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.

Color of Christ

Great interview with Edward Blum on Jesus, race, and politics. Blum notes that our depiction of Jesus in terms of color emerged only in the 19th century. Yes, Jesus was a colored man or a man of color.

What Are You Working On?

Working Title and Paper: Revisiting the Problem of the Twentieth Century: Will Evangelical and Faith-Based Schools Mend the Color Line in the Twenty-First Century?

Currently, my most recent research and writing project explores WEB Du Bois’s notion of the color line; he noted that the problem of the 20^th century was that of the color line. I have spent the past two years doing archival work on Du Bois in an effort to construct a document reader, one that I am co-authoring. Drawing from my archival work, the basic premise of my current paper explores the letters, writings, and publications via The Crisis in which Du Bois addressed the academic and religious divide among blacks and whites in society, as well as in education. Du Bois continued to add tension to the conversation by putting into question his sense of religiosity. His sense of faith brings in various debates regarding his belief in God…and not just among whites – but blacks, too. His faith mixed in with his Marxist leanings creates an interesting topic regarding the color line, education, and the Negro plight.

The initial point of my work explores Du Bois and his construction as it relates to race, faith, and education. It transitions into the late 20^th and early 21^st century as I attempt to analyze the question of the color line. My paper will be of most interest to many in that it attempts to highlight the concept of racial identity; it will address matters of multi-ethnicity as more than a modern phenomenon and a novel condition. Drawing from the age of Du Bois to the 1960’s origin that defined black as beautiful, black Americans sought a sense of pride and unity in their hair and cultural make-up. Thus, with a rising number of blacks attending college, a bourgeois attitude towards race, faith, and culture became cemented. However, the following 40 years witnessed a shift in which black American’s “sense” of self declined due to the values assigned by various member in society. Much like in the age of Du Bois, black thinkers and members of the black community have witnessed a shift in religious beliefs, class expectations, and behavioral norms.

The question of community and self brings back to light the notion of the color line in the 21^st century. Students and faculty members of color have often been predicated on the notion of self-worth. This is noted in popular culture and is systematic in independent schools in which mainstream values are defined for them: language, dress, faith, and ideology. These latter components create newly minted historical questions of historical phenomena that should be debated among scholars and within the environment of independent schools. Hence, the challenges faced by Du Bois are still present. The question of evangelical and faith-based schools mending those challenges is explored in this work.

Learning from American Dad, South Park, and Family Guy

            

Shows such as Family Guy, South Park, and American Dad continue to amaze me in their efforts to disseminate historical and political messages to the masses; I am not sure if I could have explained the Iran Contra Affair, as noted in the video below, any better. That said, I seem to watch very little TV if any; however, I must admit that I love watching these three via Netflix. Sure, I love a great laugh. We all do. But, to watch and catch the number of references related to sexuality, gender, race, class, and politics always impresses me. Each show draws from the humor of such taboo matters as masturbation to that of same-sex marriage. And teaching history courses, both topics do appear; however, my favorite episodes are usually about a significant popular culture reference that is historically significant. Such references remind me that either far too many people are not culturally literate enough to see the message, or they are too young to grasp the point. Regardless, being well read does help in enjoying all three to the fullest.

I am showing this clip below to my 3 sections of AP US History come spring.

Finals Week

Crazy week with exams, reviews, and marking papers. I think I will get it all down by the end of today. Department Christmas party tomorrow before the break. Students have been spoiling me. And yes, I have enjoyed every bit of it. JP Hennessey took this picture below last night while in one of our campus’ library seminar rooms; I was still on campus around 6ish when I got this; it made me smile.

Getting Real About Whiteness in Independent Schools

The National Association of Independent Schools 25th annual People of Color Conference is coming up in December. Last year I delivered a session that addressed a major topic of a paper drafted. I wanted to further the conversation more, thus I submitted an abstract from a second piece discussing the historical and anthropological perspectives on race and independent schools. It was accepted a few months ago. Here is an edited version of my abstract regarding the session:

Title: Getting Real About Whiteness in Independent Schools

 Abstract: The notion of whiteness, in which one believes the world is color blind, teaches us that race does not matter. However, blackness cries out that race does exist; it does matter, but is often silenced by the pressures of our environment.  Both of these concepts tend to be the underlying assumptions that are pervasive in predominately white independent schools. This session will delve into the various change agents that predominately white independent schools must embrace in order to cultivate a true appreciation of multiculturalism. Research for this session was drawn from historical literature that analyzes trends in race, culture, and society… as well as from anthropological arguments.

Gentrification — What does it mean? (White Flight Part I)

In the scene from the classic 90s movie Boyz N the Hood, it paints a picture of black paranoia that existed in the 1980s and 1990s. It takes the viewer through a dialogue in which the crimes of black society were predicated on Social Darwinism. Hence, white society brought in drugs, released HIV, constructed pawn shops, gun shops and liquor stores to further the process of black elimination.

Some members of the Black Nation of Islam subscribe to this thought. However, they are not the only ones. Though I give this discussion very little merit, there is some truth to the problem of gentrification. During the 1950s to the mid 1990s, middle class society contributed to the notion of white gentrification. After Brown v. Board of Education, Americans witnessed an increasing number of whites move to suburban communities to escape the process of integration. This migration produced white shopping centers such as malls, all white neighborhoods, and discrimination practices designed to keep blacks, Hispanics, and immigrants out. However, this trend has reversed over the past two decades in which businesses that contributed to white flight are returning to the inner-city. This is called the rise of the urban renaissance — a topic I will discuss in my next post.

From Boyz N the Hood:

Albrecht Durer Represents the Renaissance

I opened my AP European History class today with a visual of the greatest German Renaissance painter of the early 16th century, Albrecht Durer. He has been described by many as one of the greatest of great humanist. According to the reading I handed students, Durer transcended the period by ushering in the spirit of the “self.” He represents the achievements of all but does not represent all people. His Christ-like appeal in many of his self-portraits captures his sense of “self”. Note the image below:

While studying his provocative Christ-like position, students could not help but note how Maddy Copello resembles Durer; in many ways, it is almost like she is a descendent from the German’s bloodline.

Above: During our discussion, Maddy poses for the class beside the image of Durer.

Bernini’s Teresa

I teach a great deal on the spiritual piety promulgated by the Catholic Reformation; one of the pieces I showcase to students is that of Bernini’s Ecstasy of St. Teresa. I made the trip to a small church to witness this amazing piece. There were few people at this Church of Santa  Maria. I was shocked since it is one of Bernini’s best and most controversial pieces. It addresses one’s sense of religiosity in what might be considered highly sexual. Benini found her sense of faith to be pleasurable enough to be orgasmic. Bernini took this and constructed the statue I am standing beside. Look at her face and note her spiritual pleasure — not sexual pleasure. Look at the joy in her face. The pure pleasure. Here is what Bernini read from her that drove him to construct this piece:

Beside me, on the left, appeared an angel in bodily form…. He was not tall but short, and very beautiful; and his face was so aflame that he appeared to be one of the highest rank of angels, who seem to be all on fire…. In his hands I saw a great golden spear, and at the iron tip there appeared to be a point of fire. This he plunged into my heart several times so that it penetrated to my entrails. When he pulled it out I felt that he took them with it, and left me utterly consumed by the great love of God. The pain was so severe that it made me utter several moans. The sweetness caused by this intense pain is so extreme that one cannot possibly wish it to cease, nor is one’s soul content with anything but God. This is not a physical but a spiritual pain, though the body has some share in it—even a considerable share.

Blum on Lincoln the Vampire Killer

My friend and colleague, professor Edward Blum, has written a great piece on the most recent movie: Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Killer at his Teaching US History blog; I am copying his post here. You can also visit it here.

The Whitewashing of Civil War America

There are so many more reasons to feel sick about Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter – both the film and the novel. The take home message to me (and again, I have yet to see the movie) is that it presents American history in such a way that whites have character and characters; whites are the movers and shakers for and against freedom; whites initiate historical change and blacks react to it. And, this overview view isn’t just in the novels and the movies. Take a closer look at Drew Faust’s This Republic of Suffering or George Rable’s God’s Almost Chosen People (two books and authors I admire significantly). But both of them build their analysis upon the sandy ground that 19th-century whites rule the roost and should dominate historical interpretations.

But back to Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter. Here are some more comments in the forms of questions.

• Why do we care about historical authenticity about what Jesus looks like (Mel Gibson had 300 images digitally changed in The Passion of the Christ to alter Jim Caviezel’s eyes), but not about Harriet Tubman? (and we know what she looked like!)
• Why do people care more about Rue’s race (in Hunger Games) than Tubman’s appearance?
• How can a novel use an image taken from Nat Turner’s rebellion (1831) and present it as happening AFTER the emancipation proclamation (claiming that African Americans rose up following Lincoln’s degree… rather than African American resistance making the Emancipation Proclamation necessary)?

Carson’s European History Institute at TCU

Just finished a great institute at the University of Arkansas Little Rock. The folks who attended were great! It was a busier week than I had anticipated, thus I found that I did not have as much time to do a number of other things. Funny, but I also thought I would have time to finish a paper I am drafting for a future conference; I did not even open the file.

I will be spending the next two weeks doing some research and writing for other projects I am involved in. Furthermore, it is my hope that I can put pen to paper in a way that will allow me to develop a greater synthesis on what I am doing. I love having time throughout the day to focus. That is what makes my summers so nice. I will leave for Fort Worth on June 8th. I am leading an AP European History Institute. Here is what we will be doing for the week:

Carson’s AP European History Summer Institute will focus on three elements. The first is a break down of the course and an evaluation of the historical literature used to shape its content. A great deal of literature used by members of the Test Development Committee will be presented in order to draw greater insight into both the skills and historical content required for student success. Secondly, participants will be asked to engage in activates that address students’ skill deficit. Here the focus shifts to document analysis, inferences, making historical generalizations, and drawing conclusions. Lastly, there will be a conversation focused around the most recent research in European historiography. Periodization schema as well as conflicts of interpretation will be addressed. In the end, teachers will be rewarded with a wealth of resources and knowledge regarding the Modern European History course.

The Sexuality of Malcolm X

I have been in deep study of brother Malcolm X. This study extends beyond my reading of Manning Marable’s renowned book on Malcolm, but delves into the thoughts and writings of other historians. Marable addresses a number of interesting notes regarding Malcolm that were unaddressed in other works. The most interesting point deals with Malcolm’s sexuality. Though Manning did not explicitly state that Malcolm was a homosexual and a bi-sexual, he did implicitly conclude that this was a topic in which Malcolm dealt with. Keep in mind that this topic should not be a big surprise, as Marable briefly points out in the video clip below. The key thing noted by Marable was Malcolm’s deliberate omission about elements of his sexuality; we all know about Malcolm’s sexual appetite for both white and black women; however, as noted by Marable, there were hints about Malcolm’s sexuality beyond women. To be transparent here, once Malcolm left the days of being Detroit Red, he would speak against what he called sexual sins: homosexuality, adultery, sex outside of marriage, etc. It was the sexual impurity of Elijah Muhammad that aided the tension between Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam (NOI). Muhammad was responsible for a number of illegitimate children during his reign.

In truth, do I believe this is a topic worth discussing? Not really. But I do believe that if a historian aims to paint a picture of a historical and public figure, that historian should be wholly objective and clear in the process. Are people upset that historians are writing about Martin Luther King Jr.’s infidelity issues? Sure they are. But is it fair to exclude that information? I do not think so.

Interesting read on this topic here.

The late Marable on this topic:

Are Southerners Racist? Part I

After engaging in a very long conversation with a friend of mine about the South, I have elected to devote my next 3 – 4 post on the topic of the racist South.

1. Are southerners racists?

2. Is the South racist?

Historically, the South has resisted the notion of progressive change; traditionally speaking, the South has not embraced legislation that empowers the poor, gays/lesbians, and blacks. It would not be wholly inaccurate to conclude that southerners’ sense of disdain towards Barrack Obama in 2008 was predicated on race and their racist attitudes.

I was first introduced to V.O. Key during my sophomore year of college. Dr. Mark Elrod discussed Key’s Southern Politics and his Theory of Critical Elections. Key contends that at historical points, a balance of power occurred. Hence, social and economic forces were at work and responsible for such political realignment. Case in point: After the historical period in U.S. history known as Reconstruction, Republicans dominated the national landscape except for in the deep South[1]; in the South, the formation of anti-Lincoln/anti-Republicans dominated the scene. Southerners hate for the party and the president who emancipated the American Negro was fervent. Born was the solid South. This period was defined by one in which Southerners used racists tactics to uphold Jim Crow laws by electing only Democrats from 1877 to 1964. The Ku Klux Klan was instrumental in maintaining a state of racist order as a process of subjugation towards black Southerners.

By 1980, a major shift transpired in which Ronald Reagan swept the South and the rest of the nation in a promise of restoring conservatism. Much of this promise was born on Reagan’s promise to reduce the size of the government, and to restore social order brought about during the decades of the 1960s and the 1970s. Again, much of the progress during the 60s and the 70s were aimed at aiding gays/lesbians and racial minorities. Many Southerners today are simply a product of political realignment. Thus, they once embraced Jim Crow policies until federal legislation and the Supreme Court deemed it illegal. Conservatives reacted to the forced political actions of the federal government by seeking conservative candidates who would embrace the ideology of states’ rights. In 1980, Reagan clearly endorsed this position, which was clear by his objection to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965; it was his position that the federal government could not legislate discrimination among civilians.

Though not a new ideological position of Southerners, it was one that many minorities deemed as threatening to their welfare. With the election of Obama in 2008, many Southern whites screamed as though the world had come to an end. Many of Obama’s policies were seen as overly progressive towards liberal ideology; but in truth, Obama has helped (better yet saved) white elites. Though I supported his stimulus policy, many throughout the country did not. Liberals saw it as a testament of serving the needs of the wealthy.  And, with his health care policy still under attack, it is safe to say that Obama has done little to “fully” threaten the traditional base of the new Solid South; a Republican dominated South. One might contend then that race is a major reason in the South’s dislike of Obama. What makes matters worse is that Obama is not just a black man in the White House; he is the product of interracial sex…. A black man and a white woman; he represents the greatest threat to southern ideology.

So, I am not saying the South is a racist institution; I am saying that one must wonder why so many Southerners dislike a president who in theory has very little power.

---

[1] After the death of Abraham Lincoln, VP Andrew Johnson was a southern sympathizer and one who theoretically did not represent the Republican Party. It should also be noted that Grover Cleveland was elected in the years 1888 and 1896 as a Democrat. Republicans would continue to dominate the office of the presidency until FDR.

History of American Equality According to Family Guy

I absolutely love Family Guy. There are multitudes of social matters portrayed in this animation, though much of it is masked at times due to the show’s humor. Here is Peter Griffin on the history of America and the rights granted to other groups.

 

The Flag Topic

A while back, I drafted a post entitled, The Confederate Flag: A Symbol of Culture or Racism. Though I have an obvious point of view regarding this topic, it is safe to say that I have the education to articulate a rather legitimate argument; however, that cannot be said of so many others who have posted a comment on this post. I have been tempted to close the comment box, but have elected to leave it open for comedic reasons. Here are a few examples from either the racist, the troll, the stupid, or the poorly informed.

1. listen up, daniel lynch, lemme teach you a thing or two, the south, your whole theory that the wet backs and porch monkies have it worse that we do, its a load of crap, have you ever been to the south? have you ever seen whats its like to raise a family here? this is poor, most of them swet backs get jobs in construction and stuff, taking away from us, matter of fact if bush had any good sense they’d come up with a bill that would send all them “immigrants” is the word you used, i use intruders, job takers, they will just do the same thing they did with their pathetic excuse of a country to ours, use everything up then move on, i say we need to build, not a fence, but a fortified wall, mounted guns and everthing, and ship all of them back, first one that puts out any lip gets a 10 cent bullet between the eyes, i would rather pay for that than pay their freakin taxes, then shoot em as they head toward the wall, thats exactly what i think, and i think if you gotta problem with it then you can just go join em if you love em so much!

2. This one here is my favorite: l know I’m late to the party but this author is horribly ignorant. You’re an educator?

3. What about the 1000 black confederate soldiers who fought under the stars and bars?The only lie here is that the civil war was to end slavery. the civil war was brought about because of excessive taxes. Pretty much the same reason the revolutionary war was fought against England. All wars a really about money and or power. There are no higher ideals, only greed that powers the nations war machines.

4. i would just like to say that i do not believe the rebel flag is about racism. the civil war had nothing to do with whites agaisnt blacks, it was the north and the south. as far as i’m concerned if you live in the south you shouldn’t discriminate against the confederate flag just because you think its racist. i wear a lot of rebel flags and i am not racist by all means, so just because you fly a rebel flag does not mean you are against the black race.

5. First off we might have lost the war but you got to think the south has changed we still fly rebel flags. The whole reason why we rasict is cuz the niggers dont know how to shut up and part of it was when we had black slaves. and were nothing like the nazi so carl why dont you shut up and when you open your eyes and read more about the history then you can critisize us. And to let you know i am a southren and i am racist and i fly the rebel flag.

A Christian Nation

I have a few thoughts regarding John Fea’s book, which I have yet to read, but a copy is on the way. I take what I think is a very academic and accurate position on Fea’s book title and question. However, I have elected to first read the book before constructing a post about it. I will say that I do teach this matter from two schools of thought: A classical Marxist perspective and that of Max Weber. Though both are diametrically opposed to the other, they do draw many of the same conclusions. However, the processes and intent are very different. Fea discussed this at his blog.

Brad Hart has written a thoughtful review of Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?: A Historical Introduction at American Creation blog.  Here is a taste:

Was America founded to be a “Christian Nation?” Did its founders endeavor to create a nation where Christ and Cross were joined hand-in-hand with the Constitution? And if so, how is America’s current makeup in harmony/defiance with the “original intent” of our nation’s Founding Fathers? These are just some of the questions addressed by John Fea, historian and author of the book, Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? A Historical Introduction. With the current climate of today’s culture wars, which seem more interested in mud-slinging, name-calling and partisan hostility than honest scholarly inquiry, Dr. Fea’s book is a breath of fresh air that cuts through the nonsense with its sharp historical foundation.

The Social Studies Teacher

I have been giving this topic much thought since this summer. Being a “so-called” leader in history education, I am often asked to participate in various projects, forums, meetings, and conferences related to the process by which historians gather data, and how that data is disseminated within the classroom. I have noticed a troubling trend of late. Often when asked to speak to high school history teachers, or conduct a seminar related to the processes of historical thinking, I have found way too many teachers far too focused on the process of  history instruction without fully grasping the essential ideas of the conceptual process by which they are to instruct.

Usually after talking to teachers about a critical historical concept and the essential sources that support that concept, I am inundated with questions or emails from people asking me to hand them a lesson plan. Now, do not get me wrong here, I love sharing; it is what I do. Better yet, it is the great joy of working with colleagues. It is why we attend workshops and conferences. I am most troubled by those that want to disseminate historical information, but yet in doing so, lack a full grasp for the information they are presenting to their students. In one specific case, I was asked to speak to a high school history department on the theme of “historical change agents.” During this meeting, I discussed the importance of teaching political revolutions by focusing on social periodizations. In hopes of some discourse on the content…seeing that the topic is not simple, many  wanted to focus on the lesson planning of the subject. How can one plan to teach what one does not understand? In essence, they wanted the material I gave them in order to pass it off to their students. Though I was frustrated, I did not show it. I forced my participants to do the exercise themselves. And as I expected, they found it to be very difficult. And though it was difficult, the questions teachers asked still centered around making the exercise easier. Hence, eliminating the parts that were most crucial so that it might easily be passed off to students as a mere classroom activity, and not a lesson on historical reasoning and thinking.

The Fordham study has also been very critical on this matter. Better yet, it agrees with my assessment. More than half of high school history teachers did not major or even minor in history in college. Instead, most studied education or psychology or sociology. These are highly specialized areas. But, much like political science, do require the important skills to teach historical reasoning.  As a result, teachers charged with imparting essential information to young Americans about the history of their country and world must rely heavily on the textbooks available to them—often textbooks that teachers themselves had little to do with selecting. Because these texts end up serving as students’ primary sources of information, it’s vitally important that they be accurate and interesting, and that they establish a narrative of events with a strong sense of context. They must tell “the main story” without neglecting lesser stories that form part of an accurate picture of the past. What they must not be is sprawling, drab assemblages of disjointed information in which everything matters equally and nothing is truly important.

Thus the problem with the notion of the “Social Studies” teacher. When asked if I teach social studies, I politely ask what does social studies mean? I  have assumed that it is a process taught by elementary school teachers who teach every subject. This exact concept holds true for those that home school too. One cannot have the depth nor the understanding of the historical processes when they have not been asked to do the work needed for this. How can a person teach a history course when they have not read the most recent journal article offering new insights into a particular topic? I suspect the same old information published in a textbook is taught. Thus, too many teachers become overly dependent on a book, and less on the most recent scholarship.

So, when asked by teachers attending one of my seminars how I prepare for class, I respond by saying I read. And not just out of a textbook. I seek various references and articles that might shed a different point of view. I would hope that teachers who teach U.S. history might have their students explore the significance of Marxist Historiography on the process of sharecropping. Or, in World and European History, the shift from synthetic history to Annales history; I do not think it is always important to assign titles to such classroom studies, but having students understand historical periodizations is most crucial.

American Civil War

If you missed this article in the New York Times’ Sunday Book Review, I think it is worth a read: Was the Civil War Necessary?

American History 101

Much like Family Guy, this piece might actually offend a number of people. I came across this on another blog I enjoy reading. Do not take it too seriously, however. This is not my American history course, but I might have to read a few more books to get my IQ back up to par after watching it.

Interesting Class

I have been working with my department chair’s Global Affairs course most of this year; it is an independently driven course by students who discuss, write, and study global issues. Next week we are in Austin at the University of Texas serving as delegates to the United Nation as part of Model UN. In truth, I do very little here; I focus my efforts on trying to help students understand political and historical phenomena that might be of some importance to the 21st century. Students put together the video below of this class; we all take turns introducing ourselves to our partner school in Africa. This is part of another project known as the 20/20 Challenge.