So is this one of the reasons why the elites fear CRT and teaching about America's faults?

[DrBanneker]

I was reading this recent talk Henry Kissinger gave on his new book about leadership at the Council of Foreign Relations. Mostly to hear what his current read of the Ukraine situation is (basically Russia shot itself in the foot but a future state vision and de-escalation path are necessary). What is interesting in the Q&A where they asked him questions about leadership and while he did not say anything about CRT by name he did imply "education" was going to make it more difficult for America to exercise its international hegemony in the future. I basically wrote off the CRT scare to electioneering and dog whistles, and I still think it is primarily that, but behind the scenes is this what worries them?

One commenter laments that the American public is more concerned about domestic issues than pushing our weight abroad (which I would agree with) but obviously that is not completely consistent with maintaining a quasi-empire. I personally would like a global order where we don't have to play cop but if one wants that kind of order you would need to basically go back to the "American, fukk yea" teaching of history. I dunno, Kissinger is from Austria whose empire collapsed due to ethnic divisions after WWI so this partially colors his thinking perhaps.

Excerpts below

My question is, Dr. Kissinger, are there certain attributes that are more or less important for leaders depending on the context in which they are leading? So, for example, are some attributes more valuable in democracies for leaders versus leaders in authoritarian systems? If a country is developing versus developed? Or are the attributes of successful leaders basically the same, irrespective of the context? Thanks very much.

KISSINGER: The attributes change to come extent with the history of a society. But there is at a—a minimum condition for great achievement for a society is to believe in its purposes and its—and in its historical record. And if the educational system of a country becomes increasingly focused on the shortcomings of its history and less on the purposes of the society, then its capacity to act internationally will be diverted into its internal struggles. And if it’s internal struggles that make it difficult to take the essential measures for strategic thought, then the international system and the country’s security become impaired in a new way.

HAASS: Let’s get another question, Kayla, if we can.

OPERATOR: We’ll take the next question from Meena Bose.

Q: Thank you. This is Meena Bose from Hofstra University. Thank you, Dr. Kissinger, for your instructive discussion today.

I’m curious as to your studies about leadership and world strategy in the twentieth century, what they indicate about prospects for the U.S. role in the world in the coming decades. Particularly, I’m concerned about how the United States can exercise global leadership effectively as domestic and economic policy appear to be much higher priorities for the American public, and therefore constrain policymakers? Thank you.

KISSINGER: Well, I basically agree with the sense of that question, which in interpret whether the objective conditions within a society can become so controversial that the application of those legends cannot long—cannot be translated or translated only with increasing difficulties into its need to deal with other societies. I think that is a key question for our period.

o the adjustment of American thinking requires a new phase of creativity like the one we carried out in the aftermath of the Second World War. And the success of that policy to an important way, plus the emergence of reality in strength and impact of other countries—like China, but also like the emergence of India or Brazil—that this inclusion of societies that get influence in international affairs and of the means that they have at their disposal requires an educational system that produces leaders that can think in these qualities and has produced an interregnum in effective global leadership that’s not partisan, but partly cultural.

 

[NZA]

i suppose if you dont genocide all the undesirables in your country, eventually, you will have to find ways to placate them and even integrate them into your empire. a more woke new world order.

 

[get these nets]

Good post.

There is no longer a Cold War, or a bogeyman/rival superpower. In that era, American-ism was partly defined by what it was NOT. "We aren't pinko commies" might as well have defined what being an American was in some circles as much as the Flag, or the Constitution.

I think that AA leaders and academics have been publicly pushing for more accurate history curricula , at least since Woodson. His contemporaries and those who followed him and agitated for change were often conveniently dismissed by US leadership as being subversive (and backed by the commies). Being Un-american.

Communism and the USSR were a one size fits all scapegoat/eraser.

With the Cold War over, Americanism has come to be defined by the culture and history of this country. And with nothing to deflect from that, country has to come to terms with that history. Whether people want to or not.



I think the leadership class of American politics generally comes from the same places that it always has.
The Service Academies, and generally the same 20 selective universities. Kissinger was from Harvard, as is the current Sec. of State, for example.
So, I'm not sure that the elites are worried about how more accurate teaching of History will impact what leadership does. Moreso, whether that has an effect on what leadership can sell to the American public to support.

 

[Geek Nasty]

I dont agree here. Modern globalization is driven by the agreement the US Navy acts as the primary protector of global shipping. That had allowed most of the Western world to cut back on their militaries and focus on growth.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Is it shocking that one of the greatest American war criminals of the 20th century felt that teaching students to critique history might get in the way of his "American hegemony at all costs!" approach to foreign policy?


Let's remember, Kissinger:

1) Argued that America should use tactical nukes on the battlefield on a regular basis.
2) Went from calling Nixon "the most dangerous man running for president" to joining his campaign and then his Cabinet
3) Spent 6 years destroying Vietnam, a country he openly didn't give a shyt about, solely because he felt withdrawing would lower America's global image
4) Bombed Cambodia with more ordinance than any nation on Earth had ever been subjected to, approving the targeting of "anything that moves", killing hundreds of thousands of people and setting the stage for the Khmer Rouge
5) Supported Pakistan's attempt to commit genocide in Bangladesh and kicked out his own consul general who told him genocide was in the cards
6) Purposely avoided telling Nixon about the Yom Kipper War so that Nixon wouldn't interfere.
7) Helped bring Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet to power by supporting a military coup and the assassination of mulitple Pinochet opponents
8) Helped bring a military junta in Argentina to power even as they went on to kidnap and kill tens of thousands of leftists
9) Supported the Indonesian dictator Suharto's invasion and genocide in East Timor
10) Greenlighted Turkey's invasion of Cyprus


You could easily argue that he's responsible for millions of deaths across 4 continents. This man doesn't want people to think about morality and justice. He wants them to support American imperialism and hegemony over everyone else's human rights.


newyorker.com/news/news-desk/does-henry-kissinger-have-a-conscience

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

They don’t teach CRT in grade school. That was a lie that white people bought into because they have brains the size of a pea

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

Also, Henry Kissinger still being alive is proof there is no god and if there is one he hates all Of us

 

[mastermind]

Is it shocking that one of the greatest American war criminals of the 20th century felt that teaching students to critique history might get in the way of his "American hegemony at all costs!" approach to foreign policy?


Let's remember, Kissinger:

1) Argued that America should use tactical nukes on the battlefield on a regular basis.
2) Went from calling Nixon "the most dangerous man running for president" to joining his campaign and then his Cabinet
3) Spent 6 years destroying Vietnam, a country he opening didn't give a shyt about, solely because he felt withdrawing would lower America's global image
4) Bombed Cambodia with more ordinance than any nation on Earth had ever been subjected to, approving the targeting of "anything that moves", killing hundreds of thousands of people and setting the stage for the Khmer Rouge
5) Supported Pakistan's attempt to commit genocide in Bangladesh and kicked out his own consul general who told him genocide was in the cards
6) Purposely avoided telling Nixon about the Yom Kipper War so that Nixon wouldn't interfere.
7) Helped bring Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet to power by supporting a military coup and the assassination of mulitple Pinochet opponents
8) Helped bring a military junta in Argentina to power even as they went on to kidnap and kill tens of thousands of leftists
9) Supported the Indonesian dictator Suharto's invasion and genocide in East Timor
10) Greenlighted Turkey's invasion of Cyprus


You could easily argue that he's responsible for millions of deaths across 4 continents. This man doesn't want people to think about morality and justice. He wants them to support American imperialism and hegemony over everyone else's human rights.


newyorker.com/news/news-desk/does-henry-kissinger-have-a-conscience

whats dark is mainstream American foreign policy still follows this man's sociopathy.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

whats dark is mainstream American foreign policy still follows this man's sociopathy.

Obama gave him a Distiguished Public Service Award in 2016 and Hillary Clinton said she was proud to have him as a foreign policy advisor the same year.

 

[acri1]

Nah, CRT isn't even taught below the college level.

CRT hysteria is literally just racist dogwhistling and little else. What they really don't want taught in schools is black history.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Nah, CRT isn't even taught below the college level.

CRT hysteria is literally just racist dogwhistling and little else. What they really don't want taught in schools is black history.

And it's rarely taught there. Like I specifically sought out courses on racial issues when I was an undergrad and grad student both, and outside of having Faces at the Bottom of the Well as assigned reading for one class, I don't even remember CRT ever getting more than a passing reference.

 

[Gritsngravy]

Why does he think that would worsen americas leadership international, if anything actually coming to terms with history and telling the truth on what happened will make better citizens, better leaders, better foreign policies and a better country

 

[Gritsngravy]

Truth be told, sabotaging black talent was and will always be the downfall of America, not because history is taught differently

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Why does he think that would worsen americas leadership international, if anything actually coming to terms with history and telling the truth on what happened will make better citizens, better leaders, better foreign policies and a better country

Because he's worried that Americans might start caring about justice, human rights, equality, etc. and start focusing on their own problems rather than pushing the country forward in an all-consuming drive for world domination and power regardless of its impact on other people.

 

[DrBanneker]

Why does he think that would worsen americas leadership international, if anything actually coming to terms with history and telling the truth on what happened will make better citizens, better leaders, better foreign policies and a better country

Nah, they want you to bomb and shoot who the fukk ever and think we are the untouchable city on a hill. That slavery/lynching stuff didn't happen the way Negroes claim.