I considered posting this in Comradeship but I figured it would fit here better.

I did say I would let everyone know how my presentation went so here I am to tell you all it did not go well, at least not to me.

I read out my slides and although my voice was still shake-y, I did project enough for people to hear me. I like to think some of my commentary was funny although I understand my tone was less so. I do wish people chuckled at least a little.

When I got to the imperialism slide I was looking forward to people maybe giggling at my dog and even asking about it, but that did not happen. When I did ask the class questions mid way through they did not engage. I asked the class if they knew what the school of the Americas was, no one put their hands up which was what I was hoping for, I then asked if anyone wanted to hazard a guess as to what it is, no one tried which was a bit embarrassing for me. It is their right not to answer but I thought it would be fun as a pivot into my next slide which was just a bunch of photos of the graduates (dictators and generals, plus the logo of a cartel).

The energy in the room was fucked. I felt like nobody was interested in what I had to say. Even the democratic socialist seemed out of it.

When I got to the activity part of the presentation, AKA the end, I put up a series of questions that the students could answer. I said they could answer whichever they wanted, but when nobody said anything I stated that I could just read the questions for them and they can raise their hands. When I read my first question: what are some skills that universities and its students can use for imperialist purposes? No one raised their hands so I was going to move on but the instructor (no PhD yet) told me to wait, so I did.

The DemSoc raised his hand and said “well, like you said, language classes.” I was surprised because he is one of the most “chatty” students in the class, and I figured that since he is a flavour of socialist he would be incredibly interested in this topic. I even talked about the School of the Americas and how all their human rights abuses were all done in the name of combating communism. Another student raised their hand and talked about the definition of imperialism I gave, highest stage of capitalism, and how that relates to the “clout” elite western universities have over those in the global south. I then engaged with them about how I read a source that was about how global south universities are at a disadvantage regarding “university rankings” and this is a form of cultural imperialism.

Another student raised his hand and said he would like to change my question, replacing “imperialist purposes” with something else I said in my “lecture” which was about how these spy classes “expand global understanding.” He stated that rather than imperialism, diverse universities create a, well, diverse environment with multiple perspectives which fosters a better understanding of others and how to get along. I didn’t necessarily have an issue with this, sort of, but stated that his version was quite optimistic while my lecture focused on how the version of “global understanding” being created was actually for securing interests in another nation for imperialist purposes like extracting resources to the detriment of the host nation. I really hope I didn’t come off as rude and I did apologize for how terrible I am at speaking.

The fourth, and last, student spoke up to answer the question: should universities accept funding from the defence industry? He said yes, because it’s money and it can help students defend the country and foster nationalism. My immediate thought was “huh?” Because throughout my presentation I was showing how the defence industry was not using universities for genuine defence purposes but for infiltrating others. I thought maybe I should’ve changed “defence industry” to “offensive industry” since that is how it acts. Mainly to western capitalists nations, not others. I didn’t say anything as a previous student said that he believed the opposite, that universities should not accept the funding.

He then talked about his experience at the university of Chicago and how he and other faculty opposed the defence department for getting involved in their research. From what I can remember the military was trying to give funding to the biology departments in multiple universities, but the funding was only to be given with restrictive purposes attached to military agendas. The university of Chicago pulled away from this agreement and so did other universities, to the point where the US government had to pivot and instead of the funding coming from the defence sector, it would instead come from the sciences.

My presentation came to an end after that and I was applauded but I sat down with a bad taste in my mouth. I thought my information was good and my topic was great too, yet I did not get the response I was looking for. I should lower my expectations…

I did end up asking my teacher about my presentation and if she would be willing to give me tips on improvements when grading it and she agreed while also praising me on how well I did. I wasn’t convinced initially because of how off everyone was and the fact that I was still cowardly, but she didn’t agree. She even brought out her notes to show that she thought I did well and was very kind in my interactions. I also asked if the photo of my dog was too much or inappropriate but she said it was fine but that I should just explain the joke outright. To me, even if they don’t know who Lenin is, it’s still funny to see a dog’s head on a man’s body. I mentioned that the lack of interest may be due to cultural differences and she agreed, she also said that the topic may have flown over their heads, next time I will have to do a lot more hand holding.

All in all I am proud of myself, my slides and script were good, but I am disappointed in the lack of interest in imperialism…

  • SpaceDogsOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    I really did try my best to make the content as digestible as possible, like for my definition of imperialism I used Lenin’s outright but also had a Parenti quote to help let it sink in more. I did my best to explicitly state what was happening and the nefarious nature of these spy programs and imperialism in higher education, yet it didn’t stick for most of the students who answered questions. Only one engaged deeply, which I was happy about!

    The Democratic Socialist (self proclaimed) really disappointed me as he talks a lot during lectures and seemed super interested in the topic of the class (the neoliberal university) but was super checked out during my presentation, only giving a basic answer.

    While I do know that some of the students are only taking this class for the credit, many of them are interested in the neoliberalism issue, but not with what I had to say. My teacher said I didn’t do anything wrong but that I probably need to hand-hold due to the topic going over their heads. The cultural issue with Canadians not caring about imperialism is also a thing too.

    I do find it interesting that students could be check-out during classes because thats not really the case for me, I try to stay engaged as much as possible especially because this is a 3rd year class meaning only people with a major or minor in PoliSci are going to take it.

    Anyway I am just glad that it isn’t necessarily a problem wth me, although I know my presenting style needs a lot of improvement (tone, confidence, not hiding behind the podium, making “eye contact”).

    • Parenti BotB
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago
      The quote

      In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the Cold War, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.

      – Michael Parenti, Blackshirts And Reds

      I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the admins of this instance if you have any questions or concerns.

        • SpaceDogsOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          Here is the exact quote I used to help drive the point home: “the process whereby the dominant politico-economic interests of one nation expropriate for their own enrichment the land, labour, raw materials, and markets of another people.”

          This was said after giving Lenin’s definition.