I am convinced that in today's colleges, universities, and even high schools, radicalism is certainly alive and well, being openly taught by teachers or text books that promote not just the ideas behind the radical, but also encourage these to be practiced to the extreme. These ideas are at times caught by students who make the schools aware of the dangerous views endorsed. In other circumstances, parents may be made aware of these outrageous teachings and alert those in charge or share their concerns. In rare instances, these concerns can actually get out to the media and become the antagonist for debate and discussion. There are a number of ways this radicalism can be shared, but the most often ones are, editorials by the author of a text book, leading questions, which suggest a radical answer, in class lectures, and of course, grading. The foremost two and last have been experienced by yours truly.
In any case, currently there is one such text book in Tennessee that has come under fire and there are those who want it pulled from the curriculum. Their argument states that a particular question in, "The Cultural Landscape: An Introduction to Human Geography," by James M. Rubenstein, a book used for advanced placement, is "blatantly" anti-Semitic. If true obviously it would reflect poorly, not only on the author and publisher, Prentice Hall, but anyone who employs the use of the book in any way. Though certainly not a large issue when we consider current events and the news media at large, there's been a little net hubbub concerning it, which I will now add to. The question that's raising some eyebrows reads:
“If a Palestinian suicide bomber kills several dozen Israeli teenagers in a Jerusalem restaurant, is that an act of terrorism or wartime retaliation against Israeli government policies and army actions?”
Now the question that has arose is if this question is, as stated by Laurie Cardoza-Moore, the head of a pro-Israel group, "blatantly anti-Semitic?" Mrs. Cardoza-Moore is indeed the very same person who expressed her concerns about the text and apparently feels the question is leading in that it takes a pro-Palestinian position. Yet, does it really?
To clear up a few things, I myself am far from being anti-Semitic, quite the contrary. I would classify myself as being completely pro-Israel and believe Palestine uses detestable means to spread terror in the Holy Land (I wrote about this more extensively when addressing Hamas. See my article, and please note the sarcasm: "On The Genius of Hamas"). This being the case, I feel I would be discerning concerning any anti-Semitism this text would contain, if any at all. However, I respectfully disagree with Mrs. Cardoza-Moore, and those who have raised issue with the question across the net or media. My conclusion is that the question has no anti-Semitism and the inclusion of the question in the text book serves another purpose altogether, which may objectively benefit the student, rather than serve to degrade a whole people.
Rather than provide just a brief opinion, I will attempt to show exactly why the initial text is free from anti-Semitism. At least according to my reasoning. First off, let us consider the first word of the text, that is, "if." Whenever and wherever one sees this word, they can be reasonably sure they're being introduced to a hypothetical situation. The hypothetical situation being introduced here, which certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility, is the suicide bombing of a restaurant, in which several teens are killed. Then, we're asked to ponder a question of terrorism or wartime retaliation, and the motives behind the attack. Let's look at it in a more simplistic logical view. We will label the the suicide bombing as, "S," for sake of argument. In addition, we will label the possibility of the terrorist act as "T," and the prospect of it being a wartime retaliation we will simplify as, "R."
Thus, we get to the heart of the question, which can be formulated as:
S ) T v R
The precursor to the ) symbol represents the hypothetical or, "if/then," and the "v" symbol, or wedge, represents a disjunctive syllogism, that is an either/or. After this quick simplification, in a grammatical sense, not in a logistical one, we get rid of all extraneous particulars, rather present or imagined, which may distract from the text. It can be read as thus:
"If a suicide bomber kills several teens in a Jerusalem restaurant, then it is either a terrorist act or one of wartime retaliation."
I don't include the Israeli government or army actions in my simplification of the question, because I believe those are implicitly implied by the word, "wartime." I go into a little more detail on my article, "On The Tragedy in Boston, Media, and a Terrorism Definition." Enough intrusions and shameless plugs though (for now). With the simplification we see that this either/or element is pretty evenly distributed, and the rest of the pondering and discussion is on the part of the student, rather than stated in the text.
The point of such questions isn't to lead students to a inevitable conclusion, like some profess this one does, and I couldn't disagree with more, it's to encourage critical thinking or analytical skills. Unfortunately in today's world not all issues are as "simple" as math, that is that only one steadfast conclusion can be reached. Thus, though I certainly would strongly disagree with those who took the wartime stance, the point is to have students reason for themselves and in an effective, objective manner, along with analyzing all different aspects of a issue.
The author or publishers must've foresaw the difficulty that such a question presents in the mind of many. Indeed, it is a very divisional topic and people have their own conclusions on this topic before many others, excluding their own countries, well being, etc, etc. The "controversy" this issue provides and the questions that arise may very well have been the reasoning for putting the question in the text book in the first place. I would like to think that we would want students who were able to think for themselves in an objective fashion.
So why is this such an issue? It's nothing new, it has always been a large source of controversy, even preceding our current age. However, I feel concerning this particular subject of the text book, there is a bit of ultra-sensitivity happening, which is somewhat understandable considering what is happening in the world. With the threats, whether they be valid or dangerous enough, of nukes from North Korea, or our own threats of terrorism at home, we've been able to start identifying with life in the Holy Land, that a daily outing might turn and end in violence. We see people doing innocent normal everyday activities in Israel, and suddenly becoming a target. It's getting to be like that in our own neighborhoods. As we've seen, many people have went to work, to enjoy leisure activities, or run in a world wide celebrated race, and never came back. If they do, they never come back the same. Thereby some of these folks, understandably, become hypersensitive and we find issues like this popping up, where people's fear dictates their perceptions, observations, and ideas.
Another aspect of the question that we shouldn't ignore is that it provides a challenge to students to define what war and terrorism are, which is an interesting question. The terrorism definition I reached in "On The Tragedy in Boston, Media, and a Terrorism," I believe holds true. I believe there is a difference and its these differences that are alluded to by the text. This is obviously another great source of debate, which I have no problem with students pondering such questions. Isn't that one of the main purposes of schooling in the first place, to produce qualified graduates who can think for themselves, observe data effectively, objectively and arise at a conclusion?
If one were to draw such a conclusion from the text, that it is leading in someway, then I feel one would have to reach the opposite answer. That is, the unjust act on the part of the suicide bomber. This is due to a few things:
A: The Israeli teenagers age suggests an innocence attributed with youth.
B: A restaurant, suggesting a peaceful, neutral, or innocent atmosphere.
C: The bombers complete disregard for human life including his own.
With the implications these components suggest, one could argue that the question was blatantly on the side of Israel. Yet, again, I don't think that was the point of the text, nor the whole exercise. It was to encourage debate and internal dialogue concerning the nature of war, terrorism, and even when, where, or by what means, such actions are or are not warranted. In concluding, all this hubbub is simply due to a hypersensitivity, which I dislike saying saying because it alludes to the fact the term "hypersensitivity" can denote fault or an unreasonable reaction. I don't feel it is unreasonable, nor do I feel it's silly. We are beginning and have already begun to see terrorism and threats of war on our very doorstep. Thereby, it is no wonder some keep on guard concerning radicalism, terrorism, and the controversies that arise from it.
Yet, finally, if there is any doubt concerning my conclusions from the cited text, perhaps we can look at it in context by taking the whole paragraph into account. I think its clearer and puts this whole argument to bed. In my mind anyway.
“Distinguishing terrorism from other acts of political violence can be difficult. For example, if a Palestinian suicide bomber kills several dozen Israeli teenagers in a Jerusalem restaurant, is that an act of terrorism or wartime retaliation against Israeli government policies and army actions? Competing arguments are made: Israel’s sympathizers denounce the act as a terrorist threat to the country’s existence, whereas advocates of the Palestinian cause argue that long-standing injustices and Israeli army attacks on ordinary Palestinian civilians provoked the act.”
To their credit the director of schools has looked into the issue and has found that no other complaints were filed prior to Mrs. Cardoza-Moore's.
No comments:
Post a Comment