If you're in a new romantic connection (or maybe you're about to be?), congrats! 🥳 You've hit the effing jackpot! This person is solid, honest, a great communicator, 👇🏽
💫⭐🌟📮 #AfternoonNotes
Air placements (Aquarius ♒, Gemini ♊, Libra ♎): sun, moon, rising, Venus, Mars
You have been presented with many challenges and changes, Air-loves. Not only are you learning and receiving downloads in record time and amounts, but you're tryna 👇🏽
If you're in a new romantic connection (or maybe you're about to be?), congrats! 🥳 You've hit the effing jackpot! This person is solid, honest, a great communicator, 👇🏽
Great job on turning your back on nonsense and bullshit! It hasn't 👇🏽
Though you've been betrayed, and seems relatively recently, you have so much balance and justice coming into your life, as you've been manifesting and daydreaming about, when it comes to 👇🏽
And where 👇🏽
For those of you who are creatives, you may want 👇🏽
Go outside & experience nature. If it's too cold or 👇🏽
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
