Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Anti-Military Activists Seek Access To Schools

My sense is that these activists often use disinformation campaigns that rival what they claim military recruiters use. They're certainly not "fair and balanced" in their information. Just as an example from their web site:

How to get out of JROTC classes
Maybe you heard from a friend that JROTC was really fun, that you get to go on trips and do special stuff. So you told your Counselor that you wanted to be enrolled into JROTC. But once you got in, you found out it wasn’t like that at all...If you are stuck in a JROTC class and cannot change classes you may want to ask the JROTC instructor about why you are studying war and killing.

They study war and killing and JROTC? Most interesting.

I love this so-called lesson plan by these kooks in which students are supposed to "research" JROTC and then write a letter to the school board asking them either to maintain or eliminate JROTC. Information about and against (not for and against) JROTC is given. This is the only information given in the "against" section:

JROTC does not encourage critical thinking, for it teaches students to march, obey, and blindly follow the leader. Why do we have classes in "marksmanship" when guns are not tolerated at school? The purpose of the program is not to instill leadership, but to recruit front-line soldiers of
color for serial warfare. JROTC sets low expectations in poor communities.

All the "about" information came from Mother Jones Magazine. Clearly they expect teachers to promote their propaganda in the classroom.

Propaganda techniques include:
patriotic flag-waving, glittering generalities, intentional vagueness, oversimplification of complex issues, rationalization, introducing unrelated red herring issues, using appealing, simple slogans, stereotyping, testimonials from authority figures or celebrities, unstated assumptions, and encouraging readers or viewers to "jump on the bandwagon" of a particular ideology.

Except for the "patriotic" part, I see a lot of their definition of propaganda on their own site--and on the left in general.

Expect more anti-American, anti-military activism in our schools during the next Congress, currently predicted to be even more liberal than the current one. The Obamessiah will not help in this matter, either.

Update, 8/11/08: I just learned today that CAMS, the organization discussed above, was created by the Los Angeles teachers union. Who says so? Their own web site.

And notice this professional, unbiased quote from that web site:

Teachers from other districts interested in protecting students from military predators should use their own unions for leverage. Contact your union, start a Human Rights Committee, and write a resolution like the one below.

Predators. Is this how you want your child's teachers to refer to soldiers? Is this the kind of person you want teaching your children? Does this sound like someone who presents unbiased, factual information?

But Darren, you say, you do the same thing. I do not. I make it clear when I state personal opinions. I'm very open and honest about my political proclivities. I don't hide behind a veneer of dispassionate balance while I indoctrinate my students to how I think they should think. And I certainly don't demonize those students who disagree with me. In fact, oddly enough, I stay in touch with at least as many of my leftie former students as I do with those who agreed with me. I practice diversity, I don't just talk about it.

I am not at all like these people who say they're against propaganda yet practice it. I am not at all like these people who say they "support the troops but not the war" but refer to troops as predators. I am not at all like these people who preach peace, harmony, and tolerance, but vilify those with whom they disagree.

"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them."--Eric Hoffer

I do not support these liberal fascists, not at all.


Dr Pezz said...

Do you equate anti-American with anti-military (or just critical of the military)?

I see both sides of this debate using similar techniques when trying to reach kids, so I was just curious.

allen (in Michigan) said...

> but to recruit front-line soldiers of
color for serial warfare.

What's "serial" warfare? Maybe some conflation with "serial killer"?

I suppose when you're selling a product rather then educating the important thing is to make the sale. It doesn't matter all that much, on the evidence, whether the sales pitch makes sense as long as it sells.

Darren said...

When I wrote that, I knew someone would ask. Just didn't think it would be you.

Anti-American isn't necessarily anti-military, as there are plenty of people, our own included, who are anti-American and want someone else's military to defeat us.

The people I've written about in this post are both, however, in my not so humble opinion.

Darren said...

Interestingly enough, "soldiers of color" are less likely than "melanin-challenged" soldiers to be in direct combat roles. Been that way for many years.

Quincy said...

I get a kick out of ignorant lefties going after JROTC for what they think it is. I was in the program for four years in high school, and it teaches both discipline *and* leadership by putting cadets on both sides of the equation. If these people actually took the time to learn about the program, they'd know that.

To think, this "CAMS" group was created with dues coerced from teachers by the force of law. What is this state coming to?

Frances said...

Since these programs aren't confined at all within military academies, some misconceptions about the lesson are bound to come out, especially from those who oppose this kind of education.