Race, Class, and Gender in American History

I first encountered this subject while reading an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education. In sense, it states that:

The report by the National Association of Scholars and its affiliate, the Texas Association of Scholars, examined the textbooks and other readings for 85 sections of lower-division American history courses at the two schools in fall 2010. All too often, the report concluded, the readings gave students “a less-than-comprehensive picture of U.S. history,” with the situation “far more problematic” at UT than at A&M.

The article goes on and contends that:

At UT, 78 percent of the faculty members who taught the freshman and sophomore classes were deemed “high assigners” of race, class and gender readings, meaning that more than half of the content had such a focus. At A&M, 50 percent of faculty members were deemed high assigners of such material.

This topic is problematic it that it is being advanced by the National Association of Scholars, which is a conservative watchdog group that monitors the actions of educational institutions. My issue with this topic is one of suspicion: Why point out and criticize key categorical arguments used to analyze historical problems in American history? I realize they are saying schools assign too much work on race, class, and gender, but they fail to discuss the reasons why we historians do this. The United States has evolved, however, the process of evolution has faced a great deal of resistance.

The study of United States history is ugly. Discriminated racial minorities, voiceless and impoverished homeless, as well as exploited women were all change agents in helping progressive academics rethink the teaching of U.S. History.

I think back to two excellent quotes that define what is most troubling about this topic. James Baldwin once noted:

What passes for identity in America is a series of myths about one’s heroic ancestors.

W.E.B. Du Bois draws an excellent conclusion regarding the teaching of American history by referencing…

One is astonished in the study of history at the recurrence of the idea that evil must be forgotten, distorted, skimmed over. We must not remember that Daniel Webster got drunk but only remember that he was a splendid constitutional lawyer. We must forget that George Washington was a slave owner … and simply remember the things we regard as creditable and inspiring. The difficulty, of course, with this philosophy is that history loses its value as an incentive and example; it paints perfect men and noble nations, but it does not tell the truth.

Their recommendations below are most troubling. It appears that the one and only dominate figure in US history seeks a return to the center stage: White Anglo-Saxon Protestant men (WASP).

The National Association of Scholars offered 10 recommendations for improving American history offerings:

1. History departments should review existing curricula, eliminate inappropriate overemphases, and repair gaps and underemphases.

2. Administrators or governing boards should convene an external review if history departments are unwilling.

3. Hire faculty members with a broader range of research interests.

4. Ensure that survey and introductory courses give comprehensive overviews.

5. History department members should collaborate to develop lists of readings that students are expected to study.

6. Design courses that contribute to a robust, evenhanded and reasonably complete curriculum.

7. Diversify graduate programs to ensure that they don’t unduly emphasize race, class and gender themes.

8. Other states should enact laws similar to the Texas requirement that students complete two courses in American history, but better accountability is needed to ensure that colleges’ teaching lines up with legal provisions.

9. Publishers should publish textbooks and anthologies that more adequately represent the full range of U.S. history.

10. Historians and professors of U.S. history should counter mission creep by returning to their primary task of handing down the American story, as a whole, to future generations.

Jason Collins — “Im Out”

I am not surprised to hear this; I do believe that it is time for all of us in public society to have this conversation. Regardless if you support gays and lesbians or not, it is a conversation that should be taking place in our homes, on our campuses, and in our churches.

Affirmative Action, Texas, and the Top 10% Rule by John Rasplicka

John Rasplicka drafted the following post; he is now a senior at Houston Christian. John also holds the honor of taking two of Carson’s classes during his tenure. Thus making him well informed. Besides being bright and argumentative, John does reflect his point of view with me a great deal. He is good about showing up at the Carson’s home for dinner and more politics. John’s POV is usually far more conservative than mine.

I did it. I got in to THE University of Texas at Austin. I reached the pinnacle of any Texas student’s education. I did it, sent out a notification via my Facebook page, and over 90 people liked my status.

But the truth is, I didn’t do any of these things, except get 90 likes on a fake status. I didn’t apply to UT-Austin, A&M, or any Texas schools. Despite my 92+ GPA and my 31 ACT, several extracurriculars, which feasibly could have earned acceptance in to either UT-Austin or A&M, I didn’t even bother applying. Why though? You probably think I’m crazy right now.

A short history lesson: Hopwood v. Texas (1996) stemmed from a white woman –  Cheryl J. Hopwood’s denial of admission to the University of Texas School of Law despite being better qualified than many minority students the University did admit. White men Douglas Carvell, Kenneth Elliott, and David Rogers, joined Hopwood as plaintiffs in the suit. All four had better test scores than 36 of 43 Latinos admitted and 16 of 18 black students admitted. The Court held that “the University of Texas School of Law may not use race as a factor in deciding which applicants to admit in order to achieve a diverse student body, to combat the perceived effects of a hostile environment at the law school, to alleviate the law school’s poor reputation in the minority community, or to eliminate any present effects of past discrimination by actors other than the law school.”

I didn’t apply to any Texas schools (specifically UT-Austin or A&M) because of House Bill 588, passed in reaction to Hopwood v. Texas, more commonly known as the “Top Ten% Rule” that guarantees any student in the top ten percent of their high school graduating class automatic admission to all state-funded universities in Texas. I’m not in the Top 10% of my graduating class. I haven’t checked the numbers, but I’m probably not even close. I’m not dumb, that’s for sure, but I didn’t earn a high enough GPA my freshman year to get me in contention for the Top 10%. But now that I’m a senior, even being in the Top 10% wouldn’t be enough. I would actually have to be in the Top 8% if I wanted to get automatic acceptance to UT-Austin. Demand for spots in the incoming freshman class has far exceeded supply, so UT-Austin (but no other Texas school) now has permission from the State of Texas to admit the top 1%, 2%, 3%, so on and so forth until 75% of the admitted students are in the incoming freshman class.

Why does this matter? Why is this crazy white kid writing on Eddie Carson’s blog about Texas State government and legislation and a university he didn’t apply to?

Because this system isn’t working. Texas set the Top 10% rule in to place to avoid affirmative action, but only more problems have come up. Simply put, people respond to incentives. It happens every day. I personally responded to the incentive set in place by the Top 10% rule by not applying to either of Texas’ flag state universities (or any satellite campuses for that matter). I looked out of state, where I knew my academic credentials would be appreciated and rewarded. Rather than paying about $30,000 a year to go to UT or A&M and be one student among 50,000, I will go to the University of Alabama and pay $15,000 a year as a member of the Honors College. UT and A&M are arguably stronger schools academically (by all means a result of the Top 10% rule), but in my opinion the Honors College will negate that.

The Top 10% rule’s inherent failure is that it was an effort to avoid affirmative action, but it is riddled with problems in and of itself. Texas is losing some of its most talented students, and definitely more of the well-rounded students. No, I didn’t make the grades to be in the top 10% of my graduating class of 117 students. But while I wasn’t studying I had out of classroom experiences–playing sports, enjoying fellowship with friends, working, doing community service. Other students who, for whatever reason, don’t have high enough grades to be in the Top 10% seek to go to college out of state as well. One friend I have is in the second quartile, but will attend Northeastern University this upcoming fall. On scholarship. Rather than let grades be my god, I sought out of classroom experiences that were only additive to my high school years.

And, I will continue to do so in college, just not in Texas.

Academic Changes: Good & Bad

One of the many academic journals I receive is the Intercollegiate Review. It is published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. I believe they have been publishing this journal since 1953 — but I could be wrong. The institute is pretty conservative. Case in point: The above issue that just arrived on my campus desk ran a piece on the changing tide of academic studies. The author noted that schools — particularly universities — once served as the model for academic excellence. Students sought to be more well-rounded. They had a greater investment in their education and were intellectually curious. Thus, it was not unheard of for a business major to study the American Revolution; psychology majors took courses in the studies of Shakespeare and Milton; future politicians thumbed through the King James Bible. I will admit, I agree with the author in that a tide has shifted students away from being seekers to just being done. A few years ago, I was asked to be the keynote speaker at Houston Christian’s National Honor Society Induction Ceremony. In my speech, I stated that W.E.B. Du Bois used the term “the talented tenth” to describe the likelihood of one in ten blacks becoming leaders of their race in the world, through methods such as continuing their education, writing books, or becoming directly involved in social change. He believed they needed an education to reach their true destiny as what would in the 20th century be called public intellectuals. Du Bois stated:

We shall have only as we make manhood the object of the work of the schools — intelligence, broad sympathy, knowledge of the world that was and is, and of the relation of men to it — this is the curriculum of that Education which must underlie true life. On this foundation we may build bread winning, skill of hand and quickness of brain, with never a fear lest the child and man mistake the means of living for the object of life.

I do sense that society has shifted away from training people to be thinkers; in truth, it appears that we are training people to make money. And, I suspect that is the direction of the modern economy. Here is where I disagree with the premise of the article: It blamed the radicalism of the 1960s for destroying the traditional cannon of knowledge taught on campuses across the country. It ridiculed the notion that single-sex schools vanished. Now, in this new age, schools are teaching courses on gender and sexuality. Race and culture courses now dominate history, English, and political science departments. I suspect the author feels that the academy should reflect the white man theory on education. Forget about changing demographics and pluralism. Though the author makes a number of great points…as I noted above, I feel the attack on changing group dynamics as reflected in academic curricula is silly.

Here are a few courses being taught at various universities that the author took aim at:

Yale University — Humanities and Arts Requirement: US Lesbian and Gay History          

University of Texas — Science Requirement: Animal Sexuality

College of Holy Cross — Religion Requirement: Gardens and World Religions

I must point out that I do not know if the above courses are really required; I am simply stating what I read in this journal piece. I would not be shocked to learn that this is all for shock value.

I would love to get your thoughts on this.

Black Women are “Less” Attractive? by New England Private School Teacher

The post below was written by a friend and a colleague of mine who teaches at a New England independent day school; she is very active in matters regarding the faculty, gender, and race. And, being a female faculty member of color, offers an important point of view below; her post in many ways relates to my current project regarding the vanishing identity of people of color in independent schools. This is a great post to share with many of you who follow my academic interests.

An article in the magazine claimed that it’s a scientific fact that Black women are less beautiful than women of other races. Its author, Satoshi Kanazawa, is notorious for hiding behind pseudoscience to promote discredited racist and sexist ideas. In giving these ideas a platform, PT’s editors dehumanized Black women and girls everywhere. After widespread public outcry, they removed the article from their website. But that alone won’t erase the damage they’ve done by validating these discredited ideas — the editors need to apologize, explain how this happened, and let us know that it won’t happen again. Please join me and my friends at ColorOfChange.org in demanding they do so immediately: http://act.colorofchange.org/sign/psychtoday?referring_akid=1987.1172257.Zepmlc&source=taf

Kanazawa’s article is flawed from top to bottom. Using a flawed dataset from an unrelated study of teenagers, he draws the obviously false conclusion that Black women are “objectively” less attractive than women from other racial groups. Kanazawa has a long history of hiding behind pseudo-science to express racist and sexist views. He once wrote an article asking “Are All Women Essentially Prostitutes?” and another suggesting that the US should have dropped nuclear bombs across the entire Middle East after 9/11 because it would have wiped out Muslim terrorists.

So why does Psychology Today continue to give him a platform? Black women must constantly face both subtle and explicit messages that they are valued less than women of other races — messages that are especially damaging to Black girls. Now they’ve served as launching point for yet another attack, this time in the name of science. To undo the damage it’s done, Psychology Today needs to explicitly reject Kanazawa’s ideas. Please join me and my friends at ColorOfChange.org in demanding that their editors apologize, explain how this article was published in the first place, and tell us what they’ll do to ensure that this won’t happen again in the future. It takes just a moment: http://act.colorofchange.org/sign/psychtoday?referring_akid=1987.1172257.Zepmlc&source=taf

Thanks.

Additional resources:

1. http://creativeseven.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/satoshi-kanazawa-article.pdf

2. http://jezebel.com/5786394/the-illustrious-career-of-a-crap-psychologist

3. http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/05/satoshi_kanazawa_is_a_scientific.html

4. http://www.racialicious.com/2011/05/17/how-to-debunk-pseudo-science-articles-about-race-in-five-easy-steps/

The Great White Lie

“It is like writing history with Lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.” — President Woodrow Wilson after viewing The Birth of A Nation, which presented black Americans as an uncivilized class of people seeking to rape white women. Thus, society can only be saved by God’s angels, the KKK. This group used the cross to showcase its belief in the great white religion, Christianity.

There is a reason why many consider him and Andrew Jackson to be the most racist presidents in United States History. In defense of the two, America was a racist nation disguised as a Christian nation. There are a number of Americans that feel the USA should divert back to its past. They will tell you that the past was not that ugly, but that too many revisionist historians have simply rewritten the past out of the notion of multiculturalism. It is not unusual to hear folks talk about the good old days. I am sure that is correct; it just depends on your race, gender, religious affiliation, and socioeconomic makeup. The good old days is a lie manifested by those who fear pluralism. Hence, pluralism is the great enemy to those that have long controlled power. We are in the middle of a great culture war. We see it here in the “great” state of Texas (read: sarcasm here).

The board is to vote on a sweeping purge of alleged liberal bias in Texas school textbooks in favour of what Dunbar says really matters: a belief in America as a nation chosen by God as a beacon to the world, and free enterprise as the cornerstone of liberty and democracy.

“We are fighting for our children’s education and our nation’s future,” Dunbar said. “In Texas we have certain statutory obligations to promote patriotism and to promote the free enterprise system. There seems to have been a move away from a patriotic ideology. There seems to be a denial that this was a nation founded under God. We had to go back and make some corrections.”

Those corrections have prompted a blizzard of accusations of rewriting history and indoctrinating children by promoting rightwing views on religion, economics and guns while diminishing the science of evolution, the civil rights movement and the horrors of slavery.

Several changes include sidelining Thomas Jefferson, who favoured separation of church and state, while introducing a new focus on the “significant contributions” of pro-slavery Confederate leaders during the civil war. (Link here)

 

Marx and the Church on Gambling

Karl Marx was not a nationalist nor a spiritual person like that of Georg Hegel, who found the Lutheran faith to be the highest form of religion in a man’s life. If one were to look beyond the exile of the Catholic church, during the early stages of the French Revolution, historical analysis would show a vibrant relationship between religion and nationalism. Marx, unlike Hegel, saw religion as a seductive force; it was an element that, as other Marxists scholars have noted, served as another means of exploiting the means of the masses. As noted in his Opium of the People:

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Marx’s thesis, of class consciousness and class conflict, continues to be relevant today. Though Paul Gottfried’s The Strange Death of Marxism addressed the political shift of the left in relation to societal constructs, Marxism continues to be a significant school of thought in a world divided by class, race, gender, and national interest. Academic disciplines continue to focus on conflicts within society as they seek to explain economic interest in a pluralistic society. And yes, I do believe pluralism is a highly ubiquitous ideology that shapes the social and cultural make-up of the American polity.

But, if Marx had his doubts about the seductive force of religion, on the masses, he would contend that exploitation of any type is exploitation. Not only did Marx see forces of economic interest as being dangerous, the church (Catholic and Protestant) also voiced its concerns about agents that exploit. In a recent class discussion on capitalism, I told my macroeconomics class that Marx would be opposed to both a state lottery system, and casinos. As a self-professed liberal, I too do not favor the lottery or casinos. Here is the problem: politicians support legalizing casino gambling and the lottery because they are influenced by special interest. Many claim it will generate revenue for the state and create jobs; in truth, both exploit the poor, lead to more crime, and increase unemployment. The lottery is an indirect tax. I realize that it is a tax one does not have to pay, but if you are low on the socioeconomic scale, it is easy to be seduced by the possibility of cashing in quick for greater earnings.

In addition, education plays a major role in this matter. If you are poor and have a limited education, the seductive forces of the opium of gambling, will be hard to reject. A man works hard all week to earn a pay check, yet that check is not enough to make ends meet. Thus, he seeks to “earn” additional wages by handing that check over to a casino with the hope of getting rich. Casinos represents the bourgeoisie’s efforts at exploiting the poor. Once that hardworking man surrenders that check, he is granted a credit card to buy alcohol, rent a room, have dinner, and gamble with money he does not have. In the end, he leaves the casino in debt.

This is not an unusual predicament of classic exploitation. Spend time in a poor black inner-city neighborhood. You will see pawn shops, liquor stores, and porn shops. All of which are owned by the same class of people who own casinos and lobby politicians to legislate a state lottery. Their justification: lottery dollars will be used to improve the education of blacks in the inner-city. Special interests always look to states like Georgia and Mississippi as a reason for why it works. I am not convinced. The church is not convinced, as noted by John McArthur, who outlines the sins of gambling here. My two favorite points are 1.) it preys on the weak and 2.) it is part of the sin of materialism. Marx would draw this exact conclusion, too.

I do not think this is an ideological matter; I was a bit shocked that many of my students disagreed with me. They argued that it is a choice. In a society that is made up of freedoms and economic expansion, people have the right to enhance their earnings…be it the casino owner or the uninformed poor person looking to improve his lifestyle. They have the right to hold such a position. It is not my job to change my student’s minds; however, it is my job to present the historical evidence that proves otherwise.

Remember Faubus and Wallace?

As I get ready to head back home, I thought I would enlighten you with this clip on why blacks, liberals, and others favor the federal government over that of states; it is a matter of fear as Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus reminds.

Below is the other States’ Right advocate, George Wallace. He stated “I say segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” Listen to this interview; he sounds like a 21st century Republican politician.

Gender

Outside my campus door, I have on display the above quote noting the meaning of feminism, as it reads: “Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.” The term feminism in and of itself can be somewhat of a contentious term and ideology. Often times, individuals equate it to radicalism…which it can be, as can terms such as nationalism be used in a dangerous fashion to denote the concept of jingoism. But with feminism, its danger is found in its threat towards traditional institutions. Feminism challenges the basic construct of hegemony in that many institutions are and have been controlled by men. However, women via equal educational and political opportunities have torn down many of the walls constructed by the notion of male hegemony — at least in the western world. This is not the case in other parts of the world in which various religious faiths have been used to justify male supremacy.

I have always been taught that the great thing about liberalism is this: it believes it is wrong to reject individuals access to institutions that will inherently work against their natural rights; some might see proposition 8 this way; it might be the right of all individuals to universal health care; or, the right to an education regardless of socioeconomic status; how about the rights of women to afford child care? Feminism as ideology represents most of the women in my life; I like to think about the laborious hours my mother put herself through just to guarantee that my brother and I had the basics to cope with the challenges of day-to-day living. Furthermore, her plight is one of historical proportions in that she is not only a woman facing the challenges of male hegemony, but a black female from a lower socioeconomic base living in the deep South. She lived in Alabama during the 1960s… Not that all things have changed much since then. Thus, elements such as class, gender, race, and power have a very different meaning to her than say — me. Though my race brings about a particular challenge to other types of dominant institutions in society, my gender offers far more doors. This is an unfortunate reality that many of us are unwilling to discuss; it is simple to talk of progressive women as being feminazis or aggressive animals. But, the day-to-day challenges of women are far too extensive for men, including myself, to comprehend; I teach about feminism in my courses, but I cannot wholly understand its meaning. In Gloria Steinem’s If Men Could menstruate, she offers a unique analogy into the world of women. She ridicules sexism and the silly assumptions men make about the plight of women.

Above: I believe all true students of history and culture should read Simone de Beavoir’s The Second Sex, as noted by the quote on my door.

According to Rosemary Radford Ruether’s Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology,

…traditional Christian theology shapes Christ as the model for a redeemed humanity…one that we have lost through sin and recover through redemption. But Christ as symbol is problematic for feminist theology. The Christological symbols have been used to enforce male dominance, and even if we go back behind masculinist Christology to the praxis of the historical Jesus of the synoptic Gospels, it is questionable whether there is a single model of redeemed humanity fully revealed in the past.

In reading this work for a seminar course I took in graduate school, I understood this point to say that Jesus had both masculine and feminine characteristics, but it has been man who took only the masculine to define the culture of humanity. Though the characteristics of Jesus as it relates to masculinity and femininity is another blog post, one cannot argue that Christians are asked to respect both gender traits defined by the basic notion of the rib of Adam; it is at this point that male hegemony tends to set a course of new rules. Hence, women are to be the care takers of masculinity. They are to cook, clean, please, and behave in a fashionable effort deemed okay by men. I find myself combating this thought among some of the young male students I teach; if their mother is a homemaker and their father treats her as second class…I have found that young men in my courses behave this way. Male students treat my female colleagues differently than they do male teachers; I suspect this is true in other arenas too. The challenge of course is deconstructing this attitude by reminding students that feminism is a Christian virtue; Christ shared both gender characteristics. This is not a bad thing; if teaching male students to be Christ like is the value of teaching at a Christian institution, it is important that Christian educators model this in how they approach the topic of gender history. I am not innocent of what I am writing; it was my mother that asked me to rethink the rap music I used to listen to. Like much of the popular culture music today, it is demeaning to females.

The Religion of Hip-Hop and the Music of Jesus Christ

Hip-hop and Jesus Christ are not synonymous; however, the two are drawn together through a “sense” of spiritual reconciliation.  Christians contend that the Bible offers hope and understanding to those that are lost. The hip-hop artist also contends that his lyrics offer a “sense” of hope and salvation, much like that of Jesus Christ. Religious historians have given very little attention to the impact religion has had on hip-hop and rap culture. Though, there is a natural juxtaposition here.

Edward Blum’s W.E. B. Du Bois presents Jesus Christ as a savior: a God who walked with communist, sinners, blacks, and others. The great debate, or post-modern questions is this: Who is Jesus Christ? Believers will tell you that He is the Son of God. He is a part of a complex matrix called the Trinity. Others will tell you that He is a great prophet who told moral tales in times of strife and chaos. Then there are those that find him to be too mythical to have ever existed in the current form that society knows him as.  Historians look at Christ through multiple frames. Scholars of American Religion, such as Blum and Phillip Sinitiere, take a dynamic approach by juxtaposing Him as a savior of a race. But note, not that of the Jews – but of black folks.

This spiritual and racial personification can be seen through the lens of historical actors like Harriet Tubman, also known as black Moses, due to her efforts in rescuing enslaved blacks from the depths of the plantation system. Nat Turner, the enslaved leader of the 1831 slave rebellion, stated that God told him in a dream to free the colored people from their bondage, as well as killing their masters. Thus, his historical attack was the worse ever. After such a rebellion, many slaveholders forbade Negro worship in isolation.  Hence, allowing for integrated worship with whites.[1]Slaves heard the Old Testament tales of oppression by the unrighteous.  Due to such oral examples, many looked to a hero – that being Jesus Christ.

 

The historiography of slavery is one that continues to be redefined. Though the topic of Negro religion has long been one of interest by historians, the mere impact of slave religion on modern culture is new.  I hope to finish drafting a paper for UrbanFaith which examines the anthropological and historical impact Jesus Christ has had on both hip-hop and rap music; if one were to look at many artist and listen to their lyrics, there is often a sense of racial oppression due to modern-day conditions that date back to the historical roots of Nat Turner and Harriet Tubman.

Above: The late controversial rapper, Tupac Shakur, was a devote Christian. He addressed his pains and life as a gangster in his music. Thus, the rapper sought faith through his lyrics as a form of prayer. Note the lines from his rap song, God:

When I was alone, and had nothing
I asked for a friend to help me bear the pain
No one came, except God
When I needed a breath to rise, from my sleep
No one could help me.. except God
When all I saw was sadness, and I needed answers
No one heard me, except God
So when I’m asked.. who I give my
unconditional love to?
I look for no other name, except God

In a draft of my paper analyzing the significance of teaching the 1980s in United States history survey courses, I noted that urban blacks felt oppressed by a conservative government looking to enrich the wealthy, while impoverishing the poor at an alarming rate; I do not agree with this; however, my opinion is not relevant to a generation of hip-hop artist and rappers singing about the racial brutality imposed by the police. Rap music quickly conflated the role of gangs and religion; Jesus Christ was found as the head of the gang known as the Bloods; h[H]e would rescue the youth from their enslavement of American racism.

Above: Peter Gomes

Peter Gomes, a man I deeply admire for his scholarship, faith, and willingness to address his personal life[2], noted in his work, The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart, stated that American society all but looked to our great leaders and their devotion to Christ. He mentioned the born-again Christian in Jimmy Carter who took time to teach Sunday school classes while being the leader of the free world. Ronald Reagan, a man who sought to build the strength of America off of the values of Christianity.[3] Gomes praised George W. Bush for his professed faith in Christ, as well as his fervor for showcasing it, too. But, there is a disconnect when it comes to the faith of public official and that of black music artist. In the mind of the young black teen, public officials represent a societal paradox. Sure, they are great men, but often time they represent the constructs and authority in which urban youths are looking to teardown. This creates a vacuum. Young black Christians find their identity not in a government, but in the hip-hop/rap artist. The artist has taken on the role of apostle Paul, who made a number of missionary journeys in hopes of bringing the gospel of Christ to those that do not know him.

---

[1] Jason Young’s book, Ritual of Resistance, also discusses the first use of balcony gatherings during worship. Since whites felt a sense of obligation to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to all people, keeping Negros from worshiping was thought to be sinful.

 

[2] Gomes is the Plummer Professor of Christian Morals and chaplain at Harvard University; he received a great deal of attention when he public announced that he was a homosexual in the mid 1990s. He contends to be a devote conservative Republican.

[3] Gomes did note that Reagan was part of the late 1970s cultural wars that witnessed the rise of the religious right. Moreover, this population played a major part in his election.

The Ideology of the Court

One element consistent of the political processes since the Warren court is the cultural wars. This ideological conflict really came to prominence during the conservative vs. liberal debates regarding gender, race, and religion in the 1920s. Moreover, the same arguments hold true for the decade of the 1950s and the 1980s. With the retirement of Justice Stevens from the Court, both the left and the right have armed themselves for conflict; I am not sure why.

If the Court is supposed to be a neutral arbiter of the Constitution, then why did the Framers construct a system that allows a partisan official of ideological disposition to make such a selection? I would hope that my students would answer this question by stating that during the construction of the Constitution, there “technically” were no political parties; however, even that answer would not be wholly sufficient, seeing that the process of drafting the Constitution was in and of itself an ideological conflict between Federalist and Anti-Federalist. This division shaped much of the political conflicts throughout the 1790s.

So, I ask the question, why go to arms over a presidential appointment to the Court? According to the Constitution:

The power to appoint Justices belongs to the President under the Constitution (Article II, Section 2). The “advice and
consent” of the Senate is required for any Supreme Court appointment. The Senate Judiciary Committee conducts
hearings to question nominees and determine their suitability. Thereafter, the whole Senate considers the nomination; a
simple majority vote is required to confirm or to reject a nominee. In some instances, the Senate may defeat a nominee
by failing to take a final vote on the nominee, rather than by explicit rejection. For example, the minority may filibuster
a nominee, indefinitely prolonging debate and refusing to permit a vote.

Thus, since this is the case, the Framers constructed a system in which an ideological figure has the power to appoint a person to uphold the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, but others who might not hold that position can check his/her powers to appoint.

I am hoping the president will appease the base that elected him by selecting Diane Wood to the bench; I like the fact that she is a woman, but I also like that she holds the intellectual understanding that the Constitution is a document for all Americans. It is important that groups that hold their own ideological positions do not work against that of others. I am a fan of the Bill of Rights and believe they are not in place to deny the rights of Americans, but to protect those rights. And yes, that means the rights of religious fundamentalist or those who are in the KKK; we cannot pick here.

The United States is a plural society. The joy of pluralism is that it offers an array of diverse views. A Muslim should have the same rights as that of a Christian, as noted in the 1st Amendment. A justice should be one that looks to uphold all aspects of the Bill of Rights. If Obama fails to select Wood to the Court, many will see him as a weak president.

The Cosby Show: A Nonreflective Reality of (Black) Life

Television’s portrayal of blacks has had its ups and downs, from stereotype-laden comedies like ”Amos ‘n’ Andy” to advances like the late-60′s series ”Julia,” starring Diahann Carroll. It seemed to have reached a new stage in 1984 with the premiere of ”The Cosby Show,” on NBC. The show, about a family of black professionals, the Huxtables, ran successfully for eight years, attracting a multiracial audience, often topping the ratings and spawning another successful show, ”A Different World,” about the Huxtables’ daughter, going to college and rooming with a white woman at a historically black college. The great thing about this show, of course, was that it “A Different World” painted a positive image of black colleges, one that brought about white curiosity towards schools like Hampton or Howard University.

”The Cosby Show” was criticized in some quarters for depicting a nonrepresentative upper-middle-class family, but others argued that it exhibited positive values widely held in the black community that were too often overlooked on television. It seems that the Cosby Show feared complex topics that denote a sense of realism, especially about matters important to the black community. This might have more to do with its high ratings and general popularity across both white and black audiences. Recent shows that touch on  issues reflective of black communities have not done as well. For the most part, just turn to the WB or CW, stations that portray black shows. I do recall making it a point to watch the Cosby Show every Thursday night as a young grade school student. At that time the element and complexities of race were absent from my understanding. The show seem perfectly normal to me in that it portrayed what I deemed comedy at the time; however, with age and education, one cannot help but reflect on the show, hence noting not so much of what they were doing, but rather the absence of topics that pin point the complexities of the 1980s. My most recent paper showcases an avenue of darkness that plagued black life in the 1980s as seen in the gangster lyrics of NWA and other rappers.

I started renting and borrowing old episodes of the show to see what topics were addressed and what topics were omitted. Thus far, here are a few general things noticed:

1. There was a heightened sense of racial division during the 80s, however, that division did not seem to impact the black middle class.
2. No conversations about the issue of sexuality and sexual identity with the rise of AIDS.
3. The economic downturn that hurt many Americans, especially black Americans thus far did not exist.
4. Though break dancing was a part of Theo’s culture, the complexity of artist that marked the period in a more realist genre was absent. There was talk of Michael Jackson, though.
5. The show did define the significance of religion on a few episodes, but avoided its relevance in the black community altogether.
6. Drugs thus far has not been an issue.
7. Black on black crime was a non topic.
8. Interracial dating was addressed in a positive fashion, though done so indirectly
9. There was no Cold War. Also, the general topic of politics and civil rights so far has not been seen.
10. There was no evidence of popular culture.

Columbus Day or Lie Day

North Americans celebrate today, Columbus day, as a mere method of generating a great “sense” of nationalism and to promote Occidentalism via grand herofication of imperialism; I do not celebrate this day due to the historical injustices taught in schools. Thus, I will spend today in my study working as a sign of protest. How can we as historians allow such grand lies to be accepted by a population that wants to be ignorant of historical truths? Only in the United States do they call the truth about Columbus “revisionist history.” Keep in mind that states such as Arizona refused to make Martin Luther King Jr’s birthday a state holiday. Noted North Carolina’s Republican [racist] Jesse Helms once stated that “his state should not accept this federal holiday because King had not done anything important.” He also pointed out that he was a Marxist who opposed the Vietnam War. Why is it that every progressive educated black person must be a Marxist? President Reagan also opposed this holiday, too. But, Americans continue to lie about the purity of Columbus. Sounds more like jingoism than nationalism. Tyler Look, a current student of mine, sent me this article on how some schools are addressing the dark side of Columbus.

Howard Zinn’s People’s History of the United States devotes an entire chapter to this topic. Below is an excerpt stating:

… because of Columbus’s exaggerated report and promises, his second expedition was given seventeen ships and more than twelve hundred men. The aim was clear: slaves and gold. They went from island to island in the Caribbean, taking Indians as captives. But as word spread of the Europeans’ intent they found more and more empty villages. On Haiti, they found that the sailors left behind at Fort Navidad had been killed in a battle with the Indians, after they had roamed the island in gangs looking for gold, taking women and children as slaves for sex and labor.
Now, from his base on Haiti, Columbus sent expedition after expedition into the interior. They found no gold fields, but had to fill up the ships returning to Spain with some kind of dividend. In the year 1495, they went on a great slave raid, rounded up fifteen hundred Arawak men, women, and children, put them in pens guarded by Spaniards and dogs, then picked the five hundred best specimens to load onto ships. Of those five hundred, two hundred died en route. The rest arrived alive in Spain and were put up for sale by the archdeacon of the town, who reported that, although the slaves were “naked as the day they were born,” they showed “no more embarrassment than animals.” Columbus later wrote: “Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold.”

Socialism in American Political History

Very interesting discussion taking place of late in the New York Times about how we define socialism. See below…

It seems that whatever President Obama talks about — whether it’s overhauling health care, or regulating Wall Street, or telling schoolchildren to study hard — his opponents have called him a socialist. “Socialism” was an epithet on many placards at protests in Washington over the weekend. What does the word mean today, nearly 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall? What role has the label played in American political history?

• Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor, The Nation
• Patrick Allitt, professor of American history
• Steven F. Hayward, scholar, American Enterprise Institute
• Andrew Hartman, historian
• Terence Ball, political scientist
• Charles Dunn, professor of government
• Matthew Dallek, historian
• Jefferson Cowie and Nick Salvatore, Cornell University

School Industry

I posted this once and thought about it again last night when Dead Poets Society was on the tube.

During the Gilded Age period, the industrial model of education was seen as efficient and pragmatic; however, the traditional machine model as illustrated by a row of desk showcased industry and religion: In the typical classroom model, students’ expectation were to sit and listen to a sage pontificate knowledge; I addressed the religious aspect because the notion of Puritanical beliefs circa 1620 modeled what one found in a church: A minister in front of his followers whose duty was to absorb information rather than engage in a dialogue about the premise of the information.This model is much noted on the campuses of large universities with grand lecture halls.

Why do schools continue to be industrial? If you recall, it is not unusual for a school day to operate much like a factory: Eager students await the day by gathering in lines to enter the hall of their particular factory/school. They make their way from period to period at the beat of a bell; students take on the identity of robots as they appear to have conformed to a systematic process of clock watching. As the bell rings, they escape one shift for the next. They work as endless droids until the whistle blows (or bell rings) denoting lunch; they attend session after session to watch a “manager” play authority over their ability to think freely and/or independently. Some schools operate like prisons and less like learning communities: Windows exist to be boxed up and doors shut to showcase work zones; the manager instructs his/her workers to conform much like Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World’s operatives do. A warden polices the hall modeling a lack of distrust for his/her factory workers. Such workers are told to think independently, but they are chained by conformity.

This is my favorite movie and easily one of my favorite scenes.

In a classical sense, a great manager by the name of Mr. Keeting (Dead Poets Society) taught his workers to break from the Taylor model of industrial efficiency; however, when they did so, they were met by a factory full of managers who feared true independence of thought; in the end, Oh Captain my Captain was dismissed due to his Socratic formula of teaching.

Sotomoyor: Race, Reproduction, & Gender By Jaylon Williams

I am watching the confirmation hearings of Sotomayor; currently, Republican Senator Jeff Sessions is attacking her 1970s liberalism via race, gender, and reproductive rights. The topic of affirmative action, once thought almost dead, has been recently resurrected by way of Obama’sselection of a candidate who might look to find sympathy among the American people. I suspect the key  issue today is that of race and gender, the two factors that shaped the 1970s with two instrumental court cases: Bakke v. California…. The court upheld the use of race as a factor in hiring and admission. The other factor regarding gender/reproduction was Roe v. Wade. Here the court utilized the 9th Amendment to draw a conclusion. Conservative blacks and whites fear Sotomayor due to her 1970s approach.

As public policy, affirmative action can be dated to President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s June 4, 1965 address to the graduating class of Howard University. LBJ intended this speech as his own Civil Rights Proclamation. He chose his words carefully, with an eye towards posterity: You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: ‘now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.’ You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe you have been completely fair…. This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity – not just legal equity but human ability – not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result.”

The Greatest Generation: The 1960s

A few years ago I heard a speaker talk about how terrible the 1960s were; his contention was that it was a period marked by immorality, crime, and vice; sure, those things took place as they did in the 1920 or the 1950s — two decades often thought to be a period of morality and righteousness. Moreover, the premise of those two decades was constructed around a sense of myth and falsities. Why not address the lynchings of blacks or the domestic oppression of women? How about the wage earner? Those who were exploited for their labor much like many Mexicans continue to be.  I do believe that the 1960s was the greatest decade ever; it allowed for a transformation that inculcated a belief in true liberty and civil rights. The construction of the constitution failed to do this for the obvious reasons I have stated before:

Democratic ideas are most likely to take root among discontented and oppressed classes, rising middle classes, or perhaps some sections of an old, alienated, and partially disinherited aristocracy, but they do not appeal to a privileged class that is still amplifying its privileges. With a half dozen exceptions at most, the men who had considerable position and wealth, and as a group they had advanced well beyond their fathers.

One of the things Hofstadter writes about in his many works is that of economic elitism. He described the framers as men who created an oligarchy via the Constitution only as an instrument to protect their wealth and status; he questions the democratic nature of the founders and the Constitution. Moreover, he discusses history as an entity protected by the very men who used it to enhance their status.

Howard Zinn writes in his piece on the Greatest Generation:

I would propose other choices if we are to educate the young people of our time in the values of peace and justice.
We might take the generation of the American Revolution, another generation almost universally considered “great.” I would not choose the Founding Fathers to represent it. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Madison have had enough adulation, and their biographies clog the book review sections of the major media.
The Founding Fathers did lead the war for independence from Britain. But they did not do it for the equal right of all to life, liberty, and equality. Their intention was to set up a new government that would protect the property of slave owners, land speculators, merchants, and bondholders. Independence from England had already been secured in parts of the country by grassroots rebellion a year before the battles at Lexington and Concord that initiated hostilities with Britain. (See Ray Raphael’s A Peoples History of the American Revolution, New Press, 2001.) It is one of the phenomena of modern times that revolutions are not favored unless they are led by people who are not revolutionaries at heart.

Zinn goes on to state:

Those who saw combat in World War II, whether they lived or died, are celebrated as heroes. But it seems clear that the degree of heroism attributed to soldiers varies according to the moral reputation of the war. The fighters of World War II share a special glory because that war has always been considered a “good war,” more easily justified (except by those who refuse to justify any war) than the wars our nation waged against Vietnam or Korea or Iraq or Panama or Grenada. And so they are “the greatest generation.”
What makes them so great? These men-the sailors of Pearl Harbor, the soldiers of the D-Day invasion, the crews of the bombers and fighters- risked their lives in war, perhaps because they believed the war was just, perhaps because they wanted to save a friend, perhaps because they had some vague idea they were doing this “for my country.” And even if I believe that there is no such thing as a just war, even if I think that men do not fight for “our country” but for those who run our country, the sacrifice of soldiers who believe, even wrongly, that they are fighting for a good cause is to be acknowledged. But not admired.
I refuse to celebrate them as “the greatest generation” because in doing so we are celebrating courage and sacrifice in the cause of war. And we are miseducating the young to believe that military heroism is the noblest form of heroism, when it should be remembered only as the tragic accompaniment of horrendous policies driven by power and profit. Indeed, the current infatuation with World War II prepares us-innocently on the part of some, deliberately on the part of others-for more war, more military adventures, more attempts to emulate the military heroes of the past.

I think Zinn presents a few pointos to ponder and think about, though I do not wholly agree withh all of his conclusions; however, he does give me something to take and wrestle with.

Political Cartel on Abortion

Again, another great post by David Manes at the Political Cartel; I am not comfortable writing about or discussing the topic of Abortion.  However, this post is worth a read. See here… I am going to close my comment box here; feel free to join their conversation.

Book: God’s Harvard

I hope to start on this work soon. I am behind on my book count since the semester started. A friend of mine who also teaches sent this book to me saying:”it is a worthy read as you reflect and write about the historical processes of schools.” He is referring to my work on race and independent schools; it does not fit the model of what I hope to achieve, but it looks like it will make for a great draw on the comparisons of nonsectarian independent schools, to that of Christian independent schools; I have not decided if I am going to look at this element. I have very little time and money to expand my research. But, I have noticed that students of denominational Christian schools tend to attend denominational Christian colleges. I do know that Patrick Henry College is very conservative.

Here is a brief review of the work:

During his time as professor of government at Patrick Henry College, an evangelical institution in northern Virginia, Robert Stacey frequently urged his students “to read widely and critically, and to question all received wisdom.” Which, considering the inherent mission of any evangelical school, may come as a surprise. But for the students at Patrick Henry, Stacey’s exhortation inspired reverence. Read the rest here…

Communist Obama Display

Above: Pictures of communists associated with Obama in a negative way by right wingers. Karl Marx, Frank Marshall Davis, Obama, Bill Ayers, and Che Guevara

Two days ago a few students approached me wondering if I saw the VERY large anti-Obama banner displayed down the road from campus; I really thought they were joking until I and a group of my students took a field trip off campus to take pictures — and to mock the sign; as a liberal, I support the rights of people to protest and showcase their political and ideological leanings; if I did not I would be the biggest hypocrite and agent of anti-intellectualism on campus. Still, I find it interesting that Americans want to associate Obama with communism. Better yet, I find it most interesting that people who protest him and the others on that banner — but have not read nor discussed their work. I have blogged before on the topic of Marxism as an academic method of study here and here. Thus, most people really do not understand this topic nor have they read about it; I realize I sound like a snob, but I do suspect I am right.

As noted before ,Obama is not a communist…. Though I am sure his race and academic training influenced him. It was during the course of the 20th century in which the emergence of Marxism as an academic philosophy in higher education set forth a new wave of examining American culture. It was during the Cold War and its sub conflicts (Vietnam), as well as the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s that promulgated many academics to make an ideological shift to the far left. With social and political instability taking place in the United States, Marxist academics were training young students of history, political science, economics, etc., for an intellectual war; this conflict was set to transform the thought process in classes, lecture halls, professional meetings, and published works.

Above: Carson in front of Houston’s firewood business anti-Obama display.

Above: HCHS students who visited the conservative shrine located off of Beltway 8 next to Baseball USA.