Posts
Weclome to my workaday world.
The pictures are clips from the ESL textbook with which I am currently teaching Saudi students. Nothing special about this particular textbook; these days, any textbook in any subject seems to include similar stuff. Supposedly, the topic is "the natural world." But the true topic is obviously how evil humans are.
This culture of death stuff, this misanthropy, generally masquerades as science; yet of course there is nothing scientific about it. It is a philosophical, or rather a religious, position, to see man as evil, and uniquely evil. Science would or could make no such judgement; it is not involved with morals. In falsifying science, this anti-humanism probably alienates many of the young who would be naturally so inclined. Conversely, it is calculated to attract the worst sorts of misanthropists to science, which seems at least as dangerous to our future. And it is quite an awkward thing to have to deal with as a guest in a foreign culture; surely it is especially troubling in an ESL context. You want to convince Middle Eastern Muslims there is a compelling need to take down Western culture? Here it is, in a nutshell. The Westerners, it is apparent, hate us all and want to destroy us.
The first clipping describes mankind as the “worst” invasive species, and responsible for most of the world's pollution. This is in a sense true, but also nonsensical. It is man who decides which species are “invasive,” i.e., both new to an area and unwanted. If men do not want men, then I guess men are invasive. QED. Otherwise, men are just following the same natural biological imperative of any other species, moving in to any new habitat that comes available. Nor is mankind the most pervasive species; not by a long shot. Insects, arachnids, and any number of micro-organisms have us beat seven ways to creation on that score. Similarly, pollution is human-defined as something humans don't want. So of course, without humans, there is no pollution. A tse-tse fly has no such concept nor concern, whatever droppings it may leave or species it may ravage.
The second clipping is a mock website for an ecological charity. Trying to teach the unenlighted races, often in benighted Third-world countries, who are most likely to be using an ESL text, what true charity is all about. One ought to work to save animals, “usually suffering because of humans.” Now imagine this textbook being used, as it is surely intended to be, by poor students in Africa or Asia. Experienced vets and the latest medical equipment,we read, ought to be and are being flown in to Africa to help the animals against their human oppressors—who will be only too conscious that they themselves lack medical practitioners and medical equipment. Kind of puts the Wogs in their place, doesn't it?
The pictures are clips from the ESL textbook with which I am currently teaching Saudi students. Nothing special about this particular textbook; these days, any textbook in any subject seems to include similar stuff. Supposedly, the topic is "the natural world." But the true topic is obviously how evil humans are.
This culture of death stuff, this misanthropy, generally masquerades as science; yet of course there is nothing scientific about it. It is a philosophical, or rather a religious, position, to see man as evil, and uniquely evil. Science would or could make no such judgement; it is not involved with morals. In falsifying science, this anti-humanism probably alienates many of the young who would be naturally so inclined. Conversely, it is calculated to attract the worst sorts of misanthropists to science, which seems at least as dangerous to our future. And it is quite an awkward thing to have to deal with as a guest in a foreign culture; surely it is especially troubling in an ESL context. You want to convince Middle Eastern Muslims there is a compelling need to take down Western culture? Here it is, in a nutshell. The Westerners, it is apparent, hate us all and want to destroy us.
The first clipping describes mankind as the “worst” invasive species, and responsible for most of the world's pollution. This is in a sense true, but also nonsensical. It is man who decides which species are “invasive,” i.e., both new to an area and unwanted. If men do not want men, then I guess men are invasive. QED. Otherwise, men are just following the same natural biological imperative of any other species, moving in to any new habitat that comes available. Nor is mankind the most pervasive species; not by a long shot. Insects, arachnids, and any number of micro-organisms have us beat seven ways to creation on that score. Similarly, pollution is human-defined as something humans don't want. So of course, without humans, there is no pollution. A tse-tse fly has no such concept nor concern, whatever droppings it may leave or species it may ravage.
Yet "humans need to change many things about their lifestyle if they want to survive." Savour the logic--the human species is going to die out if it does not stop being so successful. Deus ex machina revenge from Mother Gaea must be assumed here.
The second clipping is a mock website for an ecological charity. Trying to teach the unenlighted races, often in benighted Third-world countries, who are most likely to be using an ESL text, what true charity is all about. One ought to work to save animals, “usually suffering because of humans.” Now imagine this textbook being used, as it is surely intended to be, by poor students in Africa or Asia. Experienced vets and the latest medical equipment,we read, ought to be and are being flown in to Africa to help the animals against their human oppressors—who will be only too conscious that they themselves lack medical practitioners and medical equipment. Kind of puts the Wogs in their place, doesn't it?
There is also the mandatory knock against zoos.
The final picture is unfortunately not self-explanatory. The context is this: the reader is asked to match the English names for various animals with their pictures. And one of the animals named and pictured, here right next to the Chinese mitten crab, is the human. The creature is showing what it can do on the gym floor. The message, surely, is that man is not a spiritual being, not both body and soul, not half animal and half angel, but an animal like any other, and of no greater significance.
This is obviously wildly objectionable to any Christian, Jew, Muslim, or pagan Greek, not to mention roughly the balance of the human race. What is the point of throwing this in, if the intent is not propagandistic, and controversialist?
Now, be clear that this is not a problem with one particular book. Quite the opposite: this particular book was selected largely because it was the least culturally objectionable to be found, for a Muslim audience. Most are far worse in terms of openly promoting what John Paul II called "the culture of death."
The final picture is unfortunately not self-explanatory. The context is this: the reader is asked to match the English names for various animals with their pictures. And one of the animals named and pictured, here right next to the Chinese mitten crab, is the human. The creature is showing what it can do on the gym floor. The message, surely, is that man is not a spiritual being, not both body and soul, not half animal and half angel, but an animal like any other, and of no greater significance.
This is obviously wildly objectionable to any Christian, Jew, Muslim, or pagan Greek, not to mention roughly the balance of the human race. What is the point of throwing this in, if the intent is not propagandistic, and controversialist?
Now, be clear that this is not a problem with one particular book. Quite the opposite: this particular book was selected largely because it was the least culturally objectionable to be found, for a Muslim audience. Most are far worse in terms of openly promoting what John Paul II called "the culture of death."
No comments:
Post a Comment