Because this generation:
Indulged and even encouraged this generation:
We're now stuck facing the rise of this generation:
Yep. It's not enough to be brave on the battlefield if you buckle and fold in the face of adversity on the home front when the shooting has stopped. Exactly what went wrong is more than a blog post can handle. And I'd never suggest that things were a step off the New Jerusalem until the war ended and then everything went to pot. But the speed with which it has unraveled since the closer of the war, and the growing movement all about destroying everything to do with the Christian world view, the democratic West and the American experiment, is nothing less than breathtaking in its scope and reach. Therefore whatever praise and honor that generation deserves for so bravely winning the battle for our civilization, it deserves as much criticism for losing so badly the overall war for which they fought that great battle in the first place.
(Tom New Poster)
ReplyDeleteOne point: the rot that began in the Roaring twenties was only paused by the Depression and war, then returned. Yet the picture of how we got the idiotic hedonism of the '60s is a little complicated. As Ravitch pointed out in "Left Back", the 1950s had very low juvenile crime and a conservative family culture, but also weak and rather empty precollege education standards. Yet as Fulton Sheen observed, the "beatnik" influence on the university's was in full swing, and when the American public commenced it idolatrous worship of the college degree, it was like putting straw into the fire. Hypothesis: nice, well-behaved kids with only a sort of instinctual ethics ("one doesn't do that sort of thing") had no moral or intellectual defenses when they meant the nihilism of their professors.
That's an excellent point. It was already there well before to be sure. I’ve often thought about when it went wrong. Years ago I did a lazy thought experiment. I recalled the last time I remember any explicitly Christian messaging in my public classroom, say around Christmastime. That was 2nd grade for me. By 4th Grade it was the last time I remember anything specifically religious that didn't have to be, though that was school in general. I remember something about having Easter off in 5th grade, but can't remember specifics. But going back, I specifically remember Christian references/lessons in 1st and 2nd Grade homeroom, but not 4th or later, nor in Kindergarten. So I thought about my teachers. My 1st and 2nd grade teachers were both old, close to retirement, and gone by the time I was a few years older. So about late 50s, early 60s. All things equal, assume they went to college in the early 30s to late 20s. My Kindergarten teacher, who I specifically remember many things about Christmas, but no overt Christian messages (apart from some decorations and The Little Match Girl story, if that counts), was very young. We must have been among her first years teaching. Likewise, the teachers after those older two were in their forties probably, perhaps late forties at best. Meaning they would have been in school about the late 40s/early 50s. And nothing Christian at all. And our Kindergarten teacher mid-twenties at best. Meaning she was just out of school in the late 60s/early 70s. So those who would have been in college in the late 20s/early 30s still taught us about Jesus and Silent Night and the Trinity and all sorts of things around Christmas (and other times too). While those who were in school probably around the late 40s or so onward didn’t. And none after that did. I know, that's very, very vague and barely worth a sticky-note. But I've often thought on that. What you wrote made me think of it again.
Delete(Tom New Poster)
DeleteRavitch's book would be a good read on this topic, although she does not address Christian references in public education explicitly. She does note that by the 1930s, progressives had locked up control of teacher colleges, which then moved away from the older "normal school" approach of instruction by veteran teachers to the current "school of education" approach taught by ed profs. Of course this took longer in more "conservative" states and the younger teachers still took their cues from older mentors rather than more distant professors (as we all still do BTW), which delayed the impact of progressive control until at least the later 1950s.
Returning to the Greatest Generation: perhaps they simply lacked the weapons to combat the academic radicals, since few of them went to college. Liberal and conservative folks had been adoring the BA since the WWI (again per Ravitch), many having no notion of what it meant beyond better job opportunities for their kids. I'm beginning to think the father in Aristophanes "The Birds" who burned down the sophists' school for turning his kids against their upbringing was ahead of his time (/s).
I would just like to piggyback on the teacher part of the discussion. Reading Bella Dodd’s “School of Darkness” book was eye opening as to the level of communist infiltration in unions, teacher’s unions, in particular. And even the placement of high level communists in the upper level of government during World War II. The communists were focused, intentional, and ruthless in order to maximize their reach, and they went after the teachers because of the kids. Because the country had moved to compulsory schooling, and because parents already outsourced their children’s education to the schools, Catholics being the worst in some way… it just set up kids to be picked off.
DeleteTom, I must look up that book. It seems the observations there are things I've been starting to put together over the years without even trying.
DeleteBernadette, I recall in the 90s watching Nightline with Ted Koppel. He was interviewing some former Soviet official who was doing the smart thing by selling a book and going on the lecture circuit. In the interview, Koppel asked him if he was seriously suggesting the USSR had agents in the US purposefully targeting the US, colleges, Hollywood, the press and education systems. The fellow responded with an almost 'well duh.' As he said, we did it to the Soviets, did we really think they weren't doing it to us? Only, in hindsight, I think they were better at the long term strategic war than we were. BTW, another book I might look into.
Delete(Tom New Poster)
ReplyDeleteDave, the book is from the early '90s when the author was more conservative than she has become (lately a rabid opponent of the school choice for which her book is indirect evidence). Sometimes authors say things the implications of which they do not easily perceive. I recall another: "Why the Conservative Churches are Growing" (1974), in which a liberal Protestant author lamented the inability of liberal Protestants to learn from the "strategies" of conservatives, and blind to the fact that their real strategy was faithfulness to Biblical teachings, a thing the liberals could never embrace and remain liberal. Said Maxwell Smart: "Missed it by that much!" :)