Daily the Tribune attorneys hammered at his intellectual capacity, knowledge of history and comprehension of world events. On the stand Ford described a "large mobile army" as "a large army mobilized," In response to the question: "What was the United States originally?" he replied: "Land, I guess." Asked to identify Benedict Arnold, he said that he was a writer. The American Revolution, he thought, had taken place in 1812...
The city slickers attack on Ford's IQ misfired, for the upbringing, education and values of the jurors were much like those of Ford. Ruling for Ford they awarded him six cents and court costs...Rural small town Americans, who bought two thirds of the Model T's, acclaimed the verdict. In the cities, Ford was laughed at...
The trial was a microcosm of the conflict between small-town and urban America, between fundamentalism and cosmopolitanism, between a return to insularity and internationalism, between nineteenth century and the twentieth century education. For the moment, the tide seemed to be running backward to the nineteenth century.
"The real United States lies outside the cities," Ford concluded....
The real America lies in those who think it's a symbol of authenticity that you don't know when the American revolution was.
7 comments:
In my experience history courses in higher education rarely test dates. They don't see that kind of rote memorization as important.
I wouldn't call it a symbol of "authenticity" (whatever that is), but I wouldn't jump at it as some sort of proof anyone's a "simpleton."
I didn't think the function of higher education was to make you forget all you were supposed to learn in elementary school, though. Dating the American Revolution to 1812 when you were born and educated in the United States, and were almost 13 when the centennial of the Declaration was celebrated (so, you know, maybe that event would have helped cement it in you memory...), is indicative of just plain not being interested in these things. My dad was educated entirely overseas and his work has absolutely nothing to do with American history, but he could give a better estimate than that just because he takes an interest. (My mom, who is wholly uninterested in history and politics, probably would be giving as bad a guess as Ford.)
Then again, people often over-value the forms of intelligence they themselves possess. I am sure some of the attorneys who were hammering Ford would, like me, have been flummoxed if they'd been under his questioning and had to come up with answers about basic mechanics. (The first time I did poorly on any section of a standardized test was for the military qualifying exam, with the section on practical knowledge that asked questions like "What does a carburetor do?" Still got offered a Navy scholarship, of course.)
Ah, the ASVABs. I was the in the same boat you were. But one of my friends, in addition to being conventionally super-smart (he went to Cornell) also happened to be a mechanics geek to. So he got basically a perfect score, and I'm pretty sure the Navy would have offered him his own Aircraft Carrier if he had agreed to sign up.
Assuming elementary schools really focused on this sort of thing in 1870s, and assuming Ford went to the kind of 19th century school that was even worth a damn, and assuming he didn't just not have a memory for this kind of information, then yes, I suppose we could draw a very negative inference.
Let me use an example from my own undergraduate experience. I once heard a spirited debate among six or seven of my friends over whether the Dred Scott decision came out in the 1820s, 30s, 40s. Now, even if all we remember is the basic historical narrative placing Dred Scott in the immediate run-up to the civil war you'd know that they were all way off, some in the same ballpark as Ford. Either they didn't know Dred Scott's historical context or (worse in the eyes of many) they didn't know when the Civil War was. Now, did I roll my eyes and correct them? Yes. Do I think that means these liberal arts students (and pointy-headed ones at that) were just plain uninterested in history? No.
Joe, I don't think that's quite the point. I'm bad with dates - not to the point of not knowing when the Declaration of Independence was, but not great with dates - but if I don't know a date and someone else does, I don't sniff and say "it's stupid to know dates."
But where is the line between "it's stupid to know dates" and "it's snooty to judge someone by date memorization"?
I don't think it's that clear. That said, talking about "real America" is a rhetorical gambit that insults the audience's intelligence.
Joe,
Elementary schools were HUGE on rote memorization in the 19th century. Conservatives today are always bewailing the fact that postwar education has gone away from that model of accumulated knowledge. Have you never read a work of either fiction or nonfiction children's literature set during that time?
And again, even if he'd been illiterate (which he certainly wasn't), HE WAS 13 AT THE CENTENNIAL. The 4th of July was a major civic event throughout the Midwest in the 19th century, and the Centennial was probably the greatest happening of the post-Civil War era. Even people who couldn't read would have been hearing of the great Exposition in Philadelphia and the local festivities to celebrate the nation's birthday.
The American Revolution is not just a random "date" in our country's history. Claiming to love your country but not having any clue when the American Revolution occurred is like claiming to love your wife but not having any clue how old she is or when her birthday is. Dred Scot is more like not remembering when your in-laws got divorced -- it would have been nice to have been listening that closely, but it's not going to come up at your green card fraud inquiry.
Post a Comment