The Packer family

P.S.Burton wrote:
> On 2 Jun, 06:49, Martha Bridegam <bride... RemoveThis @pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Feature in today's SF Chronicle on writers in the Packer family of Palo
>> Alto, California. One of them is George Packer, an Orwell fan's Orwell fan.
>>
>> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/01/CMBCVQS2L...
>>
>> /M
>
> ""George was bedeviling us," she recalls.
>
> "I told him, 'Go on away.' " He wouldn't, so she made him an offer.
>
> "You have to leave if you can't quote a sentence from Shakespeare that
> uses the phrase how now," she says.
>
> "And George thought for a long minute and said, 'My lord, how now,'
> from 'Richard the Third,' Act I, Scene 3.' "
>
> Impressive, but not good enough. "I looked it up and it was 'How now,
> my lord,' " she says. "So I kicked him out of the kitchen.""
>
> That is the most cringeworthy "anecdote" I have ever heard. It makes
> me want to beat the teller about the head and shoulders with an empty
> wine bottle

Sort of thing that could have helped young George become an Orwell fan's
Orwell fan. I wonder, anyhow.

/M
 >> Stay informed about: The Packer family 

On 4 Jun, 06:00, Martha Bridegam <bride....DeleteThis@pacbell.net> wrote:
> P.S.Burton wrote:
> > On 2 Jun, 06:49, Martha Bridegam <bride....DeleteThis@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Feature in today's SF Chronicle on writers in the Packer family of Palo
> >> Alto, California. One of them is George Packer, an Orwell fan's Orwell fan.
>
> >>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/01/CMBCVQS2L...
>
> >> /M
>
> > ""George was bedeviling us," she recalls.
>
> > "I told him, 'Go on away.' " He wouldn't, so she made him an offer.
>
> > "You have to leave if you can't quote a sentence from Shakespeare that
> > uses the phrase how now," she says.
>
> > "And George thought for a long minute and said, 'My lord, how now,'
> > from 'Richard the Third,' Act I, Scene 3.' "
>
> > Impressive, but not good enough. "I looked it up and it was 'How now,
> > my lord,' " she says. "So I kicked him out of the kitchen.""
>
> > That is the most cringeworthy "anecdote" I have ever heard. It makes
> > me want to beat the teller about the head and shoulders with an empty
> > wine bottle
>
> Sort of thing that could have helped young George become an Orwell fan's
> Orwell fan. I wonder, anyhow.
>
> /M- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It's awful. Smug, showoff "look at how cultured and yet playful we
were" sundried tomato eating shite. If you tried a story like this in
normal company there would be an embarrassed silence, someone might
mutter the word "boasting" and then the conversation would move on
swiftly.
 >> Stay informed about: The Packer family 

P.S.Burton wrote:
> On 4 Jun, 06:00, Martha Bridegam <bride....DeleteThis@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> P.S.Burton wrote:
>>> On 2 Jun, 06:49, Martha Bridegam <bride....DeleteThis@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> Feature in today's SF Chronicle on writers in the Packer family of Palo
>>>> Alto, California. One of them is George Packer, an Orwell fan's Orwell fan.
>>>> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/01/CMBCVQS2L...
>>>> /M
>>> ""George was bedeviling us," she recalls.
>>> "I told him, 'Go on away.' " He wouldn't, so she made him an offer.
>>> "You have to leave if you can't quote a sentence from Shakespeare that
>>> uses the phrase how now," she says.
>>> "And George thought for a long minute and said, 'My lord, how now,'
>>> from 'Richard the Third,' Act I, Scene 3.' "
>>> Impressive, but not good enough. "I looked it up and it was 'How now,
>>> my lord,' " she says. "So I kicked him out of the kitchen.""
>>> That is the most cringeworthy "anecdote" I have ever heard. It makes
>>> me want to beat the teller about the head and shoulders with an empty
>>> wine bottle
>> Sort of thing that could have helped young George become an Orwell fan's
>> Orwell fan. I wonder, anyhow.
>>
>> /M- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> It's awful. Smug, showoff "look at how cultured and yet playful we
> were" sundried tomato eating shite. If you tried a story like this in
> normal company there would be an embarrassed silence, someone might
> mutter the word "boasting" and then the conversation would move on
> swiftly.

Well, yes, exactly. Orwell's anti-academic brand of intellectualism
could have appealed to a kid with that kind of upbringing, as a way to
be a writer without bring a prig.

--

"...I recall positive orgies of dates, with the keener boys leaping up
and down in their places in their eagerness to shout out the right
answers, and at the same time not feeling the faintest interest in the
meaning of the mysterious events they were naming.

‘1587’

‘Massacre of St Bartholomew!’

‘1707?’

‘Death of Aurangzeeb!’

‘1713?’

‘Treaty of Utrecht!’

‘1773?’

‘Boston Tea Party!’

‘1520?’

‘Oo, Mum, please, Mum—’

‘Please, Mum, please Mum! Let me tell him, Mum!’

‘Well! 1520?’

‘Field of the Cloth of Gold!’

And so on...."

/M

P.S. A quibble with P.S. Burton's example: I think he's mixing different
subgroups and generations of the California upper-upper-middle-class
world. Your basic present-day California foodie doesn't know from
Shakespeare. Your basic 1970 Palo Alto intellectual didn't know from
sundried tomatoes.
 >> Stay informed about: The Packer family 

On 5 Jun, 02:35, Martha Bridegam <bride....RemoveThis@pacbell.net> wrote:
> P.S.Burton wrote:
> > On 4 Jun, 06:00, Martha Bridegam <bride....RemoveThis@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> P.S.Burton wrote:
> >>> On 2 Jun, 06:49, Martha Bridegam <bride....RemoveThis@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> Feature in today's SF Chronicle on writers in the Packer family of Palo
> >>>> Alto, California. One of them is George Packer, an Orwell fan's Orwell fan.
> >>>>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/01/CMBCVQS2L...
> >>>> /M
> >>> ""George was bedeviling us," she recalls.
> >>> "I told him, 'Go on away.' " He wouldn't, so she made him an offer.
> >>> "You have to leave if you can't quote a sentence from Shakespeare that
> >>> uses the phrase how now," she says.
> >>> "And George thought for a long minute and said, 'My lord, how now,'
> >>> from 'Richard the Third,' Act I, Scene 3.' "
> >>> Impressive, but not good enough. "I looked it up and it was 'How now,
> >>> my lord,' " she says. "So I kicked him out of the kitchen.""
> >>> That is the most cringeworthy "anecdote" I have ever heard. It makes
> >>> me want to beat the teller about the head and shoulders with an empty
> >>> wine bottle
> >> Sort of thing that could have helped young George become an Orwell fan's
> >> Orwell fan. I wonder, anyhow.
>
> >> /M- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > It's awful. Smug, showoff "look at how cultured and yet playful we
> > were" sundried tomato eating shite. If you tried a story like this in
> > normal company there would be an embarrassed silence, someone might
> > mutter the word "boasting" and then the conversation would move on
> > swiftly.
>
> Well, yes, exactly. Orwell's anti-academic brand of intellectualism
> could have appealed to a kid with that kind of upbringing, as a way to
> be a writer without bring a prig.
>
> --
>
> "...I recall positive orgies of dates, with the keener boys leaping up
> and down in their places in their eagerness to shout out the right
> answers, and at the same time not feeling the faintest interest in the
> meaning of the mysterious events they were naming.
>
> ‘1587’
>
> ‘Massacre of St Bartholomew!’
>
> ‘1707?’
>
> ‘Death of Aurangzeeb!’
>
> ‘1713?’
>
> ‘Treaty of Utrecht!’
>
> ‘1773?’
>
> ‘Boston Tea Party!’
>
> ‘1520?’
>
> ‘Oo, Mum, please, Mum—’
>
> ‘Please, Mum, please Mum! Let me tell him, Mum!’
>
> ‘Well! 1520?’
>
> ‘Field of the Cloth of Gold!’
>
> And so on...."

...yeah so don't teach them the names of anything or the dates of
anything and THEN they'll have more than the 'faintest interest' those
dates and names. Yeah, right.

>
> /M
>
Your basic 1970 Palo Alto intellectual didn't know from
> sundried tomatoes

Didn't know WHAT from sundried tomatoes?
 >> Stay informed about: The Packer family 

generalconyers.TakeThisOut@googlemail.com wrote:

>
>> /M
>>
> Your basic 1970 Palo Alto intellectual didn't know from
>> sundried tomatoes
>
> Didn't know WHAT from sundried tomatoes?
>

Adam. A hole in the ground. Shinola. Take your pick.

/M
 >> Stay informed about: The Packer family 

generalconyers.DeleteThis@googlemail.com wrote:
>....
>> "...I recall positive orgies of dates, with the keener boys leaping up
>> and down in their places in their eagerness to shout out the right
>> answers, and at the same time not feeling the faintest interest in the
>> meaning of the mysterious events they were naming.
>>
>> ‘1587’
>>
>> ‘Massacre of St Bartholomew!’
>>
>> ‘1707?’
>>
>> ‘Death of Aurangzeeb!’
>>
>> ‘1713?’
>>
>> ‘Treaty of Utrecht!’
>>
>> ‘1773?’
>>
>> ‘Boston Tea Party!’
>>
>> ‘1520?’
>>
>> ‘Oo, Mum, please, Mum—’
>>
>> ‘Please, Mum, please Mum! Let me tell him, Mum!’
>>
>> ‘Well! 1520?’
>>
>> ‘Field of the Cloth of Gold!’
>>
>> And so on...."
>
> ...yeah so don't teach them the names of anything or the dates of
> anything and THEN they'll have more than the 'faintest interest' those
> dates and names. Yeah, right.
....

Surely you haven't completely gone over to the grownups?

Maybe we have to face it: our Robbie has irrevocably turned forty.

/M
 >> Stay informed about: The Packer family 

On 7 Jun, 03:43, Martha Bridegam <bride....DeleteThis@pacbell.net> wrote:
> generalcony....DeleteThis@googlemail.com wrote:
> >....
> >> "...I recall positive orgies of dates, with the keener boys leaping up
> >> and down in their places in their eagerness to shout out the right
> >> answers, and at the same time not feeling the faintest interest in the
> >> meaning of the mysterious events they were naming.
>
> >> ‘1587’
>
> >> ‘Massacre of St Bartholomew!’
>
> >> ‘1707?’
>
> >> ‘Death of Aurangzeeb!’
>
> >> ‘1713?’
>
> >> ‘Treaty of Utrecht!’
>
> >> ‘1773?’
>
> >> ‘Boston Tea Party!’
>
> >> ‘1520?’
>
> >> ‘Oo, Mum, please, Mum—’
>
> >> ‘Please, Mum, please Mum! Let me tell him, Mum!’
>
> >> ‘Well! 1520?’
>
> >> ‘Field of the Cloth of Gold!’
>
> >> And so on...."
>
> > ...yeah so don't teach them the names of anything or the dates of
> > anything and THEN they'll have more than the 'faintest interest' those
> > dates and names. Yeah, right.
>
> ...
>
> Surely you haven't completely gone over to the grownups?
>
> Maybe we have to face it: our Robbie has irrevocably turned forty.
>
> /M- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

A girl at work, who must be comfortably clearing 100k a year, recently
asked me in all seriousness whether "the vikings were before jesus
times".
 >> Stay informed about: The Packer family 

P.S.Burton wrote:
> On 7 Jun, 03:43, Martha Bridegam <bride....DeleteThis@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> generalcony....DeleteThis@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> ....
>>>> "...I recall positive orgies of dates, with the keener boys leaping up
>>>> and down in their places in their eagerness to shout out the right
>>>> answers, and at the same time not feeling the faintest interest in the
>>>> meaning of the mysterious events they were naming.
>>>> ‘1587’
>>>> ‘Massacre of St Bartholomew!’
>>>> ‘1707?’
>>>> ‘Death of Aurangzeeb!’
>>>> ‘1713?’
>>>> ‘Treaty of Utrecht!’
>>>> ‘1773?’
>>>> ‘Boston Tea Party!’
>>>> ‘1520?’
>>>> ‘Oo, Mum, please, Mum—’
>>>> ‘Please, Mum, please Mum! Let me tell him, Mum!’
>>>> ‘Well! 1520?’
>>>> ‘Field of the Cloth of Gold!’
>>>> And so on...."
>>> ...yeah so don't teach them the names of anything or the dates of
>>> anything and THEN they'll have more than the 'faintest interest' those
>>> dates and names. Yeah, right.
>> ...
>>
>> Surely you haven't completely gone over to the grownups?
>>
>> Maybe we have to face it: our Robbie has irrevocably turned forty.
>>
>> /M- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> A girl at work, who must be comfortably clearing 100k a year, recently
> asked me in all seriousness whether "the vikings were before jesus
> times".

Cripe. Over here we tend to think Brits are still fed that stuff.

So people should learn history. But history doesn't stick in people's
heads unless they find the subject interesting. Teaching for
regurgitation provides a meaningless pile of bones without connective
tissue. Worse, it discourages the victims from ever wanting to learn
more on their own.

The anti-regurgitation approach can lead to amorphous history teaching,
e.g. whole semesters on daily life in a single period of the past, but
the St. Cyprian's approach is worse. Among other things, it tells
children deep down that only Great Leaders were worth knowing about,
ergo only Great Leaders will ever matter in the future.

I've seen it argued that so many hobbyists become amateur historians
through genealogy because they don't see a place for ordinary people
like their families among the Great Men and Important Dates presented in
schools. Genealogy, however dull it may seem to non-family, is at least
a way of making history their own.

Some of what we've done here on this group has been a wonderful antidote
to school: free people pursuing literary and historical knowledge for
its own sake, as their own idea, because they wish to have furnishings
and tools for their minds and not because anyone is standing over them
with a silver pencil or an exam schedule.

/M
 >> Stay informed about: The Packer family 

Martha Bridegam <bridegam DeleteThis @pacbell.net> writes:

> The anti-regurgitation approach can lead to amorphous history
> teaching, e.g. whole semesters on daily life in a single period of
> the past, but the St. Cyprian's approach is worse. Among other
> things, it tells children deep down that only Great Leaders were
> worth knowing about, ergo only Great Leaders will ever matter in the
> future.

An oddity: In reciting the 20th-century U.S. presidents, the
beginning is much easier than the end: TR, Taft, Wilson, Harding,
Coolidge, Hoover, FDR. Then I am in my lifetime, and I have to start
*thinking*.

> I've seen it argued that so many hobbyists become amateur historians
> through genealogy because they don't see a place for ordinary people
> like their families among the Great Men and Important Dates
> presented in schools. Genealogy, however dull it may seem to
> non-family, is at least a way of making history their own.

It may also be politically hygeinic. According to E. M. Forster, a
quick way to shut most racists up is to ask them to name their eight
great-grandparents.
--
--- Joe Fineman joe_f DeleteThis @verizon.net

||: It takes three years to learn to talk, and thirty to learn |
||: to shut up. |
 >> Stay informed about: The Packer family 

Joe Fineman wrote:
> Martha Bridegam <bridegam.DeleteThis@pacbell.net> writes:
>
>> The anti-regurgitation approach can lead to amorphous history
>> teaching, e.g. whole semesters on daily life in a single period of
>> the past, but the St. Cyprian's approach is worse. Among other
>> things, it tells children deep down that only Great Leaders were
>> worth knowing about, ergo only Great Leaders will ever matter in the
>> future.
>
> An oddity: In reciting the 20th-century U.S. presidents, the
> beginning is much easier than the end: TR, Taft, Wilson, Harding,
> Coolidge, Hoover, FDR. Then I am in my lifetime, and I have to start
> *thinking*.
>
>> I've seen it argued that so many hobbyists become amateur historians
>> through genealogy because they don't see a place for ordinary people
>> like their families among the Great Men and Important Dates
>> presented in schools. Genealogy, however dull it may seem to
>> non-family, is at least a way of making history their own.
>
> It may also be politically hygeinic. According to E. M. Forster, a
> quick way to shut most racists up is to ask them to name their eight
> great-grandparents.

Have read it's also a good way to get fired from working as a
schoolteacher in parts of Alabama.


Mr. Justice Kennedy, btw, has read his history:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-1195

/M
 >> Stay informed about: The Packer family 

On 7 Jun, 03:43, Martha Bridegam <bride....DeleteThis@pacbell.net> wrote:
> generalcony....DeleteThis@googlemail.com wrote:
> >....
> >> "...I recall positive orgies of dates, with the keener boys leaping up
> >> and down in their places in their eagerness to shout out the right
> >> answers, and at the same time not feeling the faintest interest in the
> >> meaning of the mysterious events they were naming.
>
> >> ‘1587’
>
> >> ‘Massacre of St Bartholomew!’
>
> >> ‘1707?’
>
> >> ‘Death of Aurangzeeb!’
>
> >> ‘1713?’
>
> >> ‘Treaty of Utrecht!’
>
> >> ‘1773?’
>
> >> ‘Boston Tea Party!’
>
> >> ‘1520?’
>
> >> ‘Oo, Mum, please, Mum—’
>
> >> ‘Please, Mum, please Mum! Let me tell him, Mum!’
>
> >> ‘Well! 1520?’
>
> >> ‘Field of the Cloth of Gold!’
>
> >> And so on...."
>
> > ...yeah so don't teach them the names of anything or the dates of
> > anything and THEN they'll have more than the 'faintest interest' those
> > dates and names. Yeah, right.
>
> ...
>
> Surely you haven't completely gone over to the grownups?
>
> Maybe we have to face it: our Robbie has irrevocably turned forty.
>
> /M- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

37 actually. Nobody wants to be a Gradgrind, but planned ignorance and
its consequences does nobody any favours. Certainly doesn't do the
poor any favours.
 >> Stay informed about: The Packer family 

On 11 Jun, 11:27, "P.S.Burton" <dlb... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7 Jun, 03:43, Martha Bridegam <bride... DeleteThis @pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > generalcony... DeleteThis @googlemail.com wrote:
> > >....
> > >> "...I recall positive orgies of dates, with the keener boys leaping up
> > >> and down in their places in their eagerness to shout out the right
> > >> answers, and at the same time not feeling the faintest interest in the
> > >> meaning of the mysterious events they were naming.
>
> > >> ‘1587’
>
> > >> ‘Massacre of St Bartholomew!’
>
> > >> ‘1707?’
>
> > >> ‘Death of Aurangzeeb!’
>
> > >> ‘1713?’
>
> > >> ‘Treaty of Utrecht!’
>
> > >> ‘1773?’
>
> > >> ‘Boston Tea Party!’
>
> > >> ‘1520?’
>
> > >> ‘Oo, Mum, please, Mum—’
>
> > >> ‘Please, Mum, please Mum! Let me tell him, Mum!’
>
> > >> ‘Well! 1520?’
>
> > >> ‘Field of the Cloth of Gold!’
>
> > >> And so on...."
>
> > > ...yeah so don't teach them the names of anything or the dates of
> > > anything and THEN they'll have more than the 'faintest interest' those
> > > dates and names. Yeah, right.
>
> > ...
>
> > Surely you haven't completely gone over to the grownups?
>
> > Maybe we have to face it: our Robbie has irrevocably turned forty.
>
> > /M- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> A girl at work, who must be comfortably clearing 100k a year, recently
> asked me in all seriousness whether "the vikings were before jesus
> times

I'm surrounded by people like that. Someone mentioned Wat Tyler and
Jack Straw the other day. Baffled glances from several graduates. 'It
wasn't in my degree, that's not my subject' is the stock response;
then they sulk and employ hairdressers' logic: He's just bitter and
twisted cos na na na.
But they're right - you don't need to be interested in the world and
its history to succeed now. I know people with staff jobs on the Times
who asked me what C.I.D stood for six months ago. Whatever anyone
says, the cultural and intellectual health of a country, which I
suppose you judge from its media, art and literature and science,
cannot survive the McDegrees situation the Labour Party is pushing.
 >> Stay informed about: The Packer family 

On 12 Jun, 17:27, Martha Bridegam <bride... RemoveThis @pacbell.net> wrote:
> P.S.Burton wrote:
> > On 7 Jun, 03:43, Martha Bridegam <bride... RemoveThis @pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> generalcony... RemoveThis @googlemail.com wrote:
> >>> ....
> >>>> "...I recall positive orgies of dates, with the keener boys leaping up
> >>>> and down in their places in their eagerness to shout out the right
> >>>> answers, and at the same time not feeling the faintest interest in the
> >>>> meaning of the mysterious events they were naming.
> >>>> ‘1587’
> >>>> ‘Massacre of St Bartholomew!’
> >>>> ‘1707?’
> >>>> ‘Death of Aurangzeeb!’
> >>>> ‘1713?’
> >>>> ‘Treaty of Utrecht!’
> >>>> ‘1773?’
> >>>> ‘Boston Tea Party!’
> >>>> ‘1520?’
> >>>> ‘Oo, Mum, please, Mum—’
> >>>> ‘Please, Mum, please Mum! Let me tell him, Mum!’
> >>>> ‘Well! 1520?’
> >>>> ‘Field of the Cloth of Gold!’
> >>>> And so on...."
> >>> ...yeah so don't teach them the names of anything or the dates of
> >>> anything and THEN they'll have more than the 'faintest interest' those
> >>> dates and names. Yeah, right.
> >> ...
>
> >> Surely you haven't completely gone over to the grownups?
>
> >> Maybe we have to face it: our Robbie has irrevocably turned forty.
>
> >> /M- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > A girl at work, who must be comfortably clearing 100k a year, recently
> > asked me in all seriousness whether "the vikings were before jesus
> > times".
>
> Cripe. Over here we tend to think Brits are still fed that stuff.
>
> So people should learn history. But history doesn't stick in people's
> heads unless they find the subject interesting. Teaching for
> regurgitation provides a meaningless pile of bones without connective
> tissue.

But it isn't 'for regurgitation' is it? Learning about things, which
require labels (such as dates, names and places) is not an end in
itself (though I suppose it can be) but a neccessary tool to
understand history. And what about the subject itself? I think it's
important that the student arranges himself to the demands of the
subject, not the other way round (which can only lead to what we in
Britain call dumbing down, with the consequence of the debasement of
the subject - something that is happening across a range of subjects).
You argue for social history over 'great man' history (your comments
on that are almost a parody of the culturally marxoid intellectual's
typical obsession with the dissemination of power). I would say you
need both to understand either. Leaders are necessary, but you don't
have to worship them. That should be easy enough to teach.
 >> Stay informed about: The Packer family