be me

The best part is if you do a quick search on 'liberal bias’ in academia, you get bombarded with zealous rebuttals; the whole thing is treated as a myth at best, and a right-wing construct to discredit institutions at worst.

I've been studying History for the last six years across three different Universities and, although you should never take personal experience to be sacrosanct, I have never come across anything even approaching a conservative voice in all that time.

I even conducted an experiment during one of my seminars last year.

The topic was the 1968 New Left and, naturally, we had been set a reading list that was unashamedly designed to shepherd you into the conclusion that the events of 1968 were inspiring, ideologically motivated, and above all, unjustly quashed by a bigoted and reactionary conservative counter-revolution. Throughout the seminar I would make points that I knew the Professor would agree with (i.e. the experience of 1968 would later pave the way for the 1989 revolutions) and then go out of my way to make points that were not on the list and I knew she would disagree with (i.e. Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech was very well received at the time and captured the mood of the nation). What is notable is that she would simply nod her head at the points I knew she agreed with, but would actively engage me over the dissenting stuff, usually taking on a patronising tone while doing so.

The point should be clear that it is her job to engage with the criticisms of every position as often as possible in these two-hour discussions, but instead it seems more about portraying events in an objectivist manner. Interspersed throughout this mollycoddling were snide and unnecessary remarks aimed at the right: "Ugh... Nixon", "I still to this day don't understand how an idiot like de Gaulle won that election", "The white guys just couldn't let THAT slide..." etc.

Funny. I took two units in history to fill my timetable and they were by far my favourite class. The closest thing to OP that I got was two girls who did a presentation on something about family and gender throughout history and they insisted there was no word for a man whose wife has died. Apparently widower isn't a thing, according to them.

Professor was really cool, had some great discussions with him and kicked ass in the subject. Almost made me want to go back and do a degree in history just for fun.

Fuck yeah, Aussie uni, cunts.

There are people at my university who still think the history professors are conservative. Granted, these people are not history majors, but for some reason there is this idea that historians are and always have been racist white men who try and put down minorities or something.

this was history for me in high school sadly

Before I got my GED, I took a semester of high school history in the USA (I'm not from the States). The teacher was actually okay; for example, he explained how Africans mostly sold other Africans into slavery, rather than being captured/kidnapped in European raids or some other form of slave gathering. He also touched on slavery outside the Atlantic slave trade. That bit of history is no doubt banned from academia now, though.

>apparently not realizing that without objective morality nothing can be truly unjust

Yeah, but there is no objective morality regardless of whatever lies you want to believe. The best you can do is try to come up with the most rational possible moral system to make sure everything doesn't go to shit. The golden rule has always been a good example. You wouldn't want to be enslaved so don't enslave others. It's not perfect obviously, but it's a lot better than relying on what a bunch of violent bronze age goat fuckers insist is right or wrong because they say so.

Most of the other shit though, I sympathise with. As long as you're not just exaggerating to get your point across. Sounds like all your professors were cloned from pic related and marched out to vomit their white guilt all over their unsuspecting history students.

>regardless of whatever lies you want to believe
All formulations of men are lies in that we don't directly perceive truth and are unable to make objective absolute statements. When people talk about objective morality what they mean is consistent morality: picking which set of lies you want to believe and sticking with them your whole life.

I actually ran into much less of this than I expected; most of the class was just papers and a few discussions. The papers were generally just assimilating two or more primary sources while coming up with a thesis that deals with a particular topic. Or more general research papers in which we found our own sources

No actually, in my experience, people who say objective morality mean it very, very literally. It's usually done as part of some convoluted argument for the 'need' for organised religion. As if one made up moral system is superior to another just because it's been around for a very long time and lots of very gullible people get very butthurt when you question it.

If you wanna go by your definition of objective morality as being consistent morality, then OP didn't exactly give us much information to go on regarding the consitency of his SJW professors moral beliefs. I mean, if they're as bad as they sound, they're probably not all that consistent, but then again, who is?

I wasn't a great believer in this kind of stuff until I started my Master's a week ago

Literally every single reading for my historiography class is about how postmodern theoretical frameworks of history are the only correct way to study history, and that no credible historians believe that history should be conducted in the pursuit of information.

I've been obsessed with history since I was 5 but I'm considering dropping out for sure. I'll wait until my first assignment and see if I get failed for going against the postmodern grain.

...

Why would you expect intellectual or logical rigor from religious dupes?

While I wouldnt describe the history department as some bastion of conservatism, Ive really only encountered blatant political shilling in one history course, and Im not surprised considering it was about modern American history.

God forbid you'd hear a differing idea and an opposing view point to your own at a place of higher learning.
Ftfy

>Doesn't believe in ethical realism
>Therefore must believe that killing a baby can be considered morally okay
You're a fucking idiot, it's no wonder your kind is basically nonexistent in academia.

an excuse

t. retard

nice argument

>one of my very first classes involved a textbook arguing that the greeks didn't invent democracy because the Mesopotamians had bureaucratic committees
Nothing wrong with that. Greeks aren't even white so you don't have to feel like your flimsy identity is being threatened.
>apparently not realizing that without objective morality nothing can be truly unjust
How can you accuse them of not believing in objective morality right after complaining about their moralizing attitude towards slavery, sexism, racism, etc.?
>the crusades are treated as something Christians just inexplicably did in a vacuum and a precursor to the age of imperialism
I actually doubt that but if it's true I think the fault is on you for choosing a bad college.

I've done a few history courses at uni, and at a couple times there has been obvious liberal bias (it's always there as an undercurrent of course), but over all it's been fairly bearable. Maybe it's different at my uni. Most history professors I've had seem to genuinely want disagreement and debate.

I study philosophy too, and the most annoying class was an Ethics course, in which the lecturer couldn't resist signalling against conservative moral positions.

Which uni are you at m8?

>mfw in trade school
>wanted earn a living and then work on a History PhD on the side
>mfw it may be too late to save history in academia

Is what I want to do even feasible?

What do you mean by "save" it? Do you mean pull it from the grasps of liberals so that you can put your own conservative spin on it or do you mean attempt to depoliticize it entirely? The latter is basically impossible and the former will happen eventually anyways.

>the former will happen eventually anyways
I really don't see how its going to get pulled from the grasp of liberals anytime soon, especially considering trump just got elected.

not conservative spin, just no spin at all

They were not at all anything like that, read a fucking book.

>anytime soon
It's fashion like anything else. It goes in cycles. A generation pulls the opposite way to the one that came before it, after the Millenials the next generation are tradcons, and history (like everything else) will be pulled to the right.

I was a liberal arts major for about a semester before I got sick of it. What really activated my almonds was a book we had to read for class, Graceland by Chris Abani.

This book is about a Nigerian teenager in the 80s iirc. He wanted to make a career out of putting on makeup and dancing like Elvis.

I was put into a group and we had to make a slideshow presentation on a scholarly article/paper someone wrote. Ours was about how every time someone in the book was shitting it was a reflection on the Nigerian govt.

After that semester I changed to a business major and never had to learn useless shit again.

College is nearly pointless. There is so much fucking opportunity out there without a degree, you'd have to be a pretty dim person to get stuck in poverty or a dead end job. Having a degree will help you land a job in some cases so its not totally worthless. If you can deal with the shit professors for 4 years and not end up in debt then I'd say defo go for it. It does have its fun moments. But if you're after money then you need only open your eyes to whats around you and you will get paid. Email me if you want to be a part of something great

Let he who is without spin cast the first stone

Nothing wrong with that.
> It's wrong.
>Greeks aren't even white so
This will be good.
>you don't have to feel like your flimsy identity is being threatened.
What a cute little non-argument.

The Turks invading the Byzantine Empire is the literal reason why the Byz Emperor called to the Pope for aid. This isn't even getting into all the Moorish piracy that was occurring, the Islamic slave trade that was carrying off Italians and Franks or the conquest of the Iberian Peninsula.

>I'll wait until my first assignment and see if I get failed for going against the postmodern grain.

Keep us posted, user.