Why are so many Sociology professors completely ignorant of history. I have taken Into to Soc, Race and Ethnic Relations, Marriages and Families, Juv Deliquency, Criminology, and Cultural Anthro all at USD. So I might as well opt for a soc minor in addition to my Business minor.
Now in almost every class I have taken the teachers always make references to European history. Heres whats funny, most the things that have been referencing are inaccurate. What angers me the most is this fallacy. "There was no middle class in fuedal Europe, it was a society of haves and have nots, rich and poor", I always ask what about merchants, tradesman (smiths, jewelers, etc), scholars, physicians, engineers, landowning farmers, professional soldiers (rare, but did exist), landless knights, the "lesser nobility" (knights and baronets), sheriffs, baliffs, etc. It is clear not all of Europe was bound into serfdom. So where do they get these ideas?
I would even propose a heirarchy of class would look like this
Upper Upper Class - The Royals and Bishops
Lower Upper - The nobility and high clergy
Upper Middle - Lesser Nobility, Merchants, Physicians, Scholars
Lower Middle - Landless Knights and Professional soldiers, trades men, land owning farmers
Working Class - Serfs
Poverty - Beggers, Lepers, Thieves
Is my example better than my professors statement? Where do these fallacies come from?
Now in almost every class I have taken the teachers always make references to European history. Heres whats funny, most the things that have been referencing are inaccurate. What angers me the most is this fallacy. "There was no middle class in fuedal Europe, it was a society of haves and have nots, rich and poor", I always ask what about merchants, tradesman (smiths, jewelers, etc), scholars, physicians, engineers, landowning farmers, professional soldiers (rare, but did exist), landless knights, the "lesser nobility" (knights and baronets), sheriffs, baliffs, etc. It is clear not all of Europe was bound into serfdom. So where do they get these ideas?
I would even propose a heirarchy of class would look like this
Upper Upper Class - The Royals and Bishops
Lower Upper - The nobility and high clergy
Upper Middle - Lesser Nobility, Merchants, Physicians, Scholars
Lower Middle - Landless Knights and Professional soldiers, trades men, land owning farmers
Working Class - Serfs
Poverty - Beggers, Lepers, Thieves
Is my example better than my professors statement? Where do these fallacies come from?