Day 1 Semester 2 of Political Science (and History)

I just finished my first day of my second semester yesterday and here is how it went:

As some of you may know I’ve been going to university to get an undergraduate degree in Psychology and Political Science with hopes of getting my PhD soon after. I chronicled my first semester Political Science 101 class experience here as I thought it would be beneficial to me as a student and for those who were curious as to what goes on in the classroom. This, of course, was way back in January but now I’m back for my second semester which means a level up in Political Science.

This semester is a bit different than my first as I’m taking a introductory History course after having completed Statistics (it is unfortunately required for a psych degree). So instead of just posting about what happens in my Political Science classes I figured I’d write about my History class too. This may be the only History course I have for my undergrad as after this semester I’ll be blasting through the required courses for my major and minor which will end up taking up all of my class slots. I’m considering doing a double major but I don’t know if its worth it, if anyone with experience can weigh in I’d appreciate it so much.

Anyway, lets talk about my first day back. My classes start at ten and I begin the day with my psychology class; its the first day so all we did was go over the syllabus. If anyone remembers I did mention a psych class in my previous posts during my first semester and nothing of note was worthy writing about so I’m going to assume its about to be the same with this one. After psych was done I headed off to my History class.

I was honestly prepared for the same syllabus schpiel but I got some interesting tidbits from my professor. Before the class started he tried making some casual conversation with the class asking if we liked to read, this didn’t work out in his favour really as nobody seemed to put their hands up or answer his question which shocked him. He then went on to talk about a Dilbert comic, I think, that made fun of modern students not knowing how to read/just hating reading in general.

To be honest, I would’ve put my hand up had I been paying attention but at the time I was focused on loading up the syllabus, emailing it to myself, and looking at what books I needed for the class (I can say which books if anyone asks). So that put me off a little bit but whatever. He told us about himself, which province he’s originally from and his background; a military man but not a hardened veteran if that makes sense. Once the class officially started at 11 he detailed what topics we would cover which I’ll list as I think you’ll find it interesting:

1. What is History

2. How History has value

3. How we should’ve learned from History (re the pandemic)

4. The European invasion of the Americas (I want to note the language he uses when talking about colonialism, so far he seems fairly respectful and explicitly states the brutality of what happened. This was brief, of course, but I think it matters.)

5. Slavery (how it was legitimate until the 19th century, so what happened to change attitudes?)

6. Spanish massacres (I think we will be focused on Cortés and the Cholula massacre. he mentioned a woman who collaborated with Cortés, I unfortunately don’t remember what she was called as my professor speaks very fast but there is a lot of debate with her apparently; a quick google search says her name is La Malinche but I may have the wrong lady.)

7. Navigating how to write properly

8. Watching the movie”Rabbit-Proof Fence”

After all that he asked the class a question: what is history? He got several answers such as events from the past, recorded/documented, influences the future, life changing, memorable, tradition, then and now, perspective, and accomplishments. When “traditions” were mentioned he brought up 23 and Me, and how many Germans who were from Ukraine migrated to Canada. He went on to explain what history was not. I wont list it all here but the first thing was about how history was not a chronicle of the past, rather its built on a sequence, if that makes sense. Monks, back in the day, chronicled events religiously, literally as they believed it had something to do with God. With this Monk information he then brought up Marx and his class warfare! Mind you, he did not do into detail at all but seemed to have mentioned Marx as a bit of a contrast I think. Im not completely sure as, again, he talks very fast and did not give me much information, not even a tone shift really. History is not just written records, but also art; futurists vs the Industrial Revolution. Apparently professional history didn’t become a thing until the 1830s-1860s as Germany at the was fragmented and trying really hard to create a unified German identity. He also told us that a majority of historians are actually Americans and that they outnumber the rest of the world. The last meaning of history he gave was History is a story intended to be true, with some reference to J. H. Hector, its an analysis of the past: cause and effect, continuity and change.

After this was why History is important, this post is getting long enough without the political science class discussion so I’ll skip some parts. When talking about memory in relation to history my professor brought up the strange phenomenon of people idealizing the past, specifically the 50s, and how the people who tend to have a fondness for the 50s tend to b white as back in the day only middle class white people had happy lives in the 50s, anyone else was screwed. I found this comment refreshing as I haven’t encountered an educator say these things before. Next we talked about how History teaches lessons and with that he used the Iraq war as an example! He compared it to when the British and French went to war against an Arab Socialist, I don’t know hat event he was talking about specifically but it was significant enough that we should’ve learned from that experience and not replicate it in Iraq.

Anyway after his he briefly brought up Trudeau complaining about the Harper government a lot to I guess excuse his current actions and the class ended. At this point in the day I have a two hour empty period until my last class of the day: Political Science. Nothing really happened in that time except me looking up what books I needed and watching Hunter x Hunter.

With the two hours completed my Political Science class started. We begin by going around introducing ourselves which I’ve never been fond of but I guess it can be considered some type of exposure therapy. If you remember from my last posts, my first Political Science class was an introductory course, this one however is about the concepts, methods and substance of Comparative Politics. We will study a select amount of countries: the US and others not specified. 10% of my grade will be based on attendance and participation which made me want to cry. Im great with attending all my classes but participating is difficult for me. In my previous class I was pretty great at speaking up and even somewhat challenging my professor, which he told me he enjoyed, but I don’t know why I was anxious this time. Our research paper is supposed to be about contrast: an example he gave was about regime changes in Russia re socialism and China’s transition from socialism to capitalism, the contrast being speed of transition. If this sounds confusing please forgive me, I can only write so quickly when my professors are speaking.

In this class we will be learning about what comparative politics is and anything related. he brought up Steven Lukes’ 3 dimensions of power and Harold Laswell. In regards to the 3rd dimension, making people vote against their own interests, he gave an example about how minimum wages are in the interest of the working class but the ruling classes are them vote against their own interests via propaganda so they can remain powerful. I found the terminology and tone he used to be kind of cool, as if he took the plights of the working class seriously rather than it being a joke. It’s the bare minimum but still. Next we learned, briefly since its the first day, about thee difference between International Relations and Comparative Politics, how the EU falls under both, and how the boundary between the two studies is blurring. Why do we study comparative politics? No reason is important enough to write down here unless anyone asks. At some point my professor brought up UBI, how it was experimented in a few places including Ontario, and how every one of those experiments failed, but its still debated fiercely. Then he made comments about populous parties being on the rise, normative theory vs empirical theory, and needed with a quote by Immanuel Kant: “Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play.”

That concludes my first day of second semester and I apologize for how bad this reads, I tend to ramble a lot and I was running on fumes when I originally wrote this. I do hope it was interesting though! All comments are appreciated and welcome, and if you have any questions please let me know, I’m also willing to discuss the syllabi (in regards to course topics) if its asked for. I will literally answer any and all questions you have so please don’t hold back!

I’m anxious to see how this year goes and I can wait to share more with all of you.