the B.C. Public School Employers’ Association.

“The intent of parent-teacher interviews is to focus on the child’s progress in the system,” Murray said. “It’s not to be turned into a political platform.”

But the lawyer for the B.C. Teachers’ Federation rejected the suggestion that parents attending such interviews are “captive audiences” and noted there are no rules about what may be discussed.

“It’s not automatic that you only talk about the student,” John Rogers told a three-judge panel hearing an appeal of an arbitrator’s ruling in 2004 that said teachers have a constitutional right to express their views about education.

The matter arose in 2002 after the Liberal government reduced the BCTF contract by eliminating provisions restricting class size and composition. The union subsequently sent a communique urging members to tell parents about the impact of those changes.

Specifically, teachers were asked to raise their concerns during parent-teacher interviews and give parents “report cards” showing the average class size in their school, advising that the increase was hurting students, and casting blame at the Liberal government.

“Teachers have the legal right to provide factual information to parents,” the union said in material distributed province-wide. “It has always been part of our professional responsibility to communicate with parents and inform them of what is necessary for their child’s success.”

The union also asked members to post similar material — with titles such as Our Children’s Education is Threatened and What’s at Stake for B.C. Students — on teacher bulletin boards, including those that could be viewed by students and parents.

Several school boards ordered teachers to stop disseminating the information and the union filed a grievance, which resulted in the ruling by arbitrator Don Munroe last year.

jsteffenhagen@png.canwest.com

Tales from the corporate university: Presidential golden handshakes

Last year the Faculty Association of the University of British Columbia signed a three-year agreement that included ZERO, ZERO, and ZERO percent pay “increases.”

In addition, job security for all faculty is under attack as part-time, adjunct, and other types of contingent employment replace tenure stream positions.

University presidents, however, are exempt from these indignities.

Consider the following:

  • UBC gives a one-year leave to administrators for every five years served. UBC President, Martha Piper, recently announced she will retire in 2006, one year short of completing her second five-year term. But, she’ll keep her $700,000.00 salary for a full two years post-UBC.
  • U of Alberta president, Roderick Fraser will receive $740,000.00 while taking a two year leave leading up to retirement.
  • Carleton’s president Richard Van Loon was given a two year leave at $550,000.00 even though he will be past the mandatory retirement age of 65.
  • Janyne Hodder, a vice president at McGill U, is simultaneously collecting paychecks from McGill ($170,000.00) and Bishop’s U ($150,000.00) in a 16 month transition from her position as principal of Bishop’s.

Today, The Province newspaper summed it up in their headline: “Canadian university presidents are rolling into retirement with wheelbarrows full of cash.”

Tiger Beat question of the week: Are British bands the best at being big?

Neil McCormick of The Daily Telegraph certainly thinks so. As Coldplay readies to take over the world and with art-punkers Bloc Party–who owe a lot to Gang of Four, Joy Division, and Sonic Youth–poised to be this year’s Franz Ferdinand, McCormick has lot’s of ammo to back up his claim.

McCormick says “American pop culture may dominate the worldwide media, but when it comes to truly universal rock music, British bands are still in a league of their own, superior to their American counterparts in almost every respect.”

To prove his point McCormick starts with, ahem, Aerosmith. Well who, besides Chuck Klosterman, is going to side with Aerosmith?

(Actually, Klosterman’s <a href+”Fargo Rock City is a great read.)

In this corner, representing American rock: Aerosmith, R.E.M., Velvet Revolver, GnR, Ramones, Talking Heads, Faith No More, The Byrds, and Nine Inch Nails. In the other corner, representing Britain (with I bit of the Emerald Isle thrown in): the Kinks, Sex Pistols, U2, Rolling Stones, The Clash, Joy Division, Echo and the Bunnymen, the Smiths and Blur…Click here for the results or read on.Why British bands are the best at being big
(Filed: 16/04/2005)
The Daily Telegraph

It was announced this week that Coldplay are to take the coveted Saturday night headline spot at this year’s Glastonbury festival on June 25, the scene of their widely acknowledged crowd-swaying triumph in 2000. Earlier the same month, on June 6, Coldplay will release their third album, X&Y. The cover artwork is currently being unveiled in a street poster campaign a segment at a time. A single, Speed of Sound, will be played for the first time by radio stations on Monday.

There is enormous anticipation within the music business about Coldplay’s return to the fray. Their 2002 album, A Rush of Blood to the Head, had worldwide sales of 9.8 million, but their record company, Parlophone, predicts that the new album will beat that. There is a sense that Coldplay are poised on the edge of greatness, with the chance to become the first genuine rock superstars of the 21st century, capable of filling stadiums around the world. And what is more, they are British.

I say this not out of some misguided patriotism, but because their Britishness matters. American pop culture may dominate the worldwide media, but when it comes to truly universal rock music, British bands are still in a league of their own, superior to their American counterparts in almost every respect.

This thought occurred to me during a concert by Velvet Revolver, a high-energy, perpetually riffing outfit whose album, Contraband, last year became the fastest-selling debut ever in the US. And it is not bad, if you like your music fast, loud and shallow. Their lead guitarist, Slash, is already something of a rock legend, formerly of American stadium rockers Guns N’ Roses, a late ’80s glam-punk band of screeching hysteria and frenzied soloing who, in retrospect, look like the last gasp of dinosaur bombast before grunge and Britpop brought rock back down to earth. On stage at the mid-sized Hammersmith Apollo in west London (Velvet Revolver not being nearly as popular on this side of the Atlantic), Slash dedicated a song to “the greatest American rock group of all time”. The band he had in mind were… Aerosmith.

Is that really the best America can do? Aerosmith’s claim to such a title is fairly compelling. They are America’s longest-running rock soap opera, having played together for 35 years, notched up hits across four decades, survived drugs and debauchery on a gargantuan scale and sold tens of millions of records in the process. They have a great frontman in Steve Tyler, a gifted lead guitarist in Joe Perry, they write catchy songs and they have all the licks and all the right moves… but no art, and precious little heart. Aerosmith are essentially a showband, light entertainment with heavy guitars. They are often compared to the Rolling Stones but their debt to Britain’s own longest-running rock opera is all too evident, and all too superficial. Where is their Sympathy for the Devil? Where is their Paint It, Black? Aerosmith’s most well-known global hit is the bubblegum pop-rock of Walk This Way, in a version popularised by rappers Run-DMC.

If we are talking greatness, surely we should be searching for something richer and more vital than that? When we look at the great universal British groups, the ones whose music resonates in every corner of the globe, they have soul, spirit and art in abundance. The Stones, the Who, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, U2 (not strictly British, but an Irish band signed to a British record company with two members born in the UK) and, more recently, Oasis and Radiohead. These are bands whose success was built on musical principles of passion and substance. What is the best America can offer? Fast guitar licks, big light shows, tight trousers and blow-dried hair.

The history of rock can be viewed as a kind of cultural interplay between the US and the UK, with fantastic bands from both sides of the pond influencing and interacting with one another, often with an impact far outreaching their sales. But I don’t wish to debate the relative merits of groups such as the Byrds, the Doors, the Velvet Underground, the Ramones, Talking Heads, Faith No More and Nine Inch Nails (from the US) and the Kinks, the Sex Pistols, the Clash, Joy Division, Echo and the Bunnymen, the Smiths and Blur (from the UK). I love and admire them all. But I want to address something more wide-reaching than what most groups – no matter how distinctive and inspirational – have to offer. I am talking about universality, striking a chord that reverberates around the planet, singing the songs that make the whole world sing along, selling in multi-millions over an extended period of time. I am talking, essentially, about stadium rock.

There are some who consider the term stadium rock abusive – shameless populism with all the artistic compromises that implies. Rock is undoubtedly at its best when it has an edge – but on those occasions when bands reach the point of mass appeal while retaining musical integrity, I think we witness something truly extraordinary unfold, music that speaks to something deep within its audience, invoking a spirit of communal experience almost primeval in its power. Sometimes bigger really is better, because the intensity of the experience, rather than being diluted, is magnified.

“If you invite 60,000 people to a stadium, you had better do something that people can not only hear but can also see, and that kind of scale of ambition to produce big music in a big live context is not easy,” says U2’s manager, Paul McGuinness. With the new and creatively revamped Wembley Stadium due to open next year, giving Britain its own state-of-the-art stadium venue, there is some thought being given to the question of which acts have the pulling power to perform there. “You have to have the music, you have to have the demand, and you have to be innovative and creative about the physical circumstances of your performance,” says McGuinness. “Right now, probably only Paul McCartney, the Rolling Stones and U2 can do it. It’s a very short list.”

“There have probably been not more than 20 real big stadium acts in rock history, which is not a lot,” says Harvey Goldsmith, the legendary British concert promoter. “All the artists that break through to that level have a magic about them that is hard to describe. There are two things they need: anthemic songs and incredible stage presence. The edge of the stage is a huge barrier. In any venue, no matter what size, you’ve got to be able to hit the guys at the back. If you don’t get to them, it’s not working. To do that in a space that holds 50,000 to 70,000 people takes something really special.”

Goldsmith cites the Stones, Pink Floyd, the Who and Queen as the greatest stadium bands ever. “Queen had all the anthems, they had production values, and Freddie Mercury had soul, too, which is something that’s often overlooked. It’s a two-way process, playing live, the audience reacting to the band and the band on stage reacting to the audience, and somehow he always managed to keep that interplay going.”

We are not talking about solo artists here, which I regard as a special case. In solo terms, the US may be ahead of the UK. They can boast Elvis, Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen as undisputable universal greats. We have Paul, Elton and Rod. I am restricting myself to the case of the rock band, the unique chemistry conjured by a group of individuals playing guitars, bass and drums. And, to my mind, the greatest rock bands of all time are British.

The Beatles were the first stadium band, although their tiny amplifiers (designed for clubs) could not compete with the volume of screams at Shea Stadium in 1965. The Stones, the Who, Pink Floyd and Genesis all took it further, finding a way to use those vast spaces. “The British bands had great production values, they brought a lot of ideas from the art world and theatre into their shows,” says Goldsmith. “In the early days, the big American bands just went out and played. They came up as big draws on the live circuit in America and saw stadiums as an extension of that. They picked up on the production thing later and went to town on it, which is where Kiss come in.”

Kiss: a bunch of men in lurid make-up sticking their tongues out and playing heavy metal power-pop with stupid lyrics. They were the biggest-selling American rock band of the mid-’70s. In the UK, we had Led Zeppelin, a phenomenal blues and folk-based hard rock outfit whose records still resonate today. “When you become part of the mass consciousness, your currency changes – whatever your original intentions were,” says former Zeppelin vocalist Robert Plant. “I think we are now considered some stalwart of British rock, which doesn’t take into account the variety and colours created by that group. Zeppelin were never a middle of the road band, we were really quite fearsome, but we took the imagination of a lot of people with us. We were always striking out for higher ground and it was always based on musical integrity.”

British rock comes out of art schools and universities. It is music of ideas, with originality and vision often admired above musicianship. It is forged in the glare of the merciless British music press. In a small country, with a limited live circuit and almost claustrophobic media, bands have to be very strong to survive, and very brilliant to flourish. US rock, by contrast, is forged on the road. In a huge country with an enormous population, American bands tour relentlessly, learning their skills in front of live audiences. It can result in very high levels of musical ability, but it is also a recipe for creating highly accomplished, road warrior showbands who pander to the lowest common denominator. American bands tend to have a whole set of cover versions at their fingertips. British bands, on the other hand, sometimes appear to be struggling just to play their own set. But this may actually work in their favour. As The Edge, guitarist with U2, explains: “U2 are the worst bar band in the world. The reason we developed the unique style that we have is because that was the only way forward, it was the approach that suited our rather schizophrenic and uneven talents.”

In the ’80s, U2 began their ascent to becoming the greatest, most passionate and innovative stadium rock band of our times. During the same period, America gave us Bon Jovi, jumped-up bar-room rock with big hair. In the ’90s, things took on a slightly different complexion. Britain gave us Oasis and Radiohead but they were easily matched by the best America had to offer. REM had their moment at the top of the pile with albums as soulful and inventive as any in rock’s canon, although, for all their gifts, there is a quirkiness to the band that has not sustained them on the stadium frontline.

And then along came Nirvana, who, for raw passion, addictive hooks and global resonance, can surely lay some claim of their own to the title of greatest American rock band of all time. Yet their career was cut short so dramatically, their place in rock’s canon essentially comes down to one universally loved album, Nevermind, and the almost mythical impact created by Kurt Cobain’s suicide (which puts him in the elite company of Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix, all-time greats who never got to fulfil their potential). Instead, the most enduring American stadium band of the ’90s turned out to be funk-rock outfit the Red Hot Chilli Peppers, a band formerly given to performing naked but for strategically-placed socks.

And it is those notorious socks, perhaps, that define the gulf between the great British and American rock bands. Clearly, for the Chilli Peppers, size matters. They are about spectacle and entertainment and not much more besides. The great British bands all have something beneath the surface, something that resonates deeply with their listeners. These are bands whose greatness would not be in doubt, no matter how many people tuned in. As Plant said of Led Zeppelin, they were striking for higher ground. It is the world of difference between wearing your heart on your sleeve and knitted footwear on your member.

Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright

Housing boom, bubble, or bomb?

Like any new Vancouverite, I responded like a deer in highlights when confronted with the housing market in the Lower Mainland. Is the current housing craze the equivalent of 17th century Tulipmania in Holland?…Some respectable Wall Street economists are starting to wonder if the current housing boom is actually a bubble about to burst.

In “Riotous Real Estate” radical urban theorist Mike Davis argues that the values that mattered in the Bush re-election last year were of the property sort, rather than moral sort. Davis believes that,

At the end of the day, American military hegemony is no longer underwritten by an equivalent global economic supremacy. The housing bubble, like the dot-com boom before it, has temporarily masked a mess of economic contradictions. As a result, the second term of George W. Bush may hold some first-class Shakespearian surprises.

Rehabilitating John Brown

brown_john.jpg

John Brown, the 19th century abolitionist, has never gotten a fair shake from history and, as far as school history textbooks go, he’s been given the brush off or treated as a madman (see James Loewen’s book Lies My Teacher Told Me).

Yesterday’s New York Times Book Review has a stellar review (by Barbara Ehrenreich) of David S. Reynold’s John Brown, Abolitionist. Reynolds presents Brown as a reasonable man of his time–embraced by leading intellectuals such as Thoreau and Emerson–rather than as a crazed anti-slavery terrorist. Accordiing to Ehrenreich, Reynolds backs up his claims with plenty of evidence.

The closing paragraph of Ehrenreich’s review raises some serious issues for social studies educators and people interested in working for the transformation of society (two barely overlapping groups in my opinion).

“How do we judge a man of such different times–and temperament–from our own? If the rule is that there must be some proportion between a violent act and its provocation, surely there could be no more monstrous provocation than slavery. In our own time, some may discern equivalent evils in continuing racial oppression, economic exploitation, environmental predation or widespread torture. To them, ”John Brown, Abolitionist,” for all its wealth of detail and scrupulous attempts at balance, has a shockingly simple message: Far better to have future generations complain about your methods than condemn you for doing nothing.”

Nationalism, patriotism, and textbooks

In recent days, China has seen the biggest public protest since the Tiananmen Square demonstrations of 1989. Thousands of people, in over a dozen cities, have participated in anti-Japan protests. China-Japan relations are now at their lowest point since diplomatic relations were established in 1972.

The protests have been fueled by a number recent actions by Japan including: its campaign to become a member of the UN Security Council; a joint statement with the US calling for a peaceful resolution of Tiawan’s future status; and the decision to drill for oil and gas in disputed waters of the East China Sea. But the main targets of Chinese anger are new Japanese history textbooks.There is a rising tide of patriotic nationalism in Japan that coincides with the rise of the political right in national politics. Japan’s schools, which have traditionally been dominated by left-leaning teachers have become the major battleground in the right’s effort promote jingoistic nationalism.

Since 1999, Japan’s flag and anthem (which was written at time when the Japanese believed the emperor was an immortal diety) have become mandatory elements of school life in Tokyo. The Globe and Mail reported yesterday that over 300 teachers in Tokyo have been punished for refusing to sing or play an musical accompaniment to the anthem in the past two years. Pacifist teachers who have resisted new flag and anthem regulations have been harrassed by parents and even received death threats.

The ruling Liberal Democratic Party is planning to reform Japan’s basic education law this year to require schools teach “love of country” to students. Politicians are working revive the status of the emperor, ditch the country’s “peace constitution” (which prohibits an offensive military); and require students memorize a constitutional preamble that would praise Japan’s history and culture and the Japanese race.

Within this context, it’s not surprising that Japanese history textbooks, which are subject to government approval, have been revised so as to help meet these nationalistic goals. And, what has fuel the recent protests in China is the whitewash of Japanese aggression that appears in the latest junior high school history textbooks.

Today, The New York Times published excerpts from various editions of Japanese history texts illustrating how Japanese World War II atrocities of sexual slavery (“comfort women”) and forced labor have vanished from school texts in the past six years.

Obviously the USA doesn’t have a monopoly on the “shut up and march” brand of history education.
________
The New York Times
April 17, 2005

In Japan’s New Texts, Lessons in Rising Nationalism
By NORIMITSU ONISHI

TOKYO — In a region where history remains unresolved, the fight over the past is often a fight over the future. Seldom does it crystallize as perfectly as it did last week, in the biggest anti-Japan protests in China since the two countries re-established relations in 1972. Oddly, to Westerners at least, the focus of Chinese fury was Japan’s approval of junior high school history textbooks that critics say whitewash Japanese aggression in Asia.

This wasn’t the only textbook tempest, and it may not be the last. Not only are Chinese authorities bracing for further protests, but just before this week’s marches, Japan objected that China’s patriotic education breeds anti-Japanese sentiments, and South Korea castigated the Japanese textbooks for allegedly trying to justify a colonialist past.

Although it may yet be decades before the three countries agree on history, they have long shared a common trait that helps explain how revisions can stir such deep emotions. Their students learn history through government-approved textbooks that are, especially with nationalism rising in all three countries, useful tools in shaping national identities. Since the textbooks require the central government’s imprimatur, they are taken as a reflection of the views of the current leaders.

“In all three countries, there is a tendency to propagandize history,” said Jee Soo Gol, a professor of history education at Kongju National University in South Korea.

The extraordinary fury at Japan stems not just from its 20th-century atrocities, but from what its neighbors describe as its increasing attempts to evade past wrongdoing. And they have a point. A look at the new textbooks and those from two previous cycles, 2002 and 1997, shows an unmistakable backpedaling on some of the most contentious points.

The most glaring example surrounds the issue of “comfort women,” the euphemism for the women, mostly Asian, who were forced into sexual servitude by Japanese authorities during World War II. In 1997, all seven textbooks included passages about them, explaining, for instance, that Japan “took away young Korean and other women as comfort women to battlefields.” In 2002, the number fell to three out of eight; this time, only two out of eight acknowledge the comfort women, and none use that term.

During the war, Tokyo dealt with a severe labor shortage by forcing hundreds of thousands of Asians to work in Japan. In 1997, the textbook published by Tokyo Shoseki and now used by 52 percent of all junior high schools stated that “700,000 people were forcibly taken to Japan between 1939 and 1945” as laborers. The 2002 edition omits any number, and says, “In order to make up for a labor shortage, Japan and Germany forcibly brought in foreign people and made them work in mines and factories.” The newest edition cuts out “forcibly” and says only, “There were Koreans and Chinese who were brought to Japan and made to work against their will.”

Nobukatsu Fujioka, the founder of the nationalist Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform, said that textbooks focusing on Japan’s alleged wartime wrongs were unhealthy for the country’s students.

“I established this association because I thought it was a serious problem that this masochistic education is making the youth lose their pride and confidence in their own country,” said Mr. Fujioka.

“The words ‘war comfort women’ disappeared from textbooks in the last 10 years,” he added. “It is a fruit of our movement that the false fact was expelled from textbooks.”

The changes are also in keeping with a strong rightward shift in Japan.

“There would be a problem if the textbooks state something that the government does not assert, or if they go beyond the bounds of what the government asserts,” Shinzo Abe, one of Japan’s most popular politicians, said recently. “It’s natural that the textbooks follow the government line.”

Given the scrutiny and Japan’s comparatively long record of democracy, the textbooks here are perhaps more balanced than others in the region. China’s textbooks, for instance, teach that Chinese resistance, not the United States, defeated Japan in the war; they say nothing of the postwar Great Leap Forward, in which some 30 million Chinese died because of Mao Zedong’s misguided agrarian policies.

In South Korea, which democratized in the late 1980’s, textbooks have improved, though certain taboos remain, such as any mention of Koreans who collaborated with Japanese colonizers.

Shin Ju Baek, an education expert at Seoul National University, said that descriptions of the colonial period used to focus only on Japanese exploitation and Korean resistance, ignoring the role of Japanese colonialism in Korea’s modernization.

“There is still an emphasis on exploitation,” Mr. Sin said. “But textbooks now include other issues, such as the consumer culture that developed during Japanese occupation. Our textbooks are getting better. But Japan is a problem – it’s going in the other direction.”

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company