The Endless Bickering of Academia

   Should American history feel aligned to European history?

There are many different themes running through Gilbert Allardyce's essay on the Western Civilization course, one of the most prominent being the connection of American history and culture to European culture. While I think that the distaste for the Eurocentric version of history is well placed, I also believe that so much of the philosophy that runs through American society comes from Europe, that the urgent "need" to teach European history in American institutions isn't totally misplaced. Early on in the essay, Allardyce cites the historian Leonard Krieger expressing that the average American retained a much broader understanding of European history then any student in Europe. Furthermore, he states "What was stressed, therefore, was not the political flux but the enduring achievements of the mother culture". The issues there are the warped perspective a student would have of the world, the presumed inequality of racial advancements, and misunderstanding the cruelty that could be committed by any man or state. As long as the United States of America continues to have the words of European philosophers coursing through the veins of our systems of government, American history is very much aligned with Europe.

 \

   What is the purpose of the Intro or Western Civilization Course?

   This particular reading made me concerned with the importance of intro and general education courses, and the riveting politics that surround them. By the end of the reading, it seemed that the importance of these introductory level classes seemed to ebb and flow as naturally and periodically as the tide, but the causes behind being much more interesting then the gravity of the moon. The most striking change to the role of intro and Western Civilization courses had to be with the onset of World War I. Due to the conflict, Columbia university introduced the "War Issues Course", which would birth the Contemporary Civilization course after the conflict. What was so prominent about this part of the text was how it illustrated the morphing of a class to fit the needs of the times. Clearly, a historical class is not only influenced by the past but also the present. The goal of the Western Civilization course is championed by university president is to create "a unity of knowledge" and "good, liberal, citizens", but clearly the War Issues Course was created partially as intellectual propaganda. I like to think that the Humanities course here does create a unity of knowledge, and adds more to our understanding of the human condition which we can discuss among similarly informed peers. But the increased specialization of departments that many academics seemed to abhor in the text, in my mind, are what create the most dynamic and stimulating conversation between peers, with Humanities providing the base for discussion.