This blog will be used throughout the quarter for primary document analysis, reflection, and classroom discussions. Remember that your posts can be viewed by anyone with access to the Internet. Please maintain proper decorum and civil discourse.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Reflection - "Western Civ. Cradle of Learning"
What is the main idea of this editorial? What are the strengths of Bennett's argument? What are the weaknesses of his argument? Do you agree or disagree with Bennett? Why?
This editorial was about how the the west needs to learn about their culture to physically and intellectually protect its name. His strong points are when he talks about the scientific progress and the high standard of living. But this also shows weakness he shows that he is to confident in his way of life and implies that we all our better off than the islamic world. I agree with Bennett's original idea that we should learn more about our culture. I agree because it gives you a reason to work and try to keep the overall group better off. I do not agree that we are all way better than the islamic world but rather that we are different.
The editorial Western civilization still cradle of learning was a piece written by William Bennett about how the western civilization has surpassed the Islamic one by many years. He talks about how Islamic civilization has been stuck and has not evolved at all and how the western would has flourished in the past years with "scientific progress that has benefited rich and poor, young and old." This piece was written shortly after 9/11 so I believe Bennett was bias again anyone who looked Islamic, believing that they may be a theorist. This definitely changed the tone of his writing.
Bennett argues that western civilization should be continually and extensively taught in order to explain to our citizens the logic behind war and defending our democratic state and values. The strengths in his argument include accurate points on how western civilization has continually progressed due to democracy and the freedom to gain knowledge and equality versus Islamic societies, where those same freedoms are not allowed or accepted. The weaknesses stem from the fact that this article was written after 9/11, therefore there may be some bias and resentment. Although a tad ethnocentric, I agree with the article because there is undeniable evidence of advancement in democratic societies versus the unfortunate lack of progress in Islamic societies. I agree that democracy and the freedom to learn and express oneself leads to progress.
The main idea of the editorial is you should learn and understand the aspects of your culture. Bennetts strengths of the argument are the humanity and and liberalism. His weakness was when he was talking so direspectfully about the Islamic civilization. I do not agree with Bennett because he was making a good argument of why we shouldn't like islamic civilization.
The main idea of the editorial was how we should learn and respect our culture so we can defend it because of our strengths. He tries to prove his point by comparing two highly different cultures of the Islamic world and the western world and how the western world is much higher on the spectrum. His strengths lie in using statements from known sources of people in power.He weaknesses are that he contradicts himself highly throughout the editorial by saying that the west has great tolerance while he in reality is exemplifying the opposite. I disagree with Bennet because i believe he wants people to learn about their culture for the wrong reasons and he should try to gives better examples then slandering another type of culture just because of events that occurred.
The basic idea surrounding this article is that Western Civilization is superior to other cultures, like Islam, because they accept new ideas and difference in opinion in order to move forward. Through his explanation, Bennett does have weaknesses. He explains that Western Civilization is very tolerant of new or different cultures but at the same time, his thesis explains why the West is superior to other cultures. This was written soon after 9/11, which explains his opinion a little. I agree with Bennett when he explains that the West is stronger because we have new ideas and tolerate new cultures or ways of thinking rather than constantly following the ways of the past.
This editorial focuses primarily on the dominance of the West over the East, and more specifically, the Islamic world. He uses ideas such as the West's standard of living and scientific progress as compared to the East to support his argument. These points are Bennett's strengths in his argument. I do not agree with Bennett. I believe both the West and the East have it's drawbacks, but they also have their strengths. Calling one hemisphere dominant over the other is naive.
The main idea of this article is that Western Civilization is very important for students to learn about so people in the United States understand why it is so important to defend the West against the Middle East. The strengths of Bennett's arguments is his points in which a lot of political gains the WEst has made versus that of the gains Islamic nations have made. The weakness of his argument is that he believes that European culture is American's culture, but that is not true. America incorporates many different cultures into everyday life, not only European. In Bennett's opinion, Americans should learn about Western Civilization, but not other important cultures in our country. I disagree with Bennett's claims that Western Civilization is one of the most important things for students to learn because other cultures should be studied as well. Western Civ is important to know, but it is not the only thing that should have attention paid to it.
Bennet's main idea of the editorial is that Western Civilization is an important course to be studied and that U.S. citizens should have knowledge of the Western Civilization's history. A strength of his argument would be the liberalism in the West and the liberal education, he has his points plainly displayed. But a weakness would be his reliance on Berlusconi as a source of evidence because he shows Berlusconi's blatant ethnocentrism in the beginning of the article. I agree that I think westerners should know their civilization's history but I don't believe that we should know it in order to fight against the militant Islamic society, rather we should know it for our own good. I think it would further unite us as a society/country and make us more appreciative to how we came to be today.
The main idea of the editorial "Western Civ. Cradle of Learning" is that Western Civilization is superior to Islamic Civilization, and that it is important for young people to learn about its history so that they want to protect it. Bennett's argument is strong when it talks of the great progress made by Western Civilization in the ways of human rights, peace, diversity and information. Bennett's argument is weakest when it talks of stagnation in Islamic Civilization. This comes across as little more than ethnocentric. If I had read the editorial back in 2002, I would have agreed with Bennett. However, in the last year we have had multiple massacres within the U.S. Women still don't receive equal pay, and the homosexual community is still fighting for civil rights such as the ability to marry. If our own society is still dealing with such issues, then how can we criticize others?
The main idea of Bennett's editorial is that students in the United States should be better educated about Western Civilization, so that they will learn pride in "our" culture in this post-9/11 era. Bennett outlines his argument contrasting Western and Islamic culture, especially on matters such as standard of living, system of rights, scientific progress, and degree of human flourishing, in which he presents Western culture as superior to Islamic culture in every instance. While Bennett's argument is strong in its depiction of the importance for students to study the roots of their own civilization, he does so in an exceedingly ethnocentric and offensive manner. He proclaims that students "must learn that their own civilization offers unparalleled advantages compared to others," and that students should be proud of learning about "their" culture while degrading others'. Ironically, his constant claims of Western superiority come in direct contrast with the "liberalism" and open-mindedness which he portrays as one of the West's greatest aspects. For this ethnocentric and arrogant approach to this matter, I disagree with the majority of Bennett's argument; although the study of history is very important, it should not be at the expense of others' or as degrading to them.
The main idea of Bennett's editorial is that students need to be taught the legacy and history of the Western world and how it is, in so many ways, superior to other countries. The strengths of Bennett's argument are in his demonstration of how the Western world has continued to develop and evolve, placing it ahead of other parts of the world, while others (he provides the example of the Islamic civilization) have remained stagnant due to their lack of democratic thinking and intellectual freedom. However, the weakness is also in the strength. While he does make the case for why it is that the Western world has become so much more advanced than, say, the Middle East, he does so in a narrow-minded, ethnocentric manner. He claims the Western world is a stronghold of tolerance, yet immediately puts down the "Islamic civilization". Furthermore, there are clear discrepancies in his argument that they are stagnant. It is true that the Middle Eastern part of the world has not wavered from its traditional belief systems, but they have technology and economic power all their own. While I agree that students should learn how there culture is significant (How can students be expected to support their country if they know nothing about it?), I don't believe Bennett's argument is sufficient or open-minded enough to really prove that the Western world is superior.
The main idea of this editorial is that Western Civilization is crucial in education and it is unacceptable for it to be taken away from a curriculum, this being for various different reasons. First and foremost, Bennett claims that students must be aware of the Western Civ history because if they don't know about it, they won't fight for it. He then goes on to present Western Civ as superior to Islamic civilization because of its tolerance, innovations, etc., all of which he argues that the Islamic culture lacks, and therefore is not as strong and does not provide adequate learning.
I believe that the strengths of Bennett's argument is the point that he makes in that it is absolutely necessary for students to learn Western Civ and if they are not well educated on its history, they are less likely to be motivated to fight for it and preserve the progress it has made thus far. However, I think that his argument is significantly flawed in his down-putting of the Islamic civilization. As he preaches the West as being tolerant, he attacks Islamic culture, proving to be not very tolerant as a Westerner himself. Aware that this article was written shortly after 9/11, I know that their were paranoid prejudices suffocating the country. However, I think that it takes away from his argument and credibility that he is hypocritical and must put down the Islamic civilization in order to build up the Western.
I do agree that Western Civilization is vital to learn and should remain in the curriculum because, as I stated prior, I agree that people would fight for something unless they know about it. Also, because I think that it is important to know how civilization began, what happened, and how we got to where we are. However, I would approach the topic with more tolerance to other civilizations, seeing as though they are just as important to learn about to be an active global citizen and shed prejudices to promote acceptance.
The principal idea behind Bennett's argument is dualistic. First, he argues that the US needs to teach more about Western Civilization in schools. However, his reasoning behind this argument is to delineate that schooling will teach Western superiority, especially over Islam. The first component of Bennet's argument is quite strong. It is vital to understand the preceding western civilizations and thinkers that shaped the foundations in government today. However, Bennet's second component is judgmental, ethnocentric, and blatantly incorrect. First, Bennett assumes that the aggressor is Islamic civilization. Even though Bennet refers to the Middle East, Islam is not the correct phrase. Secondly, Bennett stress Western diversity and tolerance when he clearly is not tolerating the Middle East. I agree with the first component of Bennet's argument, but not the second. The US does need to educate its citizens on Western Civilization, just not for the reasons that Bennett has emulated, as it promotes vanity.
Thank you all for reflecting on the editorial! Many of you made insightful, thought-provoking comments. Some points you may want to consider: 1) with the Arab Spring, one of the big questions is whether democracy can exist in an Islamic state, 2) with limited time in school (and college) what should be considered general information that all students should learn?, 3) how does the West deal with continued injustice within its own societies?, 4) how do we define the "West" and "Western Civilization"?
This editorial was about how the the west needs to learn about their culture to physically and intellectually protect its name. His strong points are when he talks about the scientific progress and the high standard of living. But this also shows weakness he shows that he is to confident in his way of life and implies that we all our better off than the islamic world. I agree with Bennett's original idea that we should learn more about our culture. I agree because it gives you a reason to work and try to keep the overall group better off. I do not agree that we are all way better than the islamic world but rather that we are different.
ReplyDeleteThe editorial Western civilization still cradle of learning was a piece written by William Bennett about how the western civilization has surpassed the Islamic one by many years. He talks about how Islamic civilization has been stuck and has not evolved at all and how the western would has flourished in the past years with "scientific progress that has benefited rich and poor, young and old." This piece was written shortly after 9/11 so I believe Bennett was bias again anyone who looked Islamic, believing that they may be a theorist. This definitely changed the tone of his writing.
ReplyDeleteBennett argues that western civilization should be continually and extensively taught in order to explain to our citizens the logic behind war and defending our democratic state and values. The strengths in his argument include accurate points on how western civilization has continually progressed due to democracy and the freedom to gain knowledge and equality versus Islamic societies, where those same freedoms are not allowed or accepted. The weaknesses stem from the fact that this article was written after 9/11, therefore there may be some bias and resentment. Although a tad ethnocentric, I agree with the article because there is undeniable evidence of advancement in democratic societies versus the unfortunate lack of progress in Islamic societies. I agree that democracy and the freedom to learn and express oneself leads to progress.
ReplyDeleteThe main idea of the editorial is you should learn and understand the aspects of your culture. Bennetts strengths of the argument are the humanity and and liberalism. His weakness was when he was talking so direspectfully about the Islamic civilization. I do not agree with Bennett because he was making a good argument of why we shouldn't like islamic civilization.
ReplyDeleteThe main idea of the editorial was how we should learn and respect our culture so we can defend it because of our strengths. He tries to prove his point by comparing two highly different cultures of the Islamic world and the western world and how the western world is much higher on the spectrum. His strengths lie in using statements from known sources of people in power.He weaknesses are that he contradicts himself highly throughout the editorial by saying that the west has great tolerance while he in reality is exemplifying the opposite. I disagree with Bennet because i believe he wants people to learn about their culture for the wrong reasons and he should try to gives better examples then slandering another type of culture just because of events that occurred.
ReplyDeleteThe basic idea surrounding this article is that Western Civilization is superior to other cultures, like Islam, because they accept new ideas and difference in opinion in order to move forward. Through his explanation, Bennett does have weaknesses. He explains that Western Civilization is very tolerant of new or different cultures but at the same time, his thesis explains why the West is superior to other cultures. This was written soon after 9/11, which explains his opinion a little. I agree with Bennett when he explains that the West is stronger because we have new ideas and tolerate new cultures or ways of thinking rather than constantly following the ways of the past.
ReplyDeleteThis editorial focuses primarily on the dominance of the West over the East, and more specifically, the Islamic world. He uses ideas such as the West's standard of living and scientific progress as compared to the East to support his argument. These points are Bennett's strengths in his argument. I do not agree with Bennett. I believe both the West and the East have it's drawbacks, but they also have their strengths. Calling one hemisphere dominant over the other is naive.
ReplyDeleteThe main idea of this article is that Western Civilization is very important for students to learn about so people in the United States understand why it is so important to defend the West against the Middle East. The strengths of Bennett's arguments is his points in which a lot of political gains the WEst has made versus that of the gains Islamic nations have made. The weakness of his argument is that he believes that European culture is American's culture, but that is not true. America incorporates many different cultures into everyday life, not only European. In Bennett's opinion, Americans should learn about Western Civilization, but not other important cultures in our country. I disagree with Bennett's claims that Western Civilization is one of the most important things for students to learn because other cultures should be studied as well. Western Civ is important to know, but it is not the only thing that should have attention paid to it.
ReplyDeleteBennet's main idea of the editorial is that Western Civilization is an important course to be studied and that U.S. citizens should have knowledge of the Western Civilization's history. A strength of his argument would be the liberalism in the West and the liberal education, he has his points plainly displayed. But a weakness would be his reliance on Berlusconi as a source of evidence because he shows Berlusconi's blatant ethnocentrism in the beginning of the article.
ReplyDeleteI agree that I think westerners should know their civilization's history but I don't believe that we should know it in order to fight against the militant Islamic society, rather we should know it for our own good. I think it would further unite us as a society/country and make us more appreciative to how we came to be today.
The main idea of the editorial "Western Civ. Cradle of Learning" is that Western Civilization is superior to Islamic Civilization, and that it is important for young people to learn about its history so that they want to protect it. Bennett's argument is strong when it talks of the great progress made by Western Civilization in the ways of human rights, peace, diversity and information. Bennett's argument is weakest when it talks of stagnation in Islamic Civilization. This comes across as little more than ethnocentric. If I had read the editorial back in 2002, I would have agreed with Bennett. However, in the last year we have had multiple massacres within the U.S. Women still don't receive equal pay, and the homosexual community is still fighting for civil rights such as the ability to marry. If our own society is still dealing with such issues, then how can we criticize others?
ReplyDeleteThe main idea of Bennett's editorial is that students in the United States should be better educated about Western Civilization, so that they will learn pride in "our" culture in this post-9/11 era. Bennett outlines his argument contrasting Western and Islamic culture, especially on matters such as standard of living, system of rights, scientific progress, and degree of human flourishing, in which he presents Western culture as superior to Islamic culture in every instance. While Bennett's argument is strong in its depiction of the importance for students to study the roots of their own civilization, he does so in an exceedingly ethnocentric and offensive manner. He proclaims that students "must learn that their own civilization offers unparalleled advantages compared to others," and that students should be proud of learning about "their" culture while degrading others'. Ironically, his constant claims of Western superiority come in direct contrast with the "liberalism" and open-mindedness which he portrays as one of the West's greatest aspects. For this ethnocentric and arrogant approach to this matter, I disagree with the majority of Bennett's argument; although the study of history is very important, it should not be at the expense of others' or as degrading to them.
ReplyDeleteThe main idea of Bennett's editorial is that students need to be taught the legacy and history of the Western world and how it is, in so many ways, superior to other countries. The strengths of Bennett's argument are in his demonstration of how the Western world has continued to develop and evolve, placing it ahead of other parts of the world, while others (he provides the example of the Islamic civilization) have remained stagnant due to their lack of democratic thinking and intellectual freedom. However, the weakness is also in the strength. While he does make the case for why it is that the Western world has become so much more advanced than, say, the Middle East, he does so in a narrow-minded, ethnocentric manner. He claims the Western world is a stronghold of tolerance, yet immediately puts down the "Islamic civilization". Furthermore, there are clear discrepancies in his argument that they are stagnant. It is true that the Middle Eastern part of the world has not wavered from its traditional belief systems, but they have technology and economic power all their own. While I agree that students should learn how there culture is significant (How can students be expected to support their country if they know nothing about it?), I don't believe Bennett's argument is sufficient or open-minded enough to really prove that the Western world is superior.
ReplyDeleteThe main idea of this editorial is that Western Civilization is crucial in education and it is unacceptable for it to be taken away from a curriculum, this being for various different reasons. First and foremost, Bennett claims that students must be aware of the Western Civ history because if they don't know about it, they won't fight for it. He then goes on to present Western Civ as superior to Islamic civilization because of its tolerance, innovations, etc., all of which he argues that the Islamic culture lacks, and therefore is not as strong and does not provide adequate learning.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the strengths of Bennett's argument is the point that he makes in that it is absolutely necessary for students to learn Western Civ and if they are not well educated on its history, they are less likely to be motivated to fight for it and preserve the progress it has made thus far. However, I think that his argument is significantly flawed in his down-putting of the Islamic civilization. As he preaches the West as being tolerant, he attacks Islamic culture, proving to be not very tolerant as a Westerner himself. Aware that this article was written shortly after 9/11, I know that their were paranoid prejudices suffocating the country. However, I think that it takes away from his argument and credibility that he is hypocritical and must put down the Islamic civilization in order to build up the Western.
I do agree that Western Civilization is vital to learn and should remain in the curriculum because, as I stated prior, I agree that people would fight for something unless they know about it. Also, because I think that it is important to know how civilization began, what happened, and how we got to where we are. However, I would approach the topic with more tolerance to other civilizations, seeing as though they are just as important to learn about to be an active global citizen and shed prejudices to promote acceptance.
The principal idea behind Bennett's argument is dualistic. First, he argues that the US needs to teach more about Western Civilization in schools. However, his reasoning behind this argument is to delineate that schooling will teach Western superiority, especially over Islam. The first component of Bennet's argument is quite strong. It is vital to understand the preceding western civilizations and thinkers that shaped the foundations in government today. However, Bennet's second component is judgmental, ethnocentric, and blatantly incorrect. First, Bennett assumes that the aggressor is Islamic civilization. Even though Bennet refers to the Middle East, Islam is not the correct phrase. Secondly, Bennett stress Western diversity and tolerance when he clearly is not tolerating the Middle East. I agree with the first component of Bennet's argument, but not the second. The US does need to educate its citizens on Western Civilization, just not for the reasons that Bennett has emulated, as it promotes vanity.
ReplyDeleteThank you all for reflecting on the editorial! Many of you made insightful, thought-provoking comments. Some points you may want to consider: 1) with the Arab Spring, one of the big questions is whether democracy can exist in an Islamic state, 2) with limited time in school (and college) what should be considered general information that all students should learn?, 3) how does the West deal with continued injustice within its own societies?, 4) how do we define the "West" and "Western Civilization"?
ReplyDelete