TexasCHLforum.com

RoyGBiv wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

“We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class of necessity in every society, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.”
― Woodrow Wilson

They try to keep those influences hidden these days.

Seems to me that Wilson quote was an accusation, a condemnation of the education system... not a statement of his preference.

I'm not a Wilson fan, but, seemed unfair to him to quote that out of context.

I had actually never seen the quote in context before now, so I looked. He clearly is not making an accusation, but stating the way he believes the system should operate. Here's the complete paragraph:

Let us go back and distinguish between the two things that we want to do; for we want to do two things in modern society. We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forego the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks. You cannot train them for both in the time that you have at your disposal. They must make a selection, and you must make a selection. I do not mean to say that in the manual training there must not be an element of liberal training; neither am I hostile to the idea that in the liberal education there should be an element of the manual training. But what I am intent upon is that we should not confuse ourselves with regard to what we are trying to make of the pupils under our instruction. We are either trying to make liberally-educated persons out of them, or we are trying to make skillful servants of society along mechanical lines, or else we do not know what we are trying to do.

Here's the entire speech: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Meani ... _Education

Out of context the meaning is pretty much the same, but the statement sounds more harsh than it does in context. I will also note that Wilson is referring to a "liberal education" in the sense it used to mean, not the nonsense foisted off on modern liberal arts majors. Wilson was referring to a broad eduction in language, philosophy, logic, mathematics, and science.

I'm not a Wilson fan either, but reading this speech, which he wrote himself, is a stark reminder of the difference between what constituted an educated man in 1909 versus the pseudo educated hucksters we have running the government now. I doubt that today there are more than five members of Congress who could write a speech like that, and I'm pretty sure Obozo couldn't do it. The gulf between the kind of educated and intelligent man that served as president 100 years ago and the venal fools in office today is like the difference between Albert Einstein and a chimpanzee.

JSThane wrote:

baldeagle wrote:And when I was growing up the communists were infiltrating both parties and all levels of government, and now they have control of almost everything. They sent us off to Vietnam and forgot to secure the home front. As a consequence we now see the country disintegrating before our eyes and seem almost powerless to do anything about it.

Goes back long before that, to pre-WWII era stuff. I blame the institution of public schools as one of the first symptoms, and exacerbating causes, of this. The educational system was heavily, heavily influenced and infiltrated by communists, going way, way, back. Once we abdicated the raising and instruction of our children to the government, instead of doing it ourselves or entrusting our kids' education to a person of our own choosing, we allowed the camel's nose under the tent. It was this that allowed the eventual perversion of our entire education system, from the ground up to post-graduate college education, and encouraged the dependency on government; after all, we give our kids to them for the most vital years of their lives, so why shouldn't we give them anything and everything else?

Yep, they were pretty open about it back in Wilson's day too. John Taylor Gatto gives a pretty good history of "progressive" public education in America.

“We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class of necessity in every society, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.”
― Woodrow Wilson

They try to keep those influences hidden these days.

SherwoodForest wrote:OK - This is where I'm having a problem with " liberals "................or perhaps maybe I don't......

What I guess I'm trying to get at is this - I once considered myself to be a " liberal " ( 4 decades ago ) in the sense that I opposed oppressive , authoritarian policies .....that did not jive with MY logic...... which was largely formed by the public school system's presentation of our U.S. government being anchored by the U.S. Constitution.

I believe the only honest sanctuary for a " liberal " these days is the Libertarian Party. I sense that the Republican Party is beset by far too many " Bloombergs ".

Maybe those of us who cherish the U.S. Constitution can agree to meet over THERE in the Libertarian Party and carry on our " liberal " efforts in the name of LIBERTY.

Same background and experience. I'm so old that when I was in public school the Constitution was taught as the law of the land and a "colorless" society was the national objective. Liberals were hard-core Constitutionalists opposed to authoritarian government. The modern liberal is a supporter of authoritarian government --as long at that government is buttering their side of the bread anyway. But then, that was also back in the day when Barry Goldwater was allowed to run on the Republican ticket. There's no way the RINO party would allow Barry Goldwater on the ticket today.

MaxBerlin wrote: and have shot guns since my parents first voted for Nixon in 68.

Just curious, is that what got you started shooting, or just when you started shooting?