On ending my last lesson on Reconstruction

Wow—the Tea Party has actually radically altered the way I teach, and in unexpected ways.

For instance, when teaching Reconstruction, I always tried to hold out an alternative to the kids.  We know how it ended, and the pressures that led the North to abandon Black equality in the South.  And usually, the kids would come to the conclusion that horrible as the decision was, the South could not have been made to accept Blacks as social or civil equals.  Then the fight would begin between those who argued that the North should have hung in there anyway, versus those who said it was simply not possible .

I always used to say there was a 3^rd way…and of course, this was based on my predilection for Marxist history.  What’s the root of this white antagonism, I’d ask, and try to have think of the overall corrosive effect of slavery on Southern development.  Why did poor whites embrace the system that left them poor and powerless?  The bargain that the existence of a permanent black underclass presented for whites of all classes to pretend equality existed between them.

So, what would then alleviate white hostility towards blacks?  What about a broader distribution of opportunities for all?  What about making land available to everyone without it?  Was there a way to enrich everyone to some degree to avoid the specter of favoritism.  And if so…would there have been enough support for Republican Reconstruction after all?

Of course, part of this was anteceded by my knowledge of the southern Populist Party’s attempt to bridge poor white and black voters in the 1890s, and then of course there was the New Deal Coalition, and beyond that, the rage over busing in the 1970s…

But the Tea Partyers are not disadvantaged—they are wealthier than the average American, and many of them have benefits they are trying to deny to others.  My entire theory for the conflict that has existed between ethnic groups in this country has been shattered by seeing white, middle-class people with Medicare screaming about socialism and demanding Hispanics and Blacks be put in their places.

I literally did not know how to end the Reconstruction unit this year-- on a hopeful note, at least.  The last class just ended with all of just shaking our heads sadly.

I really hate the Tea Party/Republican Party 2.0

On Teaching Empathy

Long intro to my title:

I’m still trying to figure out a way to make moodle forums useful for classes, and I really just think they are perfect for letting kids digest difficult material at their own pace—while throwing in a dash of competition (the possibility of on-line flame wars, etc.)

In other words, I’m still trying to provide students with opportunities to direct their own learning whilst and at the same time preparing them for the IB exam to come (and they said it couldn’t be done.)

A main skill the history IB will test them is recognizing and accounting for authorial bias.  In a short class time, it’s almost impossible to cover content and have a meta-discussion about document values and limitations, especially if the kids are interesting in talking about the material (which ideally is the best possible result.)

This week, I gave the kids 4 primary sources concerned with Black suffrage during the Reconstruction Era.  Two were positive—by Thaddeus  Stevens and WEB DuBois.  Two were negative—one by a Georgia rice planter and one by Pitchfork Ben Tillman.  

Old one-eyed Pitchfork Ben

Then I asked the kids to give my a statement in answer to the question:  was Black Reconstruction a misguided policy? 

They had to weigh the documents, pull out the evidence, assess the believability of the authors and write their responses into the forum.  Weirdly, one period all claimed it was a failure, one period all claimed it was a success, and one split.  Then I sicced ‘em on each other, one class against the others, and told them to use their own interpretations and evidence in contradiction.

It pretty much followed that authorial bias was taken into account, the anti-suffrage side was discounted immediately in favor of Black suffrage.  Tellingly, the anti-suffrage arguers all claimed they were acting pragmatically.  That is, black suffrage was a bad idea because 

1)  no one should get the right to vote until they prove they can vote intelligently, and that 

2)  it would create problems among Southern Whites and thus make Reconstruction difficult.

After these comments were pretty much laughed out of the park, and for the obvious reasons, I found that the kids had a rousing debate on their own, which I monitored while watching Modern Family.  Our de-briefing today was fun, contentious, and ended with me showing clips from Birth of a Nation, and asking why, if Tillman was so wrong, his version of history won out.

I would like to point out, however, how my mostly non-white kids identified with the Southern White power structure rather than the freedmen for the two reasons above—they didn’t think about bias, and what seems to be “pragmatic” seems so often to be either a lack of empathy or a desire to get in with those making the rules.

On Students On the Tea Party, Cont'd

Another interesting reflection...from a foreign student

"Having lived the first seven years of my life in Germany, the concept of living in America was exciting and surreal. From elementary school on, I was taught that the American Revolution was caused by a series of abuse for the mother country, Britain. Britain is portrayed as caring solely about their financial gain and not treating the colonists’ fairly. This notion of what the American Revolution represented was engrained in my mind and it was every difficult to overcome this mindset of American the great and look at the Revolution in a completely unbiased manner. Upon closer study, the real roots and causes of the revolution were revealed. From studying American history, I realized that not everything is black and white; there are a lot of gray areas that leaves the revolution open to biases.

"The Boston Tea party occurred on the evening of December 16, 1773 and was a protest against the British imposing more control over the colonies. The act actually allowed the East India Company to sell the tea at a reduced price to the colonist, who responded by dumping the tea into the water. It is ironic that the modern day Tea Party claims a name of an event that protested the lack of representation not the taxes themselves. Many of the people claiming to know what the core cause of the Boston Tea party really do not know all the facts. The American Revolution was most importantly, a revolt in order to gain individual rights. The modern day Tea Party follows the notion of everyone creates their own American Dream. The Tea Partiers believe that money earned by the people should not help contribute to society as a whole through taxes. The healthcare system in American is horrible, yet they don’t believe in universal healthcare. The American Revolution occurred over two hundred years ago yet there are persistent in claiming to know what the founding fathers wanted. There are major problems such as healthcare, education, and large unemployment rates, yet claim to know what is best for America based on the events that happened during the founding of the United States.

"America is ever changing, in part due to the ideals of the early Americans. The colonists despised the fact that the British government asserted control over their independence.  In many respects, in modern society, we challenge the authority of government. Many want better schools, universal healthcare and more job opportunities, but neglect to take on some of the responsibility. The American Revolution taught us that if people have a common goal and are united, then they can overcome many obstacles. If this dedication is placed on issues just as crucial as the revolution such as education and healthcare there is no stopping positive progress. 

"The Tea Party should be open to progress that benefits the community not only the individual. The pros and cons of the British government are used as the foundation of today’s government. Thanks to the revolution, Americans have rights they would otherwise not have. Even a document such as the Constitution, which is at the core of modern society, is not understood by average American. This often results in the document being misinterpreted and abused. The Constitution was written assuming that Americans would have some level of common sense, but this is an assumption that cannot unambiguously be made.

"As an immigrant to the United States, I see the opportunities American has to offer as well as some of the flaws that need to be addressed. Universal healthcare serves as an example. Doesn’t everyone deserve to be treated at a doctor’s office?  Not to mention the cost that occurs by using of emergency rooms as primary care providers. I believe politics needs to reevaluate the system as a whole, keeping in mind the greater good and not to forget the poor that depend on it most. Denial is preventing movement towards a more aware and productive society.  The American Revolution should be taught at face value and not be elevated to something that it is not. No matter how one looks at it, the revolution was a movement away for the authority of the British and a large step towards individual rights. It is the foundation for modern society and has paved the way for generations to come. The Tea Party adopted their name hoping to bring about images of a glorious revolution. In reality, there is no real comparison or parallel to the actual Boston Tea Party."

On Students On the Tea Party, Cont'd

What is interesting about this excerpt is that the student is engaged in meta-thinking--that the history we are studying is an opportunity to reflect on both what Nietzsche referred to as the usefulness of history, as well as the purpose of the Revolution itself:

"Many things that are said by members of the Tea Partiers display a lack of understanding of what happened.  For them, the revolution and events that led up to it are people that fought for “America,” and the important thing is what the imagined “America” is.  The tea party thinks “America” is a place without universal health care, and so that is what the tea party means to them.  It is irrelevant to the Modern Tea Party that the original Boston Tea Party was designed to promote smuggling of tea, and it was against the actions of the British that actually lowered the cost of tea in the Americas (although it is interesting to note that several studies have shown universal healthcare to lower the total cost to the federal budget, an unintended parallel). 

 "Previous groups alluding to the actions of the founding fathers have done similar things to the historical context of the revolution.  Except for them, “America” meant something different.  For the Tea Party of the seventies, “America” was a place that shouldn't engage in wars like the war in Vietnam.  Although it is perhaps a cause that can be sympathized with, the connection between the Vietnam War and the Boston Tea Party is tenuous at best.  Once again the actions of our founding fathers are being taken to mean the fighting for some imagined America.

"There is still the question of, if parallels for the meaning of the founding father's actions should not be allowed to go through the “America” gray area, how should the founding father's be used?  It has already been said that it should be thought of factually, but there is more meaning that can be taken.  The constitution has been in place for more than 200 years, it must have worked.  An analysis of that reveals both what it is about America that has worked and what “America” meant to the founding fathers themselves.  One such example can be seen in the bill of rights; the “people” are allowed several rights that are not to be violated.  Each one can be traced back to an attempt by the founding fathers to distance themselves from the actions of Britain that caused revolution, and this implies what seems to be the goal of the founding fathers.  The goal appears to create a nation as similar to Britain as can be without making the same mistakes.

"And yet, the supposed desire to be a “better Britain” isn't important to the modern day. If someone was taken from the street and asked what America is, nobody would say “It's like Britain, only better.”  It's not important what the founding fathers thought.  Many of them owned slaves, but that doesn't have any relevance whatsoever on the question of if slave owning is acceptable in America.  The revolution happened, it led to the country we have today.  But it isn't a justification for political, or other, ideas.  If the idea is to promote the ideal “America,” then that's what should be said; “America should be,” and not “The founding fathers wanted.” 

On Students On the Tea Party

What a powerful assignment!  I am seeing our thought exercises at the beginning of the year paying off.  These constant discussions about the nature of history, and the creation of historiography, the importance of multiple perspectives and the question of how certain our knowledge of the past can be...

I asked the students to read Jill Lepore's New Yorker essay on the uses to which the Boston Tea Party (and by extension, the American Revolution) has been put in service to modern concerns, and asked the kids to write their own historical thought essay.  The earlier example I posted I just thought was funny, but I wasn't prepared for the depth of thought some of these students put into their work--and their anger at purposeful distortion.  I am posting some of the more interesting  paragraphs in the next series of posts:

"We as Americans need to stop using our past as an excuse for the things that we’re doing today, or as propaganda. It only highlights that we don’t know our own history at all. The mere fact that a gay rights movement, an anti-Nixon movements, and an anti-taxation movements all used the Tea Party to compare themselves should show us that it’s all complete speculation – and we should just let it be. We need to stop looking back at the past to what I assume most people see as “good old-fashioned America” and start looking towards the future, seeing how we can change what we do now in a more radical way as opposed to just following what those before us did. 

"After all, they got us to where we are today, and where we are today is not such a good situation. People think reverting back to how things were in the past is a way to restore the nation. Maybe instead, we should try something new. That’s what people were looking for in Obama, but now the Tea Partiers are using each of his mistakes to justify their ideas of returning to the old. And when they don’t do that, they try to make their ideas look new. Did anyone read the new Republican Pledge? It’s essentially everything that they’ve already proposed and said they’d do before – reduce spending, make the tax cuts permanent, etc, etc.

"I think people assume that the America of old was perfect. They speak about going back to it – back to the days when patriotism was everything, when we fought for our country, our freedom. However, they don’t look at the whole picture. The people in the Revolution didn’t fight for America. They fought to self-govern and stop the king mucking around in their financial affairs. They had slaves, and they killed Indians. This selective blindness is something that we look down on other countries like Japan and China for doing. It’s also a big reason why America is one of the lesser liked countries of this world."

On US History as Kitsch

I'm reading "thought essays" I had my students write on the modern meaning of the American Revolution (an assignment sparked by the Modern Tea Party) and I felt I had to post a few sections from the essay below.  Keep in mind he's a junior in high school...

Tea Party Extended Journal...

              The colloquial definition of Kitsch is, and I'm paraphrasing, a jejune object that idea or object that panders to what the general public. However, I am using Kitsch as defined by the Unbearable lightness of being, a novel by Milan Kundera. According to him, Kitsch is essentially the denial of an obvious or unpleasant truth.

              Before I get too sidetracked by that which isn't immediately relevant, I feel obligated to point out the connection between kitsch and the Tea Party. The modern Tea party decided that they had the ability to magically know what the founding father's would've wanted when they wrote the constitution. Furthermore, they use the original tea party as their excuse for their disreputable actions even though the events they cited didn't really play out the way they described. In fact, as I learned more about the Tea Partiers, it became readily apparent that they didn't know anything about the revolution, or at least, they didn't cite any actual facts. This indicates that they are ignoring the nastier parts of History. This ties into my previous mention of Kitsch as it shows that either the Tea Partiers knows what  had actually happened and is using Kitsch as a method of both justifying their actions and the founding father's actions or the much more likely option, which would be that they don't know, and in this case one would find Kitsch in the Educational system, as it is that which “teaches” America “History”...

...I [also} noticed that none of what we learned about in unit about the American revolution actually correlated with what I observe that America wants us to believe. School house rock, for instance didn't account for slavery, or the Indians, and put all the blame on Britain. This is relevant because then the question of who actually wanted slavery becomes unanswerable because there is no evidence of any colonists wanting unity. The underclass wanted independence, and the Upper class promised it, but it was implemented in a way so the Upper class still maintained power. Note that the upper class only agreed to formally break away from Britain because everyone else had and they wanted to maintain their wealth. All of these seemingly events make me wonder if anyone really wanted the united states of America. The upperclass didn't, as they were perfectly happy with Britain, until their hand was forced. Britain didn't, as they lost potential tax revenue and trading, even though all of their taxes were rebuffed, and the Lower class didn't really want it, as they were more concerned about representation. 

Finally, I feel the need to mention that we call ourselves the United states of America, but we have never been united. This is the cost of democracy, for as long as people are allowed to have different view points and protect their interests, people will do so, even at the cost of our nation as a whole.  Poor Britain, having to deal with the colonists."

On the Modern Tea Party

I don't think the modern Tea Party will be remembered well by historians.
I gave my students excerpts from an article on the uses of Tea Party rhetoric from the 1970s to today, and asked them if they see a similarity between the original Tea Party and the modern version.  They posted responses on a Moodle forum prior to writing a think piece ...
I had three students out of 64 argue that there was some similarity, but the vast majority thought the modern day folks are either selfish or ignorant (and I'm using euphemisms.)  Actually, "idiotic" and "childish" turned up a lot ...

I guess the younger generation isn't watching Fox News.

One of my favorite responses was written by a student who formats his writing like a Puritan elder, for some reason:

"No they are not correct. The following evidence shows their application is completely illogical.

fact 1) American revolution happened mainly because of directly taxing colonists
fact 2) the taxes were caused by the French-Indian War
fact 3) Britain was envolved in the French-Indian War
 
Point1) Britain was the cause for the direct taxation

fact 1) the modern day tea party activists are mad because of heavy taxes
fact 2) clinton left a $4,000 billion dollar budget surplus economy
fact 3) now we're in debt
 
point 2) Bush caused the huge debt

point 1) colonists wanted to get rid of the cause of taxation: Britain
point 2) Bush caused the huge debt
 
CONCLUSION: If the modern-day tea party activists are really applying their beliefs from the original tea party, then they would be trying to get rid of the cause of the modern day taxation:  Bush."