The minister of state is kindly asked to leave

by Aaron Wherry

Gary Goodyear makes another friend in the academic world.

Jim Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, said that universities need to be a place where controversial ideas can be debated, and that this kind of political interference to curry favour with a group of voters is unprecedented in Canada and blow to academic freedom.

“The action of the Minister of Science and Technology contacting the president of SSHRC to express political concerns is not something we have seen in this country since the McCarthy period,” he said.

Mr. Turk said that Mr. Goodyear should resign.




Browse

The minister of state is kindly asked to leave

  1. When was Canada's McCarthy period?

    And I agree with Turk that universities need to be a place where controversial ideas can be debated but anyone who has been following universities for at least the past decade knows perfectly well they are not places where controversial ideas can be discussed anymore. Students and academics are only allowed to praise liberal pieties or else they are tarred and feathered.

    • Liberalism is the foundation of Western civilization.
      To quote a lefty leader, what the hell is the matter with you people?!
      (BTW I'm a student :P )

    • Liberalism is the foundation of Western civilization.
      To quote a lefty leader, what the hell is the matter with you people?!
      (BTW I'm a student :P and have worked in fed gov since before you were born!)

    • Liberalism is the foundation of Western civilization.
      To quote a lefty leader, what the hell is the matter with you people?!
      (BTW I'm a uni student :P and have worked in fed gov since, perhaps, before you were born!)

      • "Liberalism is the foundation of Western civilization."

        This statement is absurd. Western civilization predates liberalism by millenia.

        • Oy vey! Civilization has, indeed, been around for millenia. That is not what I was talking about and you know it.

          • "Civilization has, indeed, been around for millenia"
            I didn't write "civilization", I wrote "Western civilization", which predates liberalism.

  2. From the article:

    "Jim Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, said that universities need to be a place where controversial ideas can be debated,…"

    My experience at Canadian universities was that of being subjected to an ossified, stifling and homogenous left/lib mindset. Debate was a rare thing. Indoctrination was the order of the day.

    Most Canadian universities, with some notable exceptions, are little more than left/lib indoctrination centres.

    Why would anyone with a modicum of knowledge of last centuries' horrors question Israel's right to exist? Maybe the conference organizers should encourage a debate on whether there really was a holocaust while they're at it.

    • Did you actually participate in seminar discussions? For the most part, they were always "anything goes" for debate when I was in school.

    • "My experience at Canadian universities was that of being subjected to an ossified, stifling and homogenous left/lib mindset."

      *yawn* I doubt you graduated high school.

    • Certainly seems like the ossifying and stifling worked.

  3. Students and academics are only allowed to praise liberal pieties or else they are tarred and feathered.
    My experience at Canadian universities was that of being subjected to an ossified, stifling and homogenous left/lib mindset. Debate was a rare thing. Indoctrination was the order of the day.

    Ugh.

  4. Goodyear's dead on target. And then next, we oughta have the gov't come in and stop all that feminist teaching, and then that evolution crap, and then there's all that reading people do. I hear they write things in places that don't praise conservative thinking… I mean.. what the hell is that.. we shouldn't be teaching our youngsters about stuff like that. Won't anybody think o' the childrens!

  5. Hi T*-G*y,

    I thought you were banned from this blog.

    Surely there are other blogs that could benefit from your rapier wit.

    • Make that "doubt you completed grade 8."

      • Sock puppet!

  6. "Ugh"

    I should add that Canadian universites also do a very mediocre job at producing literate graduates.

    • It's too bad university failed you, Jarrid…but one can only work with the material given them…

    • Almost as poorly as they turn out economists-turned-prime ministers…

    • Quite right jarrid. If university grads are literate, it's barely.

      The problem is that "university educated" is a far too encompassing term. Some university courses teach extremely difficult and important sciences, most allow students to flatter themselves with the idea that they are educated by letting them pursue a hobby and giving them a worthless Liberal Arts degree in exchange for many thousands of dollars.

      The humanities departments of our universities should be renamed General Motors. They are unproductive and pointless sinkholes into which we dump loaned money which we will be paying off for the rest of our lives.

  7. "Liberalism is the foundation of Western civilization."

    Depends on your definition of liberal. If you are talking about what 'liberal' used to mean, than I agree. If you are talking about 'liberal' and what it has come to mean over the past 40 years, I disagree.

    • Even Harper refers to "liberal democracy." Where've you been?

      • This reply is tone-def. When Harper refers to "liberal democracy" he's used liberal in the broad sense to which the previous poster referred.

        • Do you mean the traditional definition or "what it has come to mean over the past 40 years"?

          • My original reply answers this question.

  8. I would argue you'd have a tough time finding an illiterate graduate from a Canadian University.

  9. Ba-ha-ha, agreed. For this crowd:
    Arts=playing piano in private
    Culture=sports
    Infrastructure=rec centres
    Science=profit-driven R&D
    Accountability=secrecy
    Women=baby machines
    Middle class=vulnerable
    Up=down
    Black=white
    So it goes.

  10. Ba-ha-ha, agreed. For this crowd:
    Arts=playing piano in private
    Culture=sports
    Infrastructure=rec centres
    Science=profit-driven R&D
    Accountability=secrecy
    Women=baby machines
    Middle class=vulnerable
    Gay=drag queens
    Up=down
    Black=white
    So it goes.

  11. Schools of chiropractic, on the other hand, produce nothin' but geniuses – just look at Goodyear.

  12. Universities actually really like debate. What they generally find annoying is the academic equivalent of dullard trolls taking up everyone's valuable time.

  13. I have a feeling this whole problem could be solved by having someone more qualified than a Chiropractor be the Minister of Science. It's like having a paralegal be the Minister of Justice. Frankly it's just embarrassing.

    • Absurd notion. Would mean only doctors could be Health MInister, only police officers could be Solicitor General, only farmers could be Agricutlure Minister, only truckers or train engineers could be Transportation Minister and so on. You do understand the principle of representative government don't you? We the people are supposed to decide who is best to lead, and hopefully that leader will be able to hire some expertts to fly the planes and build the reactors and recommend the policies.

      Gary Goodyear isn't incompetent because he's a chiropractor, he' s just incompetent. Sheesh!

      • Former Transport Minister Don Mazankowski sold tractors. Close enough!

      • Former Transport Minister Don Mazankowski sold tractors. Close enough!
        But seriously, folks, it's OK to be a generalist when you're a leader, as long as you respect the specialists when making decisions. This crowd isn't too keen (no pun intended) on the advice of them know-it-all experts. Harrumph!

      • Agreed! Well said, tobyornotoby

  14. Funny enough, Dhalla actually has a degree in Biochemistry.

    • Dhalla has an undergrad degree in Biochemistry. She refers to herself as a Doctor because she also graduated from the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College.

  15. The Wherry Slant on news would make it seem that all academia thinks Goodyear should resign. If you read further in the article you will see that some participants in the conference agree with Goodyear`s contention that we should question the use of public funds to bankroll a conference that appears ready to discuss the right of Israel to exist.

    Goodyear is not denying the SSHRC the right to discuss whether Israel should exist. He`s simply suggesting that a second peer committee should decide whether they should receive public funds to do this. It`s a warning to this group—-if you are promoting hatred by inviting anti`semitic groups to speak, do it on your on dime.

    • But if you want to perpetuate Islamophobia, here's a blank cheque!
      (Still don't understand what criticizing the Israeli government of the day has to do with anti-semitism.)

      • Precisely. You wouldn't hear William question SSHRC's right to invite Mark Steyn to speak. The neo-con definition of legitimate speech is "stuff we want to hear'.

        By the way, most Islamophobes are also anti-Semites; Arabs are a Semitic people.

        • Now you twins may be a lot more familar than I with public funds used to discuss the legitimacy of certain states but I do not recall our gov`t issuing a blank cheque to perpetuate Islampphobia—tell us about that Stephy or apologize.

          Neither do I recall Mark Steyn hanging out with academia and attending publically funded conferences discussing how the mid-east borders should be rearranged. I do recall he has wrote articles in private publications quoting reliable sources about how the large immigration of Muslim people to Europe may affect that continents politics in the future.

          • I think Stephy will deny that she needs to apologize for a few days and then call a presser for 1230 sometime on Monday.

          • On my planet, satire is funnier when you inject the absurd. I'm sure that we could all agree that our current government has been playing the anti-semitism card far too often. It's embarassing!

        • This is a nonsensical post.

          "You wouldn't hear William question SSHRC's right to invite Mark Steyn to speak."
          Steyn isn't even an academic, so what are you talking about?

          "By the way, most Islamophobes are also anti-Semites; Arabs are a Semitic people."
          This is semantic nonsense. When you go buy one of the popular translations of Mein Kampf from a bookstore in the Arab world, they don't say "and of course, all of this applies to us Arabs too".

          • Steyn isn't even an academic, so what are you talking about?

            I'm talking about a hypothetical, you genius.

            Moreover, Steyn writes for Macleans, which happens to be the recipient of generous government subsidies. Thus, his racist tripe is spewed on our dime, almost as if he were speaking at a SSHRC conference.

            [Arabs] don't say "and of course, all of this applies to us Arabs too".

            Why would they? The book is targeted at a specific branch of the Semitic genetic group, which many of them also despise.

            Just to clarify: are you disputing the plain ethnographic fact that Arabs are Semites, or are you just struggling with the complex relationship between language and reality?

          • "are you disputing the plain ethnographic fact that Arabs are Semites"
            Of course I wrote nothing like that. Stop making things up.

            "or are you just struggling with the complex relationship between language and reality?"
            It seems to be you having troubling grasping the relationship. The fact that Arabs and Jews are both semitic does not change the fact that anti-semitism has a long history of targeting Jews, and not worrying about Arabs. Pointing out that Arabs are semitic is simply a semantic point that ignores the reality of anti-semitism.

          • …anti-semitism has a long history of targeting Jews, and not worrying about Arabs.

            I may point out that the West certainly did "worry about Arabs" during the Crusades, when European troops carried out anti-Arab massacres as a matter of routine. You may also have heard of the Spanish Reconquista, during which Arabs were brutally ethnically cleansed from Southern Spain.

          • "I'm talking about a hypothetical, you genius."
            Its not a plausible hypothetical.

            "Moreover, Steyn writes for Macleans, which happens to be the recipient of generous government subsidies. Thus, his racist tripe is spewed on our dime, almost as if he were speaking at a SSHRC conference."
            Ah, but he's not. Everything that gets government money is not "almost like a SSHRC conference". (And a "SSHRC conference" is a non-entity: academic conferences that get SSHRC money are not "SSHRC conferences".)

          • And a "SSHRC conference" is a non-entity: academic conferences that get SSHRC money are not "SSHRC conferences".

            Then, if SSHRC has no proprietary claim on the conference, Goodyear has no jurisdiction over it and has no business interfering in its proceedings. It follows, then, that William's argument (as well as yours) is void.

          • I don't think that you're familiar enough with the way that academia works to understand what's at issue here. Basically, SSHRC funds all types of things. But no one involved refers to them as "SSHRC this" or "SSHRC that". Of course, SSHRC still has some say in them, because it does decide to fund them, and so the government itself is tangentially involved, since that's where the money comes from. Its just that no one actually calls it a "SSHRC conference", "SSHRC research project", or whatever. Anyhow, the more basic point is that the mere fact that something gets government money (e.g., Macleans) does not make it analogous to SSHRC. There are many different programs with many different protocols.

          • Thanks for the lecture, Egg Head. I actually spent most of my graduate years on OGS's and SSHRC's. I'm not sure what red-brick college you spent your formative years at, but, where I've worked and studied, using SSHRC money to spend time on a book or other major project is called "being on a SSHRC". Try to resist the temptation to assume that your little slice of the word reflects the universe.

            …so the government itself is tangentially involved…

            …”tangentially” indeed. "Tangential" is thus a fairly accurate way to describe the nature of the minister's jurisdiction over the conference–"barely existent" would work as well. His interference in it is extra vires. This is what you obdurately refuse to acknowledge while quibbling over trivial questions of nomenclature.

          • "being on a SSHRC": ah, but this quite different from saying "hey, read a draft of my SSHRC dissertation". Look, in any case, I don't actually believe that you were ever in academia: you're far to proud of the little knowledge that you have for that to be true.

          • So I leave you 2 guys alone in the room and wouldn`t you know—a big spat—kind of like Niles and Frasier.

            I knew it wasn`t a SSHRC conference but I didn`t want to waste my time looking up the name of it since it will probably just be another useless effort in word-slinging with most forgetting why they are even there.

    • Good catch William. Yet another distorted cut and paste job.

      Jim Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, said that universities need to be a place where controversial ideas can be debated

      LOL. Ideas like a pro-life position on abortion? Ask any pro-life organization how much luck they have demonstrating at Canadian universities.

      • Are you saying that a pro-life speaker wouldn't be called on to participate in a debate panel at a university with, for example, a pro-choice speaker? I'd call BS. A demonstration is not a debate, it's just a group of people chanting slogans. Move it into an auditorium and give both sides equal time to present arguments then you have a debate.

    • William, just so you know: Wherry has a dishonest slant on every issue.

  16. How many of the last 20 Ministers of Science were actually scientists? One? Zero?

    • How about at least having a Minister of Science who completed University?

    • Name me another who think running shoes are part of the evolution process. But when you've got a so-called economist turned so-called leader switching his directions on the economic picture 'by the press conference' then i suggest you keep supporting your local chiropractor-turned-scientist.

    • Non-sequitur alert:

      How many PMs have been 'economists' who couldn't economize!

      (I would say 'zing' but I don't know that it even makes sense ;-)

  17. The degree in Biochemistry must have been invaluable for Ruby when she needed to conjure up pseudoscientific BS to baffle the patients in her chiropractic practice.

    • Somehow this makes her less than Gary Goodyear, who didn't even finish University?

    • A degree in Economics is enough for a Prime Minister.

  18. Places where you can put forth controversial ideas. Right. Unless you're Margaret Somerville at Ryerson.

    • The problem with Somerville is that in many areas where she claims professional rather than personal interest, she's a complete idiot. Some of her bioethical stuff is really well done, but when the gay stuff comes up it takes a turn for the crazy.

      • "…but when the gay stuff comes up it takes a turn for the crazy."

        Yeah like her crazy and twisted view that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Does it get any sicker than that? Should someone holding that perverse view even be allowed to teach in our institutes of higher learning?

        • When she expresses such a view, she's merely being hateful and ignorant. When she expresses that view in papers backed up with dumbass conjecture and weak sample sets, she's academically deficient. Neat, eh?

          • Product of Canadian University teaching, Exhibit "A".

          • And don't you forget it!

      • Reminds me of a certain national party (stuffed with closet cases) whose name escapes me.

  19. I once saw Jim Turk in the same room with Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke.

    Warren Kinsella wasn’t there.

    The room was Wayne Easter’s barn.

    There were cows. And cows.

    It was a dark and stormy night.

  20. Reading that Globe and Mail article reminds me of the respectability that Canadian university left establishment gives to the anti-semitic cause.

    Do people remember that a lecture by current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was cancelled when left-wing thugs broke police lines and caused mayhem at Concordia University? So much for free speech.

    Most anti-semitism today is on the political left. I still remember Denis Coderre and Gilles Duceppe marching in that anti-Israel parade in Montreal which was littered with Hezbolah flags. It was both a chilling and disgraceful sight.

    • Anti-Israel does not equal anti-semite. One is a nation, the other is a people. They are not one and the same. A nation can be made up of many different peoples.

      Just because I disagree with someone's views (political, religious, otherwise) should not make me anti-whatevertheyare. We as a NATION need to be able to hear the views of the various PEOPLES that make us who we are.

  21. gee I never knew Canada had a McCarthy period.

  22. gee I never knew Canada had a McCarthy period.

    We're just fifty years behind the Americans. We're not as entrepreneurial as they are, remember.

    If Goodyear really thinks he has the mandate to become Canada's Commissar of Scholarly Correctness, he needs to have his leash shortened considerably, before Canada solidifies its three-year-old reputation as the intellectual Kentucky of the Western world.

    • "Are you or have you ever been a supporter of the anti-Israeli Apartheid movement?"

  23. Aaron, what is your justification for this post? Some random academic spouts off some anti-government nonsense, so you just must excerpt and post it uncritically? For instance, what does it even mean to say "not something we have seen in this country since the McCarthy period"? There's wasn't a "McCarthy period" in Canada, obviously, since there was no McCarthy here. There was some anti-communism that made life difficult for some academics – but that was a period in Canada that was actually PRIOR to the "McCarthy period" in the United States. So that bit of ignorant demagoguery alone should be enough to disqualify this man's statement from serious consideration. Moreover, what about the actual substance of his current claim. Is it defensible?

    Being a bulletin board for any anti-government statement that some random person throws out, including statements which are plainly demagogic and uninformed, is not raising the tone of public discourse, Aaron. Will it even really help the Liberals get elected?

    I'll tell you what, Aaron: if you're really committed to raising the tone of political debate in this country, why don't you start of a discussion of the actual history of the relationship between politics and academics in this country? And obviously, that couldn't be a discussion of the "McCarthy period" since, as I noted previously, the main anti-communism which effected Canadian academics was prior to the actual "McCarthy period", which happened in another country.

    • Your comment assumes that Aaron is "really committed to raising the tone of political debate in this country". A quick glance at the last few dozen blog posts shows that this might be an unwarranted assumption.

    • The main anti-communism which effected Canadian academics was prior to the actual "McCarthy period"…

      Actually, U.S. anti-communist witch-hunts had fairly serious spill-over effects in Canada, upon academia as well as on other sectors. You may want to look into the Herbert Norman affair in that regard.

      • Your reply is irrelevant. First, you write:

        "U.S. anti-communist witch-hunts had fairly serious spill-over effects in Canada"
        But by post actually presupposes that fact. You're not contradicting me here. Then you write:

        "You may want to look into the Herbert Norman affair in that regard"
        Norman as not an academic, he was a diplomat. Evidently, you're not familiar with the history of anti-communism in Canadian academia, or you would have cited something relevant to academics.

        • Your obsession over Turk's McCarthy reference has clearly deprived you of a substantial portion of your capacity for rational thought. The term "McCarthyism" is conventionally used (sloppily, perhaps) to refer to the North American anti-Communist hysteria of the late-'40's to late- '50's. "McCarthyism" has no literal application to Canada, but neither does "Victorian", which yet neatly defines an era, even for Americans.

          While "Reds" were indeed baited in Canadian academia before McCarthy, they were in the U.S. as well, from at least the time of the Wilsonian "Red Scare" era. Turk's phrase was meant merely as a short-hand, and your quibbling on this whole point is just so much juvenile misdirection.

          • There is no way for you to know what Turk actually meant. You're plainly imagining things. However, there is every reason to hold him to an exacting historical standard, since he is claiming to speak as an academic. Similarly, "Victorian" does not neatly define an American era, nor a Chinese era. It was British. Anyway, if you're going to make claims about "not since X" has there been such a case of Y, its reasonable to expect that an academic quoted by a journalist would actually know what X was.

          • Incidentally, in your attempt to read thoughts into Turk's head, you claim that he spoke of "McCarthyism" – in fact, he referred to the "McCarthy period", i.e., a temporal historical event.

          • …you claim that he spoke of "McCarthyism" – in fact, he referred to the "McCarthy period"…

            Right, because "McCarthyism" and the "McCarthy period" are totally unrelated.

            And with that, you've just made your most persuasive point, my friend. Sadly, the point is that you're incapable of lucidity.

            Please, just take my advice and read some more–for your own sake. You'll thank me some day.

          • "Right, because "McCarthyism" and the "McCarthy period" are totally unrelated.""

            Of course they're not unrelated. But they are certainly distinct. "McCarthy period" refers to a temporal historical era. "McCarthyism" does not. For instance, today there people who dress up in medieval costumes at large public gatherings. They are taking on characteristic traits of medieval times, but they are not part of the "medieval period". Regardless, I never claimed that McCathyism and the "McCarthy period" were simply unrelated, I just logically presupposed that they are distinct. This is one of several instances where you respond to something which I didn't actually write, which makes it still more ironic that you conclude by writing:

            "Please, just take my advice and read some more–for your own sake. You'll thank me some day."
            Dude, I've cited six scholarly sources refuting you, and you haven't even been able to respond to one of them. And you haven't cited a single book of any kind either yourself. Not even an Archie comic. Look, its clear that you've never been near a university, or you'd find citing scholarly sources, and responding to them, a lot easier than making the nonsensical claim that someone who is actually citing academic material has never read anything. Try and think about how this looks: you constantly accuse me of not reading – meanwhile, I'm the only one who can actually cite any books. Faced with that, instead of citing anything yourself, you spew on more nonsensical idiocy about how I've supposedly never read anything.

          • Not even an Archie comic.

            Funny enough, an Archie comic has more substance than comments from the good Sir Francis. Don't insult Archie.

        • Norman as[sic] not an academic, he was a diplomat.

          Can you not read? I said anti-communism had "spill-over effects in Canada, upon academia as well as on other sectors".

          Moreover, Hebert Norman was an academic; he was a Harvard-trained Orientalist before he joined External Affairs, and it was precisely his pro-Communist activities while in graduate school that led to his persecution. You would have known this had you paid more attention to the Wiki entry to which you doubtless ran after having been introduced to Norman's existence.

          • None of this is relevant. Norman was not an academic at the time that he was involved in the controversy. The fact that his student activities may have played a role in it does not show that anti-communism increased in any way IN ACADEMIA at that time. He was not then an academic, nor was he at any other time. The late 1950s were simply not a time of intense academic anti-communism – as I said, not many years after that, it was possible for Soviet sympathizers to become powerful academics at top Canadian universities.

  24. Incidentally, the main threat to academic freedom in Canadian universities today is on the Left, as proven by Martha Jackman's suggestion that pro-life groups, and anyone else that feminists don't like, be banned from campuses, or from the suggestion by other feminists that academics publishing criticisms of the native reserve system be "censured", etc. I've never seen Wheery post about any of that – but hey, if it doesn't help Iggy, why post it?

  25. "this kind of political interference to curry favour with a group of voters is unprecedented in Canada and blow to academic freedom."

    You're not free. You're subsidized by politicians. The only reason why they're subsidizing you is for political purposes. Government is run by politicians and politicians play politics. Shocking, I know.

    But you drank the free beer, the king's coin was in the bottom of the tankard, now salute the flag and get on the king's ship, ye lubber.

    And if you think YOU'RE not free, just think of the poor saps whose paycheques were robbed so that you could get paid. That's what I call political interference. Or slavery. Whatever.

  26. Its also worth highlighting the point that someone else made above: the article which Aaron is excerpting includes other academics who are sympathetic to Goodyear's position. But for Aaron, that's wasn't enough to make the cut – what was worth posting was a nonsensical quote about "since the McCarthy period" (nonsensical because, as I explained previously, anti-communism in Canadian universities had an impact primarily before the "McCarthy period", which was – as you might have heard – in the United States; by the time of the "McCarthy period" in the U.S., anti-communism in Canadian universities had died down.)

  27. Summing up the questions about this post:

    (1) Why does Aaron think its necessary to only quote the anti-government academics in the article?

    (2) How are we supposed to improve debate about Canadian politics by referring to something which never existed in Canada (the McCarthy period), and which makes no reference to the analogous events which actually did occur in this country (anti-communism which affected Canadian academic prior to the McCarthy period IN THE UNITED STATES)?

    (3) How is Turk's claim about the current scene substantively justified – and why is it so self-evident that the views of academics who disagree need to be excised from the discussion?

    (4) By portraying this article only in terms of academics who oppose the government (and on plainly nonsensical grounds, no less), is Aaron actually doing what he uncritically quotes Turk as accusing the government of: narrowing the field of academic debate? Well, at least I'm not calling it "unlike anything since the McCarthy period" – what with the McCarthy period being from a different country with a different history and all.

    • And the Vietnam War had no impact on Canada, right?

      • What is that supposed to mean? I never said anything about Vietnam. And I certainly didn't deny that U.S. anti-communism had an effect on Canada either – actually, my posts presupposed that it did. I simply pointed out that in academia, anti-communism effected academics negatively primarily prior to the McCarthy period in the U.S. By the time of the McCarthy period in the U.S., anti-communism in Canadian universities was already in the process of abating – indeed, a while after that, Soviet sympathizers became quite influential within Canadian universities (that was closer to the time of the Vietnam War, actually).

  28. Jim Turk? Wasn't it his union that shut down York U for the best part of last year? Not exactly the poster boy for "academic freedom".

  29. Even Wherry`s fans are beginning to see his increasingly ludicrous posts are hurting the Liberal cause more then helping.

  30. From the university website – "The conference seeks to systematically measure models based on two states or a single binational state, federal and con-federal approaches, and other models in between and beyond."

    Note the words, Mr. Goodyear doesn't seem to have, the web address is http://www.yorku.ca/ipconf/

  31. Again you're responding to something I didn't write. I didn't write about Western history in general. Wars between the Arab world and the Western world are a completely different phenomenon.

    • You said anti-Semitism has targeted only Jews, which is patent ahistorical nonsense.

      • As with your attempt to use the story of Norman Herbert to prove something about academic history (when he wasn't even an academic!), your use of history here is characteristically confused. "Anti-semitism" has indeed historically targeted only Jews, because it was invented with specific reference to Jews. It does not involve, e.g., the Crusades, because the concept of anti-semitism wasn't even in existence at that time. It was invented in the mid-19th century (there is no recorded use of the term prior at all prior to that time), and was used synonymously with anti-Judaism, because it referred to specific groups and individuals who targeted Jews specifically. Later, the anti-semitic theories which were invented in Europe were popularized in the Arab world – the fact that they are technically also semites was not an obstacle to that, because it was all directed at Jews.

        • If you seriously think anti-Semitism was "invented" in the 19th-Century, we've nothing more to discuss. If you read more books, you'll post fewer vapid comments on the Internet. Editing them and using a spell-checker would also be a welcome courtesy.

          Your ramblings about Norman are equally pitiable. See the relevant thread for my response to your ignorance on that score.

          • Look:

            its clear from reading your posts that you're not an academic, from which it follows that you don't know what academic standards are, and are unable to perform simply academic tasks: so, you're under the impression that the etymology of words is irrelevant, you don't understand why "SSHRC conference" isn't an operable term, you think having heard of Norman is a great achievement, etc. I would only add that the sentence "your ramblings about Norman are equally pitiable" is itself "pitable" insofar as I never wrote more than a few words about him in the first place, simply pointing out the obvious fact that he wasn't an academic, and so its nonsensical to cite his case as evidence of anti-communism in academica. If you want to make claims about the climate of Canadian academia in the late 1950s, cite examples of academics. Simple.

          • Incidentally, besides the fact that Norman wasn't an academic, interested readers might want to know that his suicide actually strengthened then-growing anti-AMERICAN sentiment in Canada. Anti-communism was already out of fashion. Norman's suicide simply supported that trend. And since Sir_Francis is under the odd impression that the only place to learn about this is wikipedia, and that that's somehow bad, well, you could look it up in one of those books which (in the fashion of a man experienced in scholarly debate!) he claims I haven't read: e.g., Bothwell, et al, "Canada since 1945", p. 129ff; Higott, et al, "The Political Consequences of Anti-Americanism", p. 139, Bowen, "Innocence is not enough: the life and death of Herbert Norman", p. 325.

          • So cite a usage of the term prior to the 19th century.

          • I see. You are referring to the specific term and I mean the sentiment. As proof I would use the pogroms that were conducted against Jews throughout Europe, seemingly every Friday night, for about two thousand years, up until about sixty years ago.

            I certainly cannot cite a use of the term prior to the 19th century, so I will concede that you could very well be correct that the specific term was not used prior to then.

  32. Cite a single use of the term "anti-Semitism" prior to the 19th century.

    • Anti-Semitism is the belief in the inherent inferiority of Jews. The concept is ancient. The idea wasn't invented in the 19th Century, you fool. The term we now use to express the concept was (probably) coined in Germany in the mid-19th Century. You'll need to ask your parents for details concerning the difference between ideas and words.

      Really, instead of treating me to your childish petulance, you should be grateful to me for spending time on someone who deserves it so little.

      • Anyone here heard the story of the Wandering Jew. It is centuries-old.

        • As I said in my other post, anti-Semitism was developed in the 19th century, because it is related to the development of modern science.

          • This is not true, anti-semitism is as old as Christianity.

      • After several posts attacking me for saying that anti-semitism is hatred directed specifically at Jews, you now claim: "Anti-Semitism is the belief in the inherent inferiority of Jews". Thanks for conceding my point! However, the rest of your post is nonsensical. The concept was in fact invented in the 19th century. It was invented in the 19th century because anti-Semitism was a term constructed to refer to the belief in the purported scientific inferiority of Jews, and so it presupposed modern science.

        But look, you've spent a bunch of nonsenical posts accusing me not having read any books, not knowing the difference between ideas and words, calling me names and then calling me "childish", and making pointless statements about your own supposed authority. I'll tell you what: if you claim to know anything about academia, and if you claim to have been an academic, show that you can actually write like one: stop with ad hominen nonsense, name-calling over the internet, accusing people of not having read books, etc.. Say something sensible. Provice some citations for it – or, if you like, just engage the actual citations of scholarly works that I provided disproving your nonsensical claim that Norman proves something about the climate in Canadian academia in the the late 1950s when he wasn't even an academic, or in a university at that time.

  33. The late 1950s were simply not a time of intense academic anti-communism.

    Ever heard of Pierre Trudeau? Care to tell me why he was denied a university teaching post until 1961?

    Be so kind as to supply me with the names of three prominent openly communist Canadian professors who enjoyed tenure between 1950 and 1960.

    Similarly, "Victorian" does not neatly define an American era, nor a Chinese era. It was British.

    If you've really never seen the word "Victorian" used in an American context, you've simply not read enough, as I've mentioned above.

    • "Be so kind as to supply me with the names of three prominent openly communist Canadian professors who enjoyed tenure between 1950 and 1960."

      For someone who claims to have had academic training, you don't know how to read very well, do you? "McCarthyism" instead of "McCarthy period", and now you're asking me to tell you about "openly communist Canadian professors who enjoyed tenure between 1950 and 1960" when I in fact wrote that:

      "The late 1950s were simply not a time of intense academic anti-communism – as I said, not many years after that, it was possible for Soviet sympathizers to become powerful academics at top Canadian universities."

      In other words, when I wrote of "Soviet sympathizers", which is different from "openly Communist" in the sense of "member of the Communist party" (of which I don't there were very prominent examples, I was thinking of the early 1960s. So you're asking me to provide something which I in fact didn't claim.

      "If you've really never seen the word "Victorian" used in an American context, you've simply not read enough, as I've mentioned above."
      For someone who apparently thinks they've read a lot, you seem reluctant to cite actual, uh, books.

      • Not to mention that the whole premise of your question is misguided, as Canadian universities didn't have a completely uniform tenure policy until the 1960s. You know what? I read it in a book! Now, its your turn: I asked you to cite just one example of a claim which you made very stridently above. Try it.

    • Incidentally, if "Pierre Trudeau" is your idea of an academic, methinks you haven't heard (let alone read) of many, if any.

    • Anyway, look above! I've got six citations for ya! Now, instead of showing attempting to prove your academic credentials by claiming that I must never have read a book, why don't you cite just one back. Don't worry. Even a dumbass can do it.

  34. You need to read up on Hezbolah.

  35. How about some more citations, just for fun:

    Granatstein, "Yankee Go Home", p. 127
    Azzi, "Walter Gordon and the Rise of Canadian Nationalism", p. 166
    Glazov, "Canadian policy toward Khrushchev's Soviet Union", p. 74
    Bothwell, "Alliance and illusion: Canada and the world", p. 131

  36. And yes, Sir_Francis, I did just pull all of that from Wikipedia. You caught me. Because, you know, you're so special that no one except you has ever heard of Norman. So I MUST have gotten from Wikipedia, huh? Cause only a real scholar like yourself could know anything about that, right, kid? Anyway, since I've know provided five or six citations re:Norman, how about you cite just one use of the term "anti-Semitism" prior to the 19th century. Just one, kid. Just one.

    • I really enjoyed this masterful take-down of one of the many ignorant blowhards on these blogs.

      • I would have thought Egg Head would be your friend, sf, and now you're crowing about his humiliation at the hands of Sir Francis? Have a heart, baby.

      • Indeed. I've been masterfully taken down by someone who thinks that the European notion of Jewish inferiority was "invented" in the mid-1800's, that Canadian universities were communist-friendly in the 1950's, and that quoting from Wiki pages is a form of "scholarship". Meanwhile, nowhere within all that drivel was there the slightest attempt to contest or ever address the substance of my original comment on the Goodyear fiasco. Yeah, it was humbling.

        The only masterful thing about Egg Head is the brilliant way he demonstrates how tragically our education system has failed our children. For that failure, I apologise on society's behalf–to him and to you.

        • "I've been masterfully taken down by someone who thinks that the European notion of Jewish inferiority was "invented" in the mid-1800's"
          Of course I never claimed this this.

          "that Canadian universities were communist-friendly in the 1950's,"
          Nor did I make that claim.

          "and that quoting from Wiki pages is a form of "scholarship".
          Nor I did I even do that. Exactly the opposite, I provided specific references to six scholarly books. By, uh, reading them. You still haven't cited a single book. And you still seem to think that citing the example of a Canadian diplomat in the late 1950s proves something about the climate among Canadian academics in the late 1950s.

          Look: stop accusing other people of being unable to read, and instead, note that I've cited a book, look those books up, or just provide some citations of your own. Suggesting that other people can't read when you're unable to respond to scholarly citations or provide your own references to books of any kind ("Archie Meets Betty" would do) is just in bad form.

  37. OK, how about post-French Revolution Western civilization. You know, somewhere between Ancient Greece and the last 40 years. Satisfied?

    • Post-French Revolution makes more sense.

  38. No, I'm pretty sure I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to this

    FYI, I am pro choice but I respect the pro life argument and their right to peacefully demonstrate.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *