I just finished my first day of my second semester yesterday and here is how it went:
As some of you may know Iāve been going to university to get an undergraduate degree in Psychology and Political Science with hopes of getting my PhD soon after. I chronicled my first semester Political Science 101 class experience here as I thought it would be beneficial to me as a student and for those who were curious as to what goes on in the classroom. This, of course, was way back in January but now Iām back for my second semester which means a level up in Political Science.
This semester is a bit different than my first as Iām taking a introductory History course after having completed Statistics (it is unfortunately required for a psych degree). So instead of just posting about what happens in my Political Science classes I figured Iād write about my History class too. This may be the only History course I have for my undergrad as after this semester Iāll be blasting through the required courses for my major and minor which will end up taking up all of my class slots. Iām considering doing a double major but I donāt know if its worth it, if anyone with experience can weigh in Iād appreciate it so much.
Anyway, lets talk about my first day back. My classes start at ten and I begin the day with my psychology class; its the first day so all we did was go over the syllabus. If anyone remembers I did mention a psych class in my previous posts during my first semester and nothing of note was worthy writing about so Iām going to assume its about to be the same with this one. After psych was done I headed off to my History class.
I was honestly prepared for the same syllabus schpiel but I got some interesting tidbits from my professor. Before the class started he tried making some casual conversation with the class asking if we liked to read, this didnāt work out in his favour really as nobody seemed to put their hands up or answer his question which shocked him. He then went on to talk about a Dilbert comic, I think, that made fun of modern students not knowing how to read/just hating reading in general.
To be honest, I wouldāve put my hand up had I been paying attention but at the time I was focused on loading up the syllabus, emailing it to myself, and looking at what books I needed for the class (I can say which books if anyone asks). So that put me off a little bit but whatever. He told us about himself, which province heās originally from and his background; a military man but not a hardened veteran if that makes sense. Once the class officially started at 11 he detailed what topics we would cover which Iāll list as I think youāll find it interesting:
-
What is History
-
How History has value
-
How we shouldāve learned from History (re the pandemic)
-
The European invasion of the Americas (I want to note the language he uses when talking about colonialism, so far he seems fairly respectful and explicitly states the brutality of what happened. This was brief, of course, but I think it matters.)
-
Slavery (how it was legitimate until the 19th century, so what happened to change attitudes?)
-
Spanish massacres (I think we will be focused on CortĆ©s and the Cholula massacre. he mentioned a woman who collaborated with CortĆ©s, I unfortunately donāt remember what she was called as my professor speaks very fast but there is a lot of debate with her apparently; a quick google search says her name is La Malinche but I may have the wrong lady.)
-
Navigating how to write properly
-
Watching the movieāRabbit-Proof Fenceā
After all that he asked the class a question: what is history? He got several answers such as events from the past, recorded/documented, influences the future, life changing, memorable, tradition, then and now, perspective, and accomplishments. When ātraditionsā were mentioned he brought up 23 and Me, and how many Germans who were from Ukraine migrated to Canada. He went on to explain what history was not. I wont list it all here but the first thing was about how history was not a chronicle of the past, rather its built on a sequence, if that makes sense. Monks, back in the day, chronicled events religiously, literally as they believed it had something to do with God. With this Monk information he then brought up Marx and his class warfare! Mind you, he did not do into detail at all but seemed to have mentioned Marx as a bit of a contrast I think. Im not completely sure as, again, he talks very fast and did not give me much information, not even a tone shift really. History is not just written records, but also art; futurists vs the Industrial Revolution. Apparently professional history didnāt become a thing until the 1830s-1860s as Germany at the was fragmented and trying really hard to create a unified German identity. He also told us that a majority of historians are actually Americans and that they outnumber the rest of the world. The last meaning of history he gave was History is a story intended to be true, with some reference to J. H. Hector, its an analysis of the past: cause and effect, continuity and change.
After this was why History is important, this post is getting long enough without the political science class discussion so Iāll skip some parts. When talking about memory in relation to history my professor brought up the strange phenomenon of people idealizing the past, specifically the 50s, and how the people who tend to have a fondness for the 50s tend to b white as back in the day only middle class white people had happy lives in the 50s, anyone else was screwed. I found this comment refreshing as I havenāt encountered an educator say these things before. Next we talked about how History teaches lessons and with that he used the Iraq war as an example! He compared it to when the British and French went to war against an Arab Socialist, I donāt know hat event he was talking about specifically but it was significant enough that we shouldāve learned from that experience and not replicate it in Iraq.
Anyway after his he briefly brought up Trudeau complaining about the Harper government a lot to I guess excuse his current actions and the class ended. At this point in the day I have a two hour empty period until my last class of the day: Political Science. Nothing really happened in that time except me looking up what books I needed and watching Hunter x Hunter.
With the two hours completed my Political Science class started. We begin by going around introducing ourselves which Iāve never been fond of but I guess it can be considered some type of exposure therapy. If you remember from my last posts, my first Political Science class was an introductory course, this one however is about the concepts, methods and substance of Comparative Politics. We will study a select amount of countries: the US and others not specified. 10% of my grade will be based on attendance and participation which made me want to cry. Im great with attending all my classes but participating is difficult for me. In my previous class I was pretty great at speaking up and even somewhat challenging my professor, which he told me he enjoyed, but I donāt know why I was anxious this time. Our research paper is supposed to be about contrast: an example he gave was about regime changes in Russia re socialism and Chinaās transition from socialism to capitalism, the contrast being speed of transition. If this sounds confusing please forgive me, I can only write so quickly when my professors are speaking.
In this class we will be learning about what comparative politics is and anything related. he brought up Steven Lukesā 3 dimensions of power and Harold Laswell. In regards to the 3rd dimension, making people vote against their own interests, he gave an example about how minimum wages are in the interest of the working class but the ruling classes are them vote against their own interests via propaganda so they can remain powerful. I found the terminology and tone he used to be kind of cool, as if he took the plights of the working class seriously rather than it being a joke. Itās the bare minimum but still. Next we learned, briefly since its the first day, about thee difference between International Relations and Comparative Politics, how the EU falls under both, and how the boundary between the two studies is blurring. Why do we study comparative politics? No reason is important enough to write down here unless anyone asks. At some point my professor brought up UBI, how it was experimented in a few places including Ontario, and how every one of those experiments failed, but its still debated fiercely. Then he made comments about populous parties being on the rise, normative theory vs empirical theory, and needed with a quote by Immanuel Kant: āExperience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play.ā
That concludes my first day of second semester and I apologize for how bad this reads, I tend to ramble a lot and I was running on fumes when I originally wrote this. I do hope it was interesting though! All comments are appreciated and welcome, and if you have any questions please let me know, Iām also willing to discuss the syllabi (in regards to course topics) if its asked for. I will literally answer any and all questions you have so please donāt hold back!
Iām anxious to see how this year goes and I can wait to share more with all of you.
Neat journal. I havenāt read your other posts, but if this one is anything to go by then Iām sure the rest will jettison me right back to my college days. Especially the bit about no one in your history class wanting to participate. Iām sure youāve started to notice this is par for the course in most lecture classes. Welcome to higher ed.
I think what strikes me most about your post is the sense of newness these classes and interactions have on you. Iām not saying youāre naive or anything. No, I appreciate how earnest you are about your feelings. Even though youāre posting to internet strangers, it shows more bravery than I had first year of undergrad. And talking about nervousness, apprehension, but also excitement and anticipation so readily, like itās all very new to youāthatās something I miss. As you age you realize more and more that thereās very little thatās truly unique about your experiences. Everyone has done everything, and thereās always someone you can relate to. Itās a notion that can fill your with a sense of community. Sometimes it make you feel like one little droplet in the ocean.
I have two masters degrees. Iām a teacher. Each year I see the same expressions. The bemused to the ecstatic on that first day of school. You get a sense, over time, of whoās who from these little insights. I have to fight that urge to put my students in little boxes, predefined roles that they must adhere to based on years of watching the same, unique children wander into my classroom.
And here I am digesting your work, your honesty and courageāand trying to put you in a little box too. I read your words and feel so many of the same emotions echoing in my head from years ago. I think of my far off memories of college as banality. Like time somehow flattened my unique experience. Crushed and press-molded it into a carbon copy of my colleaguesā. And that itāll happen to yours. But those thoughts, intrusive as they are, donāt actually reflect reality. Theyāre just the unconscious bitterness that remain as youth ripens into middle age, I guess. Hopefully your professor with the hot garbage Dilbert take isnāt going to be my future.
Anyway, thanks for putting me back there. Itās good to remember. These are good times to be who you are and to live as you are. Be well.
I guess Iāve always been a fairly open person and I just canāt help not being honest about my feelings and experiences. Iām a very shy and anxious person outside of this platform, which will make my participation grade a bit difficult to keep high but Iām going to try my best, but Iāve been closed off for a good chunk of my life and I see value in being open. Maybe itās silly or even dangerous to wear my heart on my sleeve but I also know it can make others feel more at ease. I also want everyone to get the best idea of what is being taught and sharing my own reactions might help give insight into how a subject is being taught, if that makes sense.
To be honest, itās taken me a while to respond to this because I was a little intimidated. I donāt really know what to write back except that Iām incredibly appreciative of you taking the time to read my ramblings and make such a comment. I still donāt know what else to say so Iāll just apologize for how messy my writing is.
Iām really curious to hear how slavery and the Latin American genocides are taught in Canada. I imagine itās not that different from the US, but you never know with Canada. Seems like really heavy subject matter for a general class about history though. Like, wow, is it a class about history or is it a class about genocides?
I guess itās about both. Because itās an introductory course weāre going to learn what history is, what it is isnāt, why itās important, why politicians are battling over it, how to write history papers, and learn about genocides. From what I can tell on our schedule we wonāt be getting to the conquistadors for a while.
That makes sense it just seems to me like very a dark subject to delve into for a class that doesnāt have to be about that. I guess itās because extreme examples are easier to talk about.
It is incredibly dark but I guess the reasoning is because theyāre good subjects to use when teaching about the importance of history and why politicians constantly fight about it. As in what should and should not be taught. These topics specifically are hot button issues that people argue about constantly and those arguments are a big part of what History is and isnāt.
Thatās true though I was thinking more along the lines of how the colonizers invented and enforced their own histories onto the people they subjugated, whose histories they destroyed. Like how the conquistadors burned every library and codex in mesoamerica. History gets written by the victors and all that
a woman who collaborated with CortĆ©s, I unfortunately donāt remember what she was called
Do you mean La Malinche?
Maybe! When I looked her up that was the name but I donāt remember which one he used in class. All I remember was that she was an indigenous woman who worked with CortĆ©s and people are split on to whether she was working with him involuntarily or was a traitor.
Edit: I made some changes to the formatting since some of my statements were cut off, in one of the cut offs I mentioned La Malinche but I still donāt know if it was her specifically.
Yea it was la malinche, she worked as translator for the conquistadores.
Fun fact you might want to share in class when that topic comes up. In Mexico we use the word āmalinchistaā for mexicans who hate mexico and itās culture, similar to how cubans say āgusanoā to the cubans that hate cuba.
Iāll keep that term in mind, if he mentions it Iāll definitely write about it in my next post. I donāt know if Iām brave enough to speak up about it in front of everyone yet but maybe I can ask him about it after class.
Sounds like the prof knows his shit.
I donāt know which professor youāre referring to but either way Iām trying to hold back complete judgement as its only been one day. Hopefully its smooth sailing but even if its not Iāll persevere just as I did last semester.
the strange phenomenon of people idealizing the past, specifically the 50s, and how the people who tend to have a fondness for the 50s tend to b white as back in the day only middle class white people had happy lives in the 50s, anyone else was screwed.
I have an effortpost here that goes into this in some detail (note the comments following that one - I completely forgot about the relevance of the Bonus Army to the subject.) I didnāt touch on the history of Pruitt and Igoe being the subject of military testing in that comment because it was already too long but:
https://gizmodo.com/pruitt-igoe-army-radiation-experiments-cold-war-1849833275
https://www.businessinsider.com/army-sprayed-st-louis-with-toxic-dust-2012-10
You might also be interested in the work of Alice Malone, which touches on the role of homeownership in relation to the state making concessions to workers and attempting to stifle the groundswell of radicalism:
https://redsails.org/concessions/
https://youtu.be/GqIHF-gurlU (also available in your podcast app, search for: Actually Existing Socialism and the episode How the Soviet āThreatā Benefitted Workers in the West.)
One glaring omission from Maloneās article is the quote from none other than William Levitt:
No man who owns his own house and lot can be a communist. He has too much to do.
Although Iāve tried to find the original source for this quote which is attributed to him in āOn Communism and the Suburban Homeā from 1948 but I couldnāt turn anything up so maybe thatās why it got excluded.
He compared it to when the British and French went to war against an Arab Socialist, I donāt know hat event he was talking about specifically but it was significant enough that we shouldāve learned from that experience and not replicate it in Iraq.
I suspect he was referring to Nasser and the Suez Crisis but I could be wrong.
A YouTube link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same video on Invidious, which is a YouTube frontend that protects your privacy: