As I remember it, the story goes like this; The Civil War's end had begun at Appomattox Courthouse when General Robert E. Lee surrendered his army to General Grant. The Confederate Army was filing by Union troops and laying down their weapons. Their heads were down as the anguish of defeat and a lost cause stripped them of everything they held dear. General Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain stood in the Union ranks and saw the once proud army that had fought with honor in what he believed was the wrong cause... but their cause nonetheless. He then committed an act of magnanimity that was in line with what we have come to know of Chamberlain. He commanded his Union troops to attention with the purpose of giving this beaten enemy a measure of honor that their acts of bravery and obedience to their cause deserved. The Confederates were astonished by this. They stood up tall and continued to file by and leave their weapons but now with a little bit of hope restored that the future might acknowledge their efforts.
Lincoln showed magnanimity towards the south in the short time he lived after its defeat. John Wilkes Booth struck out in murderous hate because of the South's defeat and the North eventually showed little magnanimity towards the south in Reconstruction, many put Jim Crow laws on this doorstep.
Enormous amounts of money were spent in rebuilding Germany after World War II, as well as magnanimity given towards Japan that proved wise in how Japan eventually progressed to where it is today. Many historians believe that a lack of magnanimity towards Germany at the end of World War I gave Hitler what he needed to enslave the minds of his followers. Stalin and Mao were responsible for the deaths of millions after their "victories."
If someone has been successful in their pursuit of wealth, do they show magnanimity towards those who had not been successful? Many corporations were sailing swiftly in the winds of a climbing stock market, did they take to heart the lives of those employees who pulled the oars when the winds died down and were not enough? It appears that a mantra of unionism is "never give up what has already been won!" We are in a culture war in America right now and one side or the other may win it. If this new liberal, this progressive secular leftist element wins and decides to once and for all to rid America of religious myth and tradition, it will lead to disaster. If the conservative, the Bible toter, the family values element (of which I am one) wins, and if we fail to recognize that our conservatism can be greed, our Bible toting can be pride and our family values can be smokescreens, then this also will lead to disaster. Should the Lord give us any victories in life, may He give us discernment to see when magnanimity is called for.
Postmodern Debate
I remember doing a paper on Robert Maynard Hutchins in college. I chose him to write about because he seemed the ultimate traditionalist as he fought the trend in universities to move away from classical education towards viewing what the student wanted as more important. He was the president of the University of Chicago and one of the most influential educators in America in the first half of the twentieth century.
Today's Wall Street Journal mentioned him in a piece written by L. Gordon Crovitz. Hutchins and others had the idea that using the "great books" in the history of literature would serve as a primary learning tool to increase knowledge of the world and build character. They used a Hutchins quote.... "That the people must save themselves by strengthening their minds so that they can appraise the issues for themselves."
Robert Hutchins said way back when what many have been trying to remind us of today, that for many and various reasons we have lost the ability to think through issues. Maybe it was the effects of postmodernism, maybe a steady diet of trivial entertainment pursuits or maybe the loss of the education that Hutchins tried to defend?
When I was in high school, the debate team was very accomplished. I was not part of this but they wore jackets and ties and used a combination of facts, analysis and logic to win trophy after trophy that still adorn the halls. Debate was two people taking different sides on an issue and trying to convince the judges that their argument was the most legitimate. Debate teams have recently made the newspapers nationwide as two college coaches yelled and screamed at each other. I decided to do a little bit of research on debate today and found that "postmodern" debate is growing. One does not even have to stay on subject and he/she can employ various tactics such as emotion and even verbal bullying. It took a while for this turn of events to sink in.
Yes, political debate today is usually sound bite in depth and avoidance of the main question in method, but surely the art of debate in an academic environment was true debate. I enjoy sitting down to a conversation and giving my thoughts, hearing the other person's thoughts and relying on both of us to consider what we heard. It seldom happens. It's as if debate has become an oral game of Monopoly, for a "get out of jail card" does not look at any particular crime committed. Hotels on a property have no ethical meaning behind them. Community Chest is getting something for free. Owning all the railroads has no societal impact and the one who finishes with the most money is the winner. Our corporations, unions, political campaigns and many more facets of our everyday life seem to be ruled only by that little white pamphlet of Monopoly rules.
We cannot save ourselves as Mr. Hutchins wrote, and this was typical of his philosophy, but we can and must turn around this vacuous way of forming opinions that we are mired in. Hutchins would say that reading and familiarizing ourselves with those who came before us is one way to escape the bog. I certainly agree to a point. There is a verse in the Bible that says the same thing to the God-fearing person "Seek ye the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it. Then you will find rest for your souls." (Jeremiah 6:16) Unfortunately, the following verse in Jeremiah is "But they said, we will not walk in it."
Lincoln showed magnanimity towards the south in the short time he lived after its defeat. John Wilkes Booth struck out in murderous hate because of the South's defeat and the North eventually showed little magnanimity towards the south in Reconstruction, many put Jim Crow laws on this doorstep.
Enormous amounts of money were spent in rebuilding Germany after World War II, as well as magnanimity given towards Japan that proved wise in how Japan eventually progressed to where it is today. Many historians believe that a lack of magnanimity towards Germany at the end of World War I gave Hitler what he needed to enslave the minds of his followers. Stalin and Mao were responsible for the deaths of millions after their "victories."
If someone has been successful in their pursuit of wealth, do they show magnanimity towards those who had not been successful? Many corporations were sailing swiftly in the winds of a climbing stock market, did they take to heart the lives of those employees who pulled the oars when the winds died down and were not enough? It appears that a mantra of unionism is "never give up what has already been won!" We are in a culture war in America right now and one side or the other may win it. If this new liberal, this progressive secular leftist element wins and decides to once and for all to rid America of religious myth and tradition, it will lead to disaster. If the conservative, the Bible toter, the family values element (of which I am one) wins, and if we fail to recognize that our conservatism can be greed, our Bible toting can be pride and our family values can be smokescreens, then this also will lead to disaster. Should the Lord give us any victories in life, may He give us discernment to see when magnanimity is called for.
Postmodern Debate
I remember doing a paper on Robert Maynard Hutchins in college. I chose him to write about because he seemed the ultimate traditionalist as he fought the trend in universities to move away from classical education towards viewing what the student wanted as more important. He was the president of the University of Chicago and one of the most influential educators in America in the first half of the twentieth century.
Today's Wall Street Journal mentioned him in a piece written by L. Gordon Crovitz. Hutchins and others had the idea that using the "great books" in the history of literature would serve as a primary learning tool to increase knowledge of the world and build character. They used a Hutchins quote.... "That the people must save themselves by strengthening their minds so that they can appraise the issues for themselves."
Robert Hutchins said way back when what many have been trying to remind us of today, that for many and various reasons we have lost the ability to think through issues. Maybe it was the effects of postmodernism, maybe a steady diet of trivial entertainment pursuits or maybe the loss of the education that Hutchins tried to defend?
When I was in high school, the debate team was very accomplished. I was not part of this but they wore jackets and ties and used a combination of facts, analysis and logic to win trophy after trophy that still adorn the halls. Debate was two people taking different sides on an issue and trying to convince the judges that their argument was the most legitimate. Debate teams have recently made the newspapers nationwide as two college coaches yelled and screamed at each other. I decided to do a little bit of research on debate today and found that "postmodern" debate is growing. One does not even have to stay on subject and he/she can employ various tactics such as emotion and even verbal bullying. It took a while for this turn of events to sink in.
Yes, political debate today is usually sound bite in depth and avoidance of the main question in method, but surely the art of debate in an academic environment was true debate. I enjoy sitting down to a conversation and giving my thoughts, hearing the other person's thoughts and relying on both of us to consider what we heard. It seldom happens. It's as if debate has become an oral game of Monopoly, for a "get out of jail card" does not look at any particular crime committed. Hotels on a property have no ethical meaning behind them. Community Chest is getting something for free. Owning all the railroads has no societal impact and the one who finishes with the most money is the winner. Our corporations, unions, political campaigns and many more facets of our everyday life seem to be ruled only by that little white pamphlet of Monopoly rules.
We cannot save ourselves as Mr. Hutchins wrote, and this was typical of his philosophy, but we can and must turn around this vacuous way of forming opinions that we are mired in. Hutchins would say that reading and familiarizing ourselves with those who came before us is one way to escape the bog. I certainly agree to a point. There is a verse in the Bible that says the same thing to the God-fearing person "Seek ye the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it. Then you will find rest for your souls." (Jeremiah 6:16) Unfortunately, the following verse in Jeremiah is "But they said, we will not walk in it."
