The Loyalist vs. Patriot Debate in American History

Our son had fun writing his Patriot position for the upcoming class debate in his Omnibus course. He is supposed to counter the argument that the colonialists should be grateful to England for her protection.

He found this link and the Declaration of Independence very helpful for his research. This is a great activity for synthesizing information about the origins of revolutionary war, making arguments, and persuasion / rhetoric.

His speech:

My fellow Patriots, it has been suggested that the Colonists should be grateful or indebted to the British. I vehemently disagree.

Some have said that we should be grateful to the British for fighting with us in the French and Indian War. After all, they say, our men fought alongside your men, and our men died alongside your men. The Colonists and the Crown both helped win the war against the French and the Indians, and both of us benefited from the defeat.

I pose that England did not enter the war simply to aid us, though, but solely to fatten herself. The British now hold vast tracts of land in America and freely trade fish and fur.

But, my fellow Patriots, there are many questions we should ask ourselves regarding our gratitude to Britain. Should we be grateful for the British blockade of our trade with the rest of the world, impoverishing the hardworking citizens of this country and making us reliant on the scraps King George gives us? Should we be grateful for England's refusal to pay us back for the loans we were forced to give Her Majesty for the war? Should we be grateful that Parliament has abolished our laws and stifled our entire system of government? And should we be grateful that the Crown has sent us armed troops for the purpose of threatening us, shielding them from any punishment should they murder our citizens? Should we be grateful for the deaths of Samuel Gray, James Caldwell, Samuel Maverick, Patrick Carr, and Crispus Attucks, all of whom were murdered by the British troops in the Boston Massacre?

Classical Education: Don't Let This Happen to You...Oh no, I forgot to think!

You'd think classical educators (parents and formal teachers) would be among the last to commit this mistake, but perhaps this yet another mistake. Because classical texts are so difficult to decode in the first place, we think our work is done if our kids can read the Great Books, understand basically what they mean, and do well enough in the challenging work assigned to them. But it is surprisingly easy for all of us to be swept up in the work of this education (Latin nouns to decline, etc.) that we forget to think and we forget to ask our children to think, too.

Oh no, you might say. I'm not ready. I'm just getting through Aeschylus, and want to be through Zeno before I...

Well, there's no time like today. It's not enough to work through the texts. Our kids need practice thinking through why they believe what they do, and they need to practice thinking, considering other viewpoints, and really grappling to understand why they believe what they do, where are their gray areas, and what they might reconsider.

We've recently as a family been watching and debating the issues of Michael Sandel's Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do course at Harvard. It was last available on the Internet 3 years ago and its replaying with free videos on Youtube.com, Discussion guides, and Discussions forums (haven't tried the latter). The content is for older children and preview it to see if it might be appropriate for you. Sandel presents some extreme cases to get participants to reflect on what they believe and why.

Last night, we had a spirited discussion at home as Brock put our son in the 'hot seat' having to answer some of the discussion guide questions such as:

1. Is it unjust for the government to require people to wear seatbelts and not engage in self-endangering activities?
2. Should the government legalize narcotics?
3. Should there be a minimum wage?

We're on Lecture 3 out of 12, and Sandel discussed the viewpoint of Libertarianism and Robert Nozick. We've just finished Jeremy Bentham and Utilitarianism and John Stuart Mill's view of liberty and higher and lower good. A surprisingly wide discussion of topics arose from this film, rights of individuals and statism, the definition of good in a pluralistic society, economics, and political differences.

I think it's especially important to connect classical ideas with contemporary challenges and its programs like this that help bridge the gap

So whether you're a lifelong or newly minted student of classical education, don't forget to think!



Artist: Roy Lichtenstein

Largest Anglo-Saxon Treasure Found in the UK

An amateur treasure hunter with a metal detector found the largest Anglo-Saxon treasure ever discovered. It was found on a friend's farm. The inscription above is from the Bible.


Anglo Saxon Treasure

Progymnasmata, Logic / Rhetoric: Writing an Argument Like St. Thomas Aquinas

From our son's latest assignments from "Molding Your Argument" - We've posted his submissions pro and con for movie censorship. The assignment is to write like St. Thomas Aquinas. In Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas presents his arguments in articles that have a specific structure:

1. A specific yes-or-no question. "Whether..." (utrum)
2. List of objections that begin with "It seems that...". The objections should be apparent proofs to the opposite of the thesis (aka
the opposite of the debate) - and should be arguments, not opinions (supportable by evidence) (oportet)
3. Indicate own position - "On the contrary..." - (sed contra) usually argument from authority.
4. "I answer that.." (respondeo dicens)- Thomas proves his own case - provides more background explanations. Aquinas explains how each objection went wrong.

With his permission, our son agreed to let us post his assignments:

PRO: It seems that Hollywood movies should be censored.

Objection 1: There have been professional studies that would appear to indicate that media violence increases real-world violence.
Objection 2: Movies can have a powerful desensitizing effect on morality. Studies have confirmed that people who are repeatedly exposed to media violence tend to be less disturbed or physiologically aroused when they witness real world violence, and have less sympathy for its victims.
Objection 3: There have been many confirmed instances in which violent movies have had a direct role in inspiring people to inflict pain, suffering, and death on others. At least nine murders around the world have been directly linked to the slasher film Scream.

I answer that: The right for movies to be free from censorship should be protected. Our country is founded upon principles of freedom of expression, and freedom of expression is necessary for a thriving democracy to have differences of opinion freely discussed, debated, and considered. Censoring objectionable content cuts off free discussion of controversial issues, and it can stifle opposing political opinions.

Reply to Objection 1: As violent media is constantly produced, the rate of violence among children has actually gone down.
Reply to Objection 2: The standards of moral behavior differ between people, religions, and cultures; different people have different reactions to media violence.
Reply to Objection 3: Mentally-unstable people may have negative reactions to media violence, but one has to consider the intent of the director. Is he glorifying violence, or is he portraying it in a negative light?

CON: It seems that movies should not be censored.

Objection 1: Many claim that censorship is in opposition to freedom of expression, and that it is in direct opposition to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." Prohibiting content cuts off discussion of controversial worldviews, they say, and it can stifle opposing political opinions.
Objection 2: Some have said that there is no evidence that media violence has a notable effect on the public at large. Violence and immorality have been ubiquitous since the time of Adam and Eve, and they cannot always be prevented by media regulation.
Objection 3: Censorship is difficult to successfully regulate. Different people and cultures have different standards of morality; it is difficult to decide on a single standard of morality by which to prohibit objectionable material.
I answer that: Movies should be censored because messages of extreme violence and overt sexuality are harmful to the mental well-being of viewers and, ultimately, to the community as a whole.

Research in the field of psychology has shown that violence in the media increases aggression. Also, in the cases of murder and other serious crimes inflicting pain and suffering, perpetrators have admitted that movies had a role in inspiring their actions. Finally, movies have a powerful desensitizing effect on morality so that extreme negative images of sexuality and hatred can be a corrupting influence on impressionable audiences.

Reply to Objection 1: The protection of freedom of speech was never meant to endanger the lives of others, as media violence does. The Constitution also grants people the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and media violence influences people to violate those unalienable rights.
Reply to Objection 2: Movie censorship might not prevent all immorality, but it would prevent some of the more severe instances. There have been several confirmed instances around the world of mass murderers being directly influenced by slasher films.
Reply to Objection 3: Our legislative and judicial system regulate morality all the time in terms of physical interaction and in terms of intention.


References: Peter Kreeft's excellent Summa of the Summa
Picture from Thomas Aquinas

Classical Argumentation like the Ancients

This summer our son is taking a course "Molding Your Argument" from ScholarsOnline.org It's already turning out to be a great course. The assignments were first to write brief paragraphs argue the pros and cons of a position (he chose censorship in the movies". Next he was asked to elaborate on the paragraphs with specific guidelines (3 sentences pieces of evidence per paragraph). His next assignment is even tougher - they are to emulate the argumentation style of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas apparently begins arguing a position that he does not believe in - then provides a compelling counter-argument, ending with a pithy summation.

I think it's so great to give kids the chance to manipulate arguments independent of the content - because that's a lot of the art of writing - and much can be gained from imitation. For gifted kids who get the analysis-paralysis ("Don't know what I want to say because I can think of pros and cons boths ways") - this is a perfect outlet.

He gave us his permission to post his work:

Week 1:


Should movies be censored?

Movies should be censored because messages of extreme violence and overt sexuality are harmful to the mental well-being of viewers and, ultimately, to the community as a whole.

Research in the field of psychology has shown that violence in the media increases aggression. Also, in the cases of murder and other serious crimes inflicting pain and suffering, perpetrators have admitted that movies had a role in inspiring their actions. Finally, movies have a powerful desensitizing effect on morality so that extreme negative images of sexuality and hatred can be a corrupting influence on impressionable audiences.
Given this clear evidence of the impact movies have on viewers, movies should be censored.

Movies should not be censored because it would inhibit freedom of expression, it would not deter violence or immorality, and it is unconstitutional.
Freedom of expression is an essential requirement of any democracy and censorship is in complete opposition to freedom of expression. Censorship would not deter violence or immorality; the 1930s, the time of the movie censorship guidelines of the Hays Code, was one of the most violent and corrupt times in American history.

Finally, movies should not be censored because doing so would violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech."
Movies should not be censored, because freedom of expression is an essential feature of our society.

---

Week 2:

Movies should be censored because messages of extreme violence and overt sexuality are harmful to the mental well-being of viewers and, ultimately, to society as a whole.

First of all, research in the field of psychology has shown that violence in the media increases aggression. Psychological researchers have observed that children who watch violent shows are much more likely to hit other children and break toys. Older children who watch violent television at home were more likely to behave more aggressively in school, and when researchers followed these children over the years, they discovered that they were more likely to get in trouble with the law as teenagers.When these teenagers were 30 years old, they were more likely to be convicted of serious crimes, to use violence to discipline their children, and to treat their spouses aggressively. All of the data demonstrates the powerful effect that movies and television have on young people.

Second, movies have a powerful desensitizing effect on morality so that extreme negative images of sexuality and hatred can corrupt impressionable audiences. Studies have shown that that people who are repeatedly exposed to media violence tend to be less disturbed when they witness real world violence, and have less sympathy for its victims. Viewers who watch large amounts of media violence are less likely to show increases in physiological arousal, such as increased heart rate or change in galvanic skin responses, when they view violent acts. Also, in studies of men and women who were repeatedly exposed to sexual violence in the media, researchers have shown that attitudes and behaviors changed. Both the men and the women showed less sympathy and empathy towards rape victims. Sensitivity to the suffering and conditions of others is essential to living a moral life and a requirement of a moral society.

Third, there are also many instances in which violent movies have had a direct role in inspiring people to inflict pain, suffering, and death on others. For instance, the release of the horror thriller film Scream influenced a series of copycat murders. At least nine murders around the world have been directly linked to the movie. Movies, video games, and music with violent and hateful content have also been implicated in many mass shootings, such as the Columbine massacre. Extremely violent movies have had and will continue to have a negative effect on individuals, as well as society as a whole.

Given this clear evidence of the impact movies have on viewers, extreme content in movies should be censored. A failure to do so would inflict irreparable damage upon the moral fabric of our society. The moral health of our society is based on sensitivity, empathy, and sympathy toward the suffering of others, and an ability to interact through non-aggressive means. Overwhelming evidence indicates that when morally repugnant content escapes censorship, negative effects on society have resulted, including the increased aggressiveness and lawlessness of young people, more immoral acts, including the harming and killing of people, and the desensitization of men and women to violence and hatred. When movie makers transgress the boundaries of human decency, society has a right to censor corrupting and hatred-inciting material.

---

Week 3:

The right for movies to be free from censorship must be protected. Our country is founded upon principles of freedom of expression, and freedom of expression is necessary for a thriving democracy to have differences of opinion freely discussed, debated, and considered. Despite the good intentions of those who advocate the censorship of movies, there is no evidence that banning objectionable movie content would deter violence or immorality. In practice, also, it is not possible to successfully regulate censorship because morals and values differ among all people. Therefore, I strongly urge that movies should not be subjected to censorship.

For any democracy, freedom of expression is necessary for a government to truly be ruled by the people, and censorship is in complete opposition to freedom of expression. In fact, it is in direct opposition to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech."
Prohibiting content cuts off discussion of controversial worldviews, and it can stifle opposing opinions.
Tyrannies and totalitarian dictatorships thrive on censorship and a lack of freedom of expression.
Do we want our democracy to become a dictatorships?

Some argue that movie censorship deters violence or immorality, but there is no good evidence that this is the case.
The 1930s, the time of the strict movie censorship guidelines of the Hays Code, was a time of gangsters and organized crime.
Violence and immorality have been ubiquitous since the time of Adam and Eve, and they cannot be prevented by media regulation.
If violent media such as movies and games are responsible for inciting violence, why has the rate of violence among children decreased since the 1990s?
Media violence is not to blame for the irresponsible actions of other people.

Finally, censorship is impossible to successfully regulate.
The standards of moral behavior differ between people, religions, and cultures; there is no single standard of morality by which to prohibit objectionable material. Who is qualified to decide what is appropriate and what is not?
It is also impossible to regulate all the intentions of a film; for instance, a filmmaker with an anti-war sentiment might depict extreme images of violence and death, hoping to encourage his viewers to hate war.
Who is to judge?

In conclusion, it is vital that we protect the right for movies to be free from censorship because freedom of expression, whether it be in the spoken word, in print, or in film, is an essential feature of our free society. Although it is often alleged that the media incites violent and immoral behavior, violence and immorality have always been part and parcel of the human condition, and they always will be. In fact, there is evidence that violent acts in the media actually decreases real-world violence. In practice, censorship is also impossible to regulate and implement, because no single person or group can decide what is or is not appropriate, and censors cannot ban the bad thoughts and actions of others. Movie censorship is misguided and dangerous and should be opposed.


Picture Roman Orator