What Does It Mean To Be Educated, and Who Decides - Essay Example

What Does It Mean To Be Educated, and Who Decides In the globalization era, information has been termed as the new oil. The above is in reference to the importance and scarcity of information in the globalization era. The reflection means that when a person has the right information and at the right quantity and quality, they are deemed to succeed. Oil is a precious commodity, but, however, an exhaustible natural resource. Fortunately, information can be renewed through updating oneself with emerging trends and data. The above update can turn fatal when people update themselves with distorted information that is obsolete, irrelevant and unreliable data. For one to acquire relevant and reliable information, they have to be educated. Being educated does not necessarily means passing through the school system. Being educated is a diverse term which relates to being in the right information for survival as per the context of the learner environment survival needs. For example, one can be in possession of great information about the moon and the stars, but their immediate survival needs do not need that information. Educating means to train or raise someone. Therefore, being educated means being trained to meet the immediate survival needs. Unfortunately, the people endowed with the role of drafting training manuals are drafting “irrelevant and unreliable oil”. James Loewen blames the textbooks as the main enemy of people who needs to be educated. Loewen considers textbooks in respect to history of the American nation to be quite distorted and theoretical. As per Loewen observation, the best way to be educated about American history is to scrutinize more than three history textbooks. Loewen is of the idea that the decision about being educated is based on the existence of a down to earth analysis and thorough discussion of controversial points in the history books; discussion between the teacher and the student. Most scholars base their argument on good education on two entities. The entities are in the scope of reliable and up-to-date learning materials versus relevant teaching techniques. This is a straightforward case, unlike the proverbial case of egg and hen, as education is about the content, not the medium. There can be good, competent and friendly teachers who deliver unreliable and distorted information that does not achieve the education purpose. The role of teachers is to train as per the content of the teaching materials and learners needs. For example, consider a learning material that offers biased and theoretical approaches to history. History is not a speculative subject as it presents empirical data on what happened and offers an opportunity for theoretical discussion. Loewen considers that it would be wrong to offer history learning content in a theoretical approach. The history learning content should be unbiased and present information as it was. Distorted information presented by history learning material can bring a massive misunderstanding about the American history and distort the future choice of learners. One of the purposes of studying history is to learn past mistakes in order to make credible choices for the humanity survival. Blema Steinberg article of “Shame and Humiliation Presidential Decision Making on Vietnam” presents biased information as to why Nixon bombed Cambodia in 1970. Steinberg traces the decision to engage military forces in Cambodia to psychological problems issues with presidents Nixon and Johnson (Steinberg, 1996). In a history learning material, Steinberg focuses on the issues of narcissistic personality and relates the personality disorder to the decision made by the above two presidents to engage military. Steinberg scrutinizes and compares the early lives of three presidents to illustrate her argument. Steinberg scrutinizes the lives of President Nixon, Johnson and Eisenhower to illustrate that the narcissistic factor played a role in the president’s choices of engagement in Cambodia. For Steinberg, President Eisenhower was psychologically ok and, therefore, did not use military to engage North Vietnam soldiers in Cambodia. Steinberg presents a very pessimistic and biased observation of President Nixon and Johnson engagement in Cambodia with military forces by observing that the two presidents were powerfully self-involved and thirsty with success and appreciation as a replacement for lack parental love (Steinberg, 1996). Steinberg presentation of the information about American president’s engagement choice in Cambodia is distorted as it offers a biased approach to education. A history student learning’s needs for history would be in the scope of understanding the circumstances that led the presidents to choose the engagement methods. The history student would not be interested to know the number of times President Nixon had dinner together with his parents or the color of his parents. The issue at hand is why and how the American presidents chose to engage in Cambodia. Steinberg should have presented information in the scope of events that necessitated the American presidents to choose their engagement methods with Cambodia. The information presented by Steinberg has no historical value for history students. As a mater of fact, it offers misleading information about the history of America engagement in Cambodia. A scrutiny of other literatures that deals with the issue of Cambodia versus North-Vietnam war would present all-round information. Loewen advises that history should not be developed on emotional perspectives of the author, but should be developed from reporting the actual and logical truth of past events. The information presented by Steinberg about president Nixon and Johnson involvement is based on a deceiving and irrational thought. Readers should make a comparison and consider if a president decision going to war is based on mental disorder. Steinberg wants the readers to believe that the forefathers of the American nation who went to war with England to acquire freedom were mentally challenged. On a further note, Steinberg would want students to believe that presidents who choose war are mentally challenged due to past psychological problems. This is even quite funny. At a broader examination, Steinberg thoughts would sound boring as per Loewen observation of history literature. The real information about the misunderstood president Nixon and Johnson choice of using military action in Cambodia revolves around the principles of just war doctrines. The reason President Nixon and Johnson choose to attack Vietnamese soldiers in Cambodia was because it was in the interest of safeguarding the safety of Americans in Cambodia. Two weeks before Nixon attacked the Vietnamese in Cambodia he was planning to withdraw more than 150, 000 troops in Cambodia. In reply to Nixon’s good diplomatic intentions, North Vietnam increased its military aggression in Cambodia. At such a context, the wisest thing was not to sit down and wait for political approaches as Steinberg advises. At such a time, it was necessary to take any necessary action and prepare for war as North Vietnam had refused to heed to calls for diplomacy. Even days before the attack, Nixon had warned North Vietnam of the likely attack by America in collaboration with South Vietnam and Cambodia. Nixon approach could not have for sure been made out of psychological need to replenish the lack of parental love. As Loewen observes, it is important for authors to consider the context of where they want relay information. Perhaps Steinberg learning material could be channeled to psychology and sociology classes for discussion. This is after considering that the material by Steinberg is not true as per the context of the issue it addresses. References Steinberg, B. S. (1996). Shame and humiliation: Presidential decision making on Vietnam. Montreal [Que.: McGill-Queen's University Press. Read More