There are a number of reasons why this book interests me. First of all, the U.S. ventures in Afghanistan and Iraq have insured that the history of imperialism and colonialism, both nationally and globally, are never far from my mind these days. Second, I have a deep and longstanding interest in Reformational thought and its antecedents in Groen Van Prinsterer and Abraham Kuyper . Over the years I have learned much more about these two giants as theologians and political theorists but hardly anything at all about their role as politicians. After reading Max Havelaar I was eager to find out what the ARP and Kuyper had said about Dutch colonialism and what Kuyper’s colonial policies were during his years as prime minister (1901-1905). Following that trail has led me into some very interesting discoveries about the Cultivation System in Indonesia (the IMF and the World Bank learned their lessons well from this system), the enunciation of the ARP’s colonial policy of ethical trusteeship in Ons Program (1879), Kuyper’s domestic policies, Dutch colonial practices down to WWI, the role of the heroin trade in Indonesia, and the role of Max Havelaar in challenging colonialism in other parts of the world (e.g. Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness and E. D. Morel’s exposure of King Leopold’s brutal empire in the Congo Free State) and serving as an inspiration for the Indonesian independence movement following WWII. I have discovered that there is a great deal of secondary material on these topics that even English readers can profit from.

I look forward to some of my Dutch readers filling in some blanks in my understanding of these topics from their familiarity with sources in Dutch. I would also welcome learning how Max Havelaar has been and is currently read in Indonesia from my Indonesian readers.

If you are at all interested in any of these topics, I commend Max Havelaar to you.

The Heritage of the Great War In addition to the stunning photographs, both b/w and color, this site has some outstanding political cartoons by the Dutch graphic artist, Albert Hahn, who attacked the ravages of WWI with his stileto pen. You will have to search for “Albert Hahn” in the search box to find them.

World War One Color Photos The French army used the newly invented color photography process of the Lumiere brothers for these brilliant photos.

My interest in the photographic history of WWI was piqued by the purchase of a scarce two-volume set of photogravure etchings that the New York Times photographers took for the NYT during 1916. That’s another advantage of being a bookseller. Since the U.S. was still neutral in 1916, the photographers had access to both sides of the conflict. The results are outstanding. To date I have not seen any of these photographs reprinted.

It never occurred to me that my intense sensitivity was due to the toxic chemicals in our laundry detergents and softeners. After all, women, not men, have sensitive skin, right? Wrong! Finally, this past fall out of sheer frustration I started doing some more digging and discovered that many people are sensitive to the chemicals in those products — even men. Since I do the laundry in our house, I threw out the softeners we had been using and substituted good old vinegar, a natural softener. That helped, but only a little. That seemed to confirm my wife’s suspicion that my reaction to the sheets and clothes was all in my head. After all, she didn’t have any reaction to the sheets, so . . . . Finally, I dumped the detergent we had been using and substituted Arm & Hammer Essentials, which has eliminated all of the toxic chemicals that still remain in its regular detergent. I also add a little Borax to boost cleaning power.

Voila! Thus far, my skin and head are pleased with the change. I am gradually washing all of the sheets and my cotton clothes. (Evidently, the toxic chemicals do not cling as easily to the synthetic fibers of my shirts so they have not been as severe a problem.) I am still leery of trying on any new clothes for fear of battling headaches, but so far my experiment in eliminating these toxic chemicals from my home environment is working. If you or anyone in your family, has any of my symptoms, throw out your detergents and softeners and substitute toxic-free alternative cleaners. Better yet, throw them out whether there are any complaints in your family or not.

Of course, this is just one tiny corner of an immense problem we face with the presence of tons of toxic chemicals that lace our high-tech environment.

We retain a glimmer of the old meaning of opinion as judgment when courts deliver their ‘opinions.’ Unfortunately, the meaning of ‘opinion’ has degenerated to the level of visceral or gut reaction, an emotional response, how someone ‘feels’ about something. As we have all learned in our therapeutic society, “all feelings are valid.” (But even that is a claim that should be debated.) No one has the right to challenge another person’s feelings, so we are told, especially since they are ‘sincerely’ held. But when we share feelings, we are merely reporting to others about what is going on internally; we are not engaging in any meaningful exchange of ideas. In such a situation discussing contested perspectives based on a close reading of the text becomes a therapy session in which everyone is encouraged to share their ‘feelings’ about the text, but no one learns what the author intended in the text.

Students fail to see that all rational discussion about any subject in such a situation screeches to a halt. Why? Rational discussion requires that people share ideas whose truth, validity, consequences, or implications can be disputed, refuted, or supported. Discussion, as opposed to therapy sessions, requires that all of the participants make claims and counter-claims about an objective reality; it cannot exist where statements are simply mirrors of inner feelings.

Perhaps a story will illustrate this point. Years ago, I had a student who was deeply involved in the work of Amnesty International. Over coffee one day he told me how strongly he felt about the evils of being imprisoned for one’s political beliefs and asked how I felt about it. I said I had no feelings one way or the other. I than asked him why I should be as incensed about political prisoners as he was. He could only repeat and ratchet up his strong feelings about it and urge me to share those feelings. I made it clear to him that the strength of his feelings about political prisoners could not be the basis of my beliefs about political prisoners. The only way that I could be persuaded to care about their plight was by his appeal to a standard of justice that existed independently of his feelings, one that I also accepted. Once we got to that point we had a meaningful discussion of the appropriate standards of justice that ought to be invoked in dealing with human rights abuses. Hopefully, he walked away from our discussion with a clearer understanding of the difference between ‘feeling’ that being jailed for one’s political beliefs is unjust and ‘claiming’ that being jailed violates a central norm of human dignity.

Students — and the society that has taught them — also need to understand that when they claim that “everyone is entitled to their opinion” that they are making a claim that must be supported by some standard of equity or justice. On what grounds, for what reasons, are all opinions entitled to be held? Surely people who utter this phrase are not simply reporting their inner feelings. If that were the case, we could respond with: “hmmm, it’s interesting that you feel that way. I don’t.” End of discussion.

We only have to turn to the hostilities of talk radio and bullying tv shows to see the logical consequences of substituting feelings for thoughts. The ‘force’ of an argument has been replaced by the ‘force’ of insult, put-down, sarcasm, and violence. Reasoned argument ceases. This post does not have the space to follow up the myriad of ways in which abandoning sound argument and rational discussion has worked its way into our society.

I frequently ask my students what they would think of a prosecutor who scowled at the defendant in front of her and said, “you know, you disgust me. I feel that you should be locked up for life without possibility of parole.” Fortunately, they still ‘feel’ that this would be unjust, but are not sure why. I explain that it is because we are not interested in the prosecutor’s ‘feelings.’ We are interested in the evidence she can marshal to persuade the jury that the defendant is guilty.

All of this to say that I tell my students that I am interested in their judgments, not their feelings or opinions, about their readings, judgments that can be supported by appeal to clear evidence, examples, and illustrations. When I give them a ‘C’ for their essay, I tell them that their grade is my judgment, not my opinion; it is based on carefully described criteria.

Classrooms are places for discussing judgments, not sharing feelings.

This past Monday Charlie Rose interviewed Susan Hockfield, the president of MIT. Prior to going to MIT, she was a noted neuro-scientist at Yale with a special focus on the development of the brain. As Charlie probed how and why she had given up her love of the laboratory for the challenges of administration, you could see that her intense curiosity in the brain still burned strong. At one point toward the end of the interview Charlie asked her what ‘big’ question she most wanted an answer to. After a brief pause to gather her thoughts she mused:

“I would love to know — I would love to know — how the brain, given the relatively small number of genes in the human genome, how do they, time after time, person after person, elaborate an organ [that] is as complex as the brain with such fidelity.” And then with sheer amazement in her voice, “what — what are the rules? How does this work? The complexity far exceeds anything we can calculate based on anything we know about the human genome.”

Thinking he was clarifying her meaning, Charlie offered “. . . anything we can calculate with all of the computer power we have.”

Hockfield made it clear that this was not at all what she meant: “. . . well, we don’t even know what all of the variables are yet.”

Since this exchange took only a few minutes in an interview focused on her vision for MIT and higher education in the US, it is dangerous to read more into it than she would have time to defend. Nonetheless, I would be most intrigued to hear her elaborate her understanding of the source of the brain’s complexity. What physiological layers have yet to be unraveled that will reveal the ‘how’ of the brain’s fidelity to its program? If computers — even the supercomputers at MIT — lack even the appropriate metric or relevant algorithm for calculating the brain’s complexity, where else might researchers look for answers? But aren’t these precisely the areas in which her very own Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT (and similar departments across the world) is investing its millions of research dollars? Where else to search, indeed.

Moyers threw many of us a scare a few years ago when he retired as host of “Now” on PBS. Sorry, but David Brancaccio did (does) not have the gravitas to assume the mantel for Moyers. Fortunately, PBS invited Moyers back for yet another run with “Bill Moyers’ Journal.” It airs Fridays at 10 p.m. ET on PBS.

It doesn’t end there. If your doctor’s visit is anything like mine, you are ushered into the exam room where you wait for another long stretch of time. (and you wondered why they call us ‘patience’?) But no longer are you forced to endure the sterile white surroundings while you wait. No, the marketers of Mucinex and Ambien have outfitted the room with colorful desk pads for the doctor’s notes and tissues for the exam table. And, finally, at the counter to pay your bill you are greeted by a counter-top pad from Pfizer’s family of drugs.

What’s next? Just think of the possibilities . . . .doctors wearing sponsorship logos from the various drug companies and medical supply industries, just like NASCAR drivers. Perhaps medical office complexes selling naming rights to GlaxoSmithKline or Merck. Wouldn’t you like to be treated to revolving ads for Parke-Davis on digital signs in the waiting room just like at an NBA game?

The omnipresence of drug ads in the doctor’s office is incredibly tacky and insulting. But there are more serious reasons to be concerned about these ads. Are we to believe that the ubiquity of these drug logos has no influence on the prescriptions doctors write? Have no patients asked for a particular drug after seeing the ad and logo? We’re not talking about a simple quid pro quo. No, it’s not as simple as that. I believe the influence is far more subtle and disturbing.

Both my wife and I have become cynical about the ease with which our doctor reaches for his prescription pad — or offer a free sample — in response to virtually any medical difficulty we are having. He’s a pill pusher. And where does he get his information about the effectiveness of the drugs he prescribes? From the peer-reviewed research in medical journals? Hardly. (and who pays for that research anyway?) If the studies that have been done on this are anywhere close to accurate, doctors receive the majority of their information from the drug reps who ply them with free lunches, seminars in exotic places, and bundles of throw-away stuff.

Even if the doctors protest that the freebies make no difference in their prescriptions, surely the drug companies would not continue pouring billions of dollars into this strategy if they did not see a huge pay-off in the bottom line. Who is in the best position to know whether the strategy is working? Are the doctors so blinded by the drug company gifts that they fail to see the intimate relationship between their pile of freebies and the dramatic rise in drug prices? And we haven’t even gotten into the junkets that drug companies invite doctors on explain the benefits of their drugs.

That’s the theory. Of course, reality rarely conforms to the theory. But no matter, with such a deep ideological commitment to the virtues of consuming, all other avenues of exit for restoring health to the economy are closed off. Deep down the politicians know that it is unlikely that buying more stuff at Best Buy will ‘stimulate’ the economy. As even the Wall Street Journal has noted, the only thing this ‘stimulus’ package is hoped to stimulate is the political fortunes of representatives and senators who voted for it.

Of course, what the President and Congress haven’t told us is how they will pay for their generosity. Where do they intend to get 160 billion dollars to fund these ‘generous’ checks? When I have asked my students, they seem to believe that this is ‘free’ money that is gathering dust in the bank or, more cynically, that they will just print more money. Neither view is accurate. We know that the treasury, in fact, has been running a serious deficit measured in the trillions of dollars (can any of us wrap our minds around how much money a TRILLION dollars is??). So, if you think the government is going to send you some of ‘your’ money, think again.

To make up that short-fall, the government must borrow money, like citizens who buy treasury bonds and other debt instruments. Increasingly, however, the government (and now the corporate world) has relied on foreign governments and corporations who are flush with cash (think petro-dollars and cheap consumer products) and looking for investment opportunities in the U.S. economy to buy our debt. These national governments will be standing in line to bid on the 160 billion dollar debt that the congress will incur when it starts sending out their ‘generous’ checks to you.

Just as Visa doesn’t lend you money for ‘free,’ neither do other nations lend the U.S. money for ‘free.’ They will expect a safe, secure, and competitive return on what they see as their investment (but becomes our debt). Already the federal budget has to set aside roughly 20% of its revenue to pay for the interest on what it has borrowed already. That’s like an individual paying the minimum each month on their Visa bill while continuing to spend more each month. We know where that leads in personal finances.

Even if the government were to get a special deal of 0% on a transfer balance to another sovereign market fund during the life of the debt, there would still be an enormous debt burden. Does your calculator display enough zeros to show how much a simple annual interest rate of just 3% would be on 160 billion dollars for 10 years? How many decades into the future will you and future generations have to work in a productive economy to pay for these tax rebate checks? Can you say ‘shell-game’ or ‘ponzi scheme’?

In light of this glaringly irresponsible ‘stimulus’ package, I intend to rebel against the consumer mantra of spend, spend, spend. How morally responsible is it for me to ask my granddaughter to pay much higher taxes in the future so that I can enjoy lower taxes and a shopping spree today? On how many generations down the line can we off-load our debts? When the bill for this ‘generous’ loan comes due, taxes will have to be raised or serious spending cuts will be required. There is no way around it: congress is committing future generations to pay for its ‘generosity’ to my generation. My children and their children’s children will be forced to pay for the government’s borrowed funds today. (We are already asking them to pay for the off-budget Pentagon spending for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.) So, the least I can do for my heirs is to invest my check in a treasury bond for them so that they have a little cash to defray the tax expense they will have. You should do the same.

. . . another option is donating your check to a worthy charity.

A couple is on vacation when their GPS system breaks down. Thankfully, they were just watching an old movie on their cell phone that showed someone pulling into a gas station to ask for directions. There was a station across the street. They walked up to the counter and asked the owner if he could beam over a map to their blackberry.

‘Excuse me? What are you looking for?’

“Well, we are trying to get to Los Angeles.”

The owner pulls out a paper map and begins to point the way, describing landmarks to look for on the way. “Oh, and there’s a great pie shop right at this junction. And don’t stop at the service station down the road from there. He dilutes his gas.”

The owner looks up at the couple who are thouroughly confused. He describes the whole route again to them, but they still look lost. “Do you want to write it down?” He hands them a pen and paper. But they now seem even more distraught.

“Here. Just take my map.”

“Hmmmm, I used to know how to read maps, but that was back in 5th grade.”

“Well what happened?”

He holds up his broken blackberry.

“Can you call us a taxi??”

Another eloquent statement about this condition came from the prolific pen of Rev. Samuel Miller, the Presbyterian pastor and scholar, who wrote the ambitious and still authoritative,A Brief Retrospect of the Eighteenth Century, (1803). If you can imagine it, Miller’s inspiration for this survey came from a sermon he had preached at the end of the century that summed up the achievements of the 18th century. (How many pastors do you know who would or could sermonize on the full array of intellectual and cultural high-points of the past century?) His intended 4 vol. retrospect had to be pared down to 2 vols. in the press of his duties. Miller would go on to be a founding faculty member of Princeton Seminary. In the last chapter of the second volume, he sums up his observations. Among those of most interest on printing and books:

The last century is pre-eminently entitled to the character of THE AGE OF PRINTING. It is generally known, that this art is but little more than three centuries old. Among the ancients, the difficulty and expense of multiplying copies of works of reputation were so great, that few made the attempt; and the author who wished to submit his compositions to the public, was under the necessity of reciting them at some favourable meeting of the people. The disadvantages attending this state of things were many and great. It repressed and discouraged talents, and rendered the number of readers extremely small. The invention of printing gave a new aspect to literature, and formed one of the most important eras in the history of human affairs. It not only increased the number, and reduced the price of books, but it also furnished the authors with the means of laying the fruits of their labours before the public, in the most prompt and extensive manner. considering this art, moreover, as a great moral and political engine, by which an impression may be made on a large portion of a community at the same time, it assumes a degree of importance highly interesting to the philanthropist, as well as to the scholar. . . .

This unprecedented and wonderful multiplication of books, while it has rendered the means of information more easy of access, and more popular, has also served to perplex the mind of the student, to divide his attention, and to distract his powers. Where there are so many books, there will be less deep, original, and patient thinking; and each work will be studied with less attention and care. It may further be observed, that the abridgement, compilations, epitomes, synopses, and selections which are daily pouring from the press in countless numbers, and which make so large a part of modern publications, have a tendency to divert the mind from the treasures of ancient knowledge, and from the volumes of original authors. Thus, the multiplicity of new publications, while they would seem at first view, highly favourable to the acquisition of learning, are found, as will be afterwards more fully shown, hostile to deep and sound erudition. . . We can only imagine his groaning and lamenting at the profusion of words and dearth of intellectual depth that has been aided and abetted by the internet and . . . blogs. For goodness sake, stop reading my blog and get back to some ‘ancient’ author who can dispense ‘sound erudition.’

Second, a student in my “Technology and Society” class this semester wrote a term paper on the expensive computer-based “Success for All” reading program that her school district recently purchased. They spent $175,000 for the initial program. That was just the beginning. The board soon discovered the undisclosed and hidden costs of buying the reading books for each grade level and the trade books required for the lesson plans. Costs to implement other parts of the program have continued to climb. There have been numerous additional cascading unanticipated costs and consequences of purchasing this program. Of course, such an expensive system required an extensive restructuring of the entire school, curriculum, and teachers to insure “success for all.” To date, the program has only managed to raise reading scores minimally across the district.

“Success for All” is only one of many such programs that got in line for the billion dollars that Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” ladled out to school districts to raise reading scores. The qualifying programs were supposed to be rooted in rigorous scientific research that had proven to be effective. I have good news: an effective, rigorous reading program was demonstrated over 350 years ago!

One of the many delights of being an historian and a bookseller is that I often come across old books that still speak to our present concerns. I recently acquired a facsimile copy of Charles Hoole’s A New Discovery of the Old Arte of Teaching Schoole that he wrote in 1660. Hoole, Samuel Hartlib and John Comenius, were pioneers in reforming education in England during the mid-17th century. Hoole’s writings on teaching in petty schools, grammar schools, and Latin schools were widely praised and followed. A petty school taught young boys, beginning as early as four or five, to read, write, and ‘cast accounts.’ Having mastered those skills, they were then ready for grammar school. Hoole believed that children as young as 3 “had great propensity to peep into a book, and then is the most seasonable time . . . for him to begin to learn; . . . though perhaps then he cannot speak so very distinctly . . . .”

Perhaps Hoole has something important to teach us about the simple art of teaching young children to read — if we have ears to listen. No expensive computers, gimmicks, or other bells-and-whistles; just plain, sane, tried-and-true methods that were successfully employed all across England. Literacy rates were exceptionally high throughout England in the 17th century. Similar methods were employed in New England schools in the 17th c.

Hoole’s chapter headings: Chap. I: How a childe may be helped in the first pronunciation of his Letters; Chap. II: How a childe may be taught with delight to know all his letters in a very little time; Chap. III: How to teach a childe to spell distinctly; Chap. IV: How a child may be taught to read any English Book perfectly; Chap. V: Wherein children, when the Latine tongue is thought to be unnecessary, are to be employed after they can read English well. I have scanned the first 28 pages of the text to give you a feel for the simplicity and wisdom of his plan.

It will take you minutes to read through and master his method. After doing so, tell me again why a school district needs to spend over a quarter million dollars for a program that fails to deliver on its promises to dramatically improve reading? How ignorant have we become of the successful educational methods of our ancestors that we believe we have to invent new ones over and over and . . . .? Charles Hoole promised to teach all manner of young children to read well, using nothing more sophisticated than cards, blocks, and other small toys. He actually delivered ‘success for all’ of the thousands of pupils who were taught with his method — 350 years ago.

Given the expense and difficulty of teaching children to read, it is a wonder that I — and millions of other children — learned to read quite well in the 1950s with only Dick and Jane books and the prodding of Mrs. Olson, my first-grade teacher. What did Hoole and Mrs. Olson know that modern reading teachers do not?

This semester was the most remarkable in the large number of women who got A’s from me. In one class of 20 online students, I had 5 women who got A’s and no men; the highest man got a B+. In another class of 50 classroom students, I had 2 women who scored an A- and 3 who scored an A; there was one man who got an A. In a third class of 30 students I had 3 women who came away with A’s and one man. This is a trend that has been building over many semesters.

One large contributing factor, it seems from my experience, is the comparatively large number of women in mid-life who are beginning college or returning to finish a degree that was interrupted by raising a family. These women are highly intelligent and extremely motivated. I can point to only a few men over that same time span who were as bright and motivated. If you are a professor, what is your experience with gender differences in academic achievement? If you are a male or female university student, what has been your experience with gender differences in academic performance? The sociologists out there can offer their hypotheses, guesses, or research data to explain this trend.

Check out this related article in the NYT on “Giving Disorganized Boys the Tools for Success.”