The History Blog

     Last Saturday’s march in Washington, D.C. has sparked controversy among pundits, politicians, and yes, even historians.  Two issues seem to dominate the discussions.  The first, on whether racism played a significant role in the protests, has ignited a particularly sharp debate.  The second, the uses and abuses of history, raises critical questions for history teachers and historians.

     A number of commentators on the right argue that the images and slogans from Saturday’s rally simply reflect a vigorous objection to liberal politics.  After all, they say, didn’t protesters in the 1960s use some disturbing images of President Johnson, and wasn’t President Bush caricatured as Pinocchio and the devil?  Those depictions showed disrespect for sitting presidents, too.

     The right is right that lampooning a president has a long historical tradition in this country, and making scandalous comparisons goes back to the campaign against Thomas Jefferson.  Most accusations have been about sexual improprieties.  Andrew Jackson faced opponents’ smear that he and his wife Rachel had married before she obtained a divorce, and Grover Cleveland hear taunts of “Ma, Ma, where’s my Pa?” from voters who believed that he had fathered a child outside of marriage.  Women’s suffrage advocates burned President Woodrow Wilson in effigy, and Franklin Roosevelt dealt repeatedly with claims that he was a socialist.

     So why are some folks disturbed over the pictures carried by demonstrators which portrayed President Obama as Hitler, a black man in whiteface, or a Zulu in ceremonial dress?  Or distressed that protesters said things that suggested immigrants, Muslims, or others were taking over the country?  After all, the nation survived the Ku Klux Klan parading openly in the capital in 1925.

     I posed that question to the students in one of our Western history courses, and they offered a number of intriguing insights.  Some said that the protesters appear to be a very vocal sideshow in American politics.  One woman noted that this seems to be the response to President Obama’s election, an inevitable backlash to a historical step in racial progress. 

     Her observation made me think about how the 1954 desegregation decision, Brown v. Board, generated the same heated reaction from many white Southerners.  The rallies against school integration offered vivid illustrations of Southern resistance to racial equality, in language no longer appropriate among polite citizens.  Eventually, such overt racism became marginalized and stigmatized, as religious, political, and educational leaders stepped forward in their communities to denounce inequalities and race-baiting.  As one student suggested, however, if we thought that we as a nation had reached a historic milestone with the election of our first African American president, it is now clear that race remains a potent political issue.

     A number of historians have also commented on blogs and through other forums on the odd combinations of history present at the rally.  Protesters wore Revolutionary war regalia, positive references to McCarthyism, and all sorts of other oddities.  More troublesome for historians was the way protesters conflated fascism, socialism, and the role of the federalism government.  As most of us know, fascism and Nazism are quite separate political forms from socialism, and the American government is not, and has not been, either.   Those issues are covered in Connecticut’s high schools, and hopefully, in other states’ mandatory history courses as well.  Perhaps it’s time for some folks to dig out those dusty old history books and read up.  (Marcy May)

One professor takes a mild view of the recent health care town hall events, citing historical perspective.  What do you think of his argument?  Click here.  [BP]

What happened 150 years ago this week? This US senator was killed in a duel. See this story–click here. [BP]

“Less Government! Am I Alone?” reads a yard sign in Bethel. Every time I pass it, I’m tempted to stop and invite the sign’s author to tell me more. I had the same reaction to the folks in August’s town hall meetings when angry constituents yelled at Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. According to a few at those meetings, the Constitution prohibits the government regulating health care because it isn’t in the Constitution. These citizens share an idea that seems increasingly common in our country, that we’d be pretty fine without government interference. Some argue that life would be better if we’d empower states, which they claim the Founding Fathers really intended in the Tenth Amendment.

Every time I hear these notions, I have to wonder if people are really thinking about all that government does in our daily lives. I teach in a public university, thanks to the good folks of Connecticut who think there’s some value in educating folks. The college kid in our family benefits from a federal loan. And when I ate dinner, I could assume that federal regulations kept all sorts of nasty things out of my ho-ho’s and Dr. Pepper. My car has safety features which are mandated by law, and I travel on roads that we all fund. Of course I hate paying taxes, but I know that I benefit from all sorts of things that come from them.

I wonder how the “less government” folks plan on doing those things, if they do. And I’ve been wondering what those Republican Congressional Representatives and Senators, sitting so cynically through President Obama’s health care speech, want to do for the millions without health care, or those who can’t get adequate coverage. Is it acceptable for the richest nation in the world to have over 40 million citizens without regular access to regular medical care, or for our neighbors to die from a lack of coverage? It seems that to some Americans, it is.

A few years ago, a friend’s father was diagnosed with brain cancer. The owner of his own business, he had health coverage through an expensive individual plan, and he realized that aggressive treatment of the cancer could bankrupt him. Rather than leave his wife with heavy debts, he chose to die — and he did. Many of us have stories like this, friends and family who have not received optimal treatment because of the expense or a lack of coverage. Republicans seem to be eager to abandon us to an insurance marketplace based on profit rather than humane treatment. They seem content to let Americans die — as some do — for their principles of party.

It is as cynical as the infamous “let them eat cake!” attributed to Marie Antoinette while the French people had no bread. And it reflects the worst, not the best, in our American history. In the Great Depression, the nation rallied to provide a hand up for those who were hungry and jobless. In the 1960s, we provided help so that kids (like me) could go to better schools, and to college. While some complained about the threat of big government and a slide to socialism, the majority of Americans seemed to know that a nation cannot thrive and prosper without a shared security. We cannot look at our neighbors and insist that they should go it alone, as if that’s the American way. Our best moments have been those of generousity, of keeping our promises of opportunity, and of working for all the people, not just a privileged few. (MM)

In my last post – which I forgot to sign – I started my positive professor campaign. I don’t want anyone to be confused, I can complain with the best of them, but the truth is that ground is well covered elsewhere. But I am neither as erudite (which I can’t spell correctly either) nor as funny as many of the genuinely and deservedly disgruntled academics out there so I’m sticking with this. Just so it is clear that I am not about happy joy all the time. Now that we have that sorted …

In a sneaky way I like the beginning of the fall semester. I love fall in general – it is unquestionably my favorite season. There are a lot of reasons but even those editorial observers in the New York Times sound like idiots when they get rapturous about the country life or the seasons so I won’t go on about the leaves. If you like fall you get it. If not, well I hope you are happy loving your second rate season. Ok, now I’m off topic, so …

As I looked at my classes today I was just struck how teaching is simple at the beginning of the year. The semester is full of promise. Most of the students are pretty primed. They are willing to find you amusing and laugh at your jokes. I’m not behind in grading papers, which will become a permanent condition later in the semester.

The students’ weaknesses have yet to emerge. This is nice because though many of their shortcomings are their own, others nag at a teacher because they seem merely to reflect my inadequacies. Even when they don’t it can feel that way. But today, with the sun shining, the breeze blowing, some of the trees beginning to turn (almost any decent looking college looks even better as the trees turn), and the students having something to say about their reading all of that seemed far away.

Maybe it is the fact that I am teaching a new course, one that is more intellectually ambitious than my usual classes, and that we had a great discussion about some difficult reading. Whatever – it was exceptionally pleasant to walk across the sunny quad, or whatever it is, and reflect on that experience. To think that all of my students have promise and that maybe my class will help them find it was a good feeling. Even the first argument with my colleagues at the department meeting later had a pleasant feel of a fall ritual; like getting ready for Halloween.

Joshua M. Rosenthal

ABC News announced the appointment of Diana Sawyer this week as the replacement for announcer Charlie Gibson on its nightly news. Critics quickly complained that Sawyer lacked journalistic chops, and noted the prospect of two female anchors, Sawyer and CBS’s Katie Couric.
Because I’m not particularly a Sawyer fan – how does she look so good at 62? – the shift didn’t get much of my attention until I began to think about the vehement challenges leveled at most of our female leaders. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is deemed to be the devil incarnate on some conservative websites, the source of All That Is Wrong in politics today. The health care death panels which will kill grandma, the recession, and the decline of America rest on her doorstep, according to some. Sonya Sotomayor, the new Supreme Court Justice, found herself facing repeated charges that she belittled white men, even when she clarified casual remarks that allowed pundits to jump on a “wise Latina woman.” And poor Hillary Clinton. Her recent tour of Africa resulted in two unflattering videos, one of her dancing, and the other of her chastising a questioner who seemed to conflate her actions with her husband’s. We could add Sarah Palin to the mix as well. No matter what she says or twitters, Palin evokes an emotional response from adoring fans or hyperventilating antagonists.
As my mother used to say, no matter what you do, you can’t win. That point is made in a more academic fashion by Kathleen Hall Jamieson, head of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. In her book Beyond the Double Bind: Women and Leadership, Jamieson documented the difficulties women face as national leaders. We expect women to be nurturing, fashionable, attractive, and supportive; if they seem to be extremely intelligent, a bit dowdy, sometimes dour, or too strong, we jump to cite their flaws. And, as Jamieson suggests, there does seem to be a double standard at play. I can’t recall anyone challenging Charlie Gibson’s credentials to be a television news anchor, or mentioning his sartorial failures, and we all recall the criticisms of Gibson as host of the second Presidential debate in 2004. Katie Couric, on the other hand, made news in a sharp interview of Sarah Palin.
Women will increasingly appear in key positions of leadership, and perhaps this will slow diminish our inclinations to impose different criteria than those we apply to men. Today we have almost an equal number of women in the labor market as men, and in our daily lives, we are more and more likely to have a female physician, dentist, pharmacist, lawyer, veterinarian, professor, or employer. And in those cases, we will care less about whether that woman dresses in the latest trend and more about her knowledge and expertise. Today we have ninety women in Congress, and nationally women make up nearly one fourth of elected officials, the greatest number yet. At times, this seems like an achingly slow change for those of us who have lived it. Yet it is heartening to know that our daughters no longer face the substantial barriers to their aspirations that their grandmothers experienced. One day, it seems clear, we will take them seriously for the “content of their character” rather than the cut of their clothes or the cuteness of their demeanor. (MM)

I’ve been thinking about a lot of things to write about. Some reflecting on how politics spin back to life in Connecticut (The coup installed regime of Honduras has removed Professor Dario Euraque of Trinity College illegally from his position in its Ministry of Culture for example) but when this started I promised myself I would write a positive professor post. I spend a fair amount of time reading blogs though I am most attracted to smart writing on politics and – surprise – blogs by professors. My runaway favorite these days is a sort of open authored blog called rateyourstudents, a center of professorial revenge for various trials and tribulations. Though I’m addicted to this site it also sums up a problem, professors tend to complain and perhaps they shouldn’t (this statement does not apply to part time teachers who do much of the work of higher education and receive very little of the pay or credit). So one of the things I’m hoping to do with this is reflect on some of the things that are fun about being a fully employed as a professor. I’m not trying to be all sunshine and sweetness, but teaching history full time for pay and also having health insurance coverage is a pretty good deal. Here’s reason number 1:
Sometimes we get free books. I’m not talking about free copies of massive survey texts, college versions of what people use in high school. Those giant heavy, overly expensive books with two columns on each page, and sidebars, and pictures, and everything else are not what I’m talking about, though publishers will fill your office with those over-priced volumes if you let them. I mean books full of ideas and new research. Sometimes you get sent books because you said you would review them. Sometimes you write to a publisher for an examination copy; a copy for free or a minimal amount because you are thinking about assigning it for a class. You may end up using it or you may not, but you usually get to keep the book. Sometimes, and this is the best, people just send you copies of books. It helps to be famous or at a big University and since I’m neither this isn’t a common occurrence in my life. Still, I’ve never gotten over the thrill … a book, a new book for me because of what I do. When you open that package, it is fun to be a professor. Anyone who says it isn’t, should find another line of work, one without books.