Blog 4 History

The new civility on display in Madison, Wisconsin has given me as a teacher pause. As a teacher I have to be held to the utmost level of integrity, do I not? I spend 8 hours a day with other people’s children; often more time than the parents do. I encourage students to work hard, be honest, and disciplined. As a history teacher I point to the nature of our democracy where majority rules, and that elections are to be taken serious as they indeed, as our esteemed President noted, “have consequences.” Yet in Wisconsin teachers have decided to use what is a teachable moment, and demonstrate that lying, banter, and at times, incivility should be used when one does not get what one wants. But none of this should be surprising when we look at how educators are taught today and how they are encouraged to be exemplars of Social Justice and to teach for Social Change. (If you want more on Teaching for Social Justice please click the category tag above). For example, one e-newsletter I receive was very clear on how we should interpret and use the Labor unrest in Wisconsin. The publication offered this quote:

“If teacher unions want to be strong and well-supported, it’s essential that they not only be teacher unionists but teachers of unionism. We need to create a generation of students who support teachers and the movement of teachers for their rights.”

– Howard Zinn in an interview with Bob Peterson for Transforming Teacher Unions

“…teachers of unionism”? Really!

Today’s teacher unions and educators in America, in public schools, are failing their students and for multiple reasons; some of which have nothing to do with the teachers. But some aspects of this failure have to do with bad teachers and ones that have agendas. Take the literature that is being promoted by the late Howard Zinn and other radicals. In some Universities and Colleges we are producing activists and not educators, and this explains what is happening in Wisconsin. Those who willing lied, took phony sick notes from unscrupulous doctors, and railed against the democratic system, are sending students the wrong message and setting the wrong example. You want to protest, do it after school or on the weekends. Want to organize peacefully, fine. In trying to come up with an editorial on this subject I found another teacher who also had issues with what was happening in Wisconsin, so instead of my own words I’ll let her speak:

To the editor:

When did getting one’s political way justify lying, cheating and disrupting the legal political process? As a teacher and a parent, I always found that example was the strongest teaching tool there was. I will speak only to the teachers and politicians in Wisconsin since those are the people with whom I am identified. What kind of example are you setting?

I was horrified watching teachers accept “sick” notes handed out indiscriminately on the street. In effect they are saying, “I’m well enough to stand in the cold and protest politically, but I’m too sick to be in my classroom.”

What would that same teacher call a student’s note of that sort? A lie. That lie also breaks the contract those teachers signed with their schools and the taxpayers who fund them. Cheating. One teachers’ union official was filmed saying, “Our first interest is in educating our children,” yet he supported abandoning classrooms in favor of seeking political ends. Might I add hypocrisy to my list?

Finally, the duly elected officials, elected by a majority of all the people in their districts, are so afraid of or complicit with this vocal sector that they abdicate their sworn duty to uphold the constitutional law of this country and go into hiding, disrupting the lawful process.

I won’t comment on the merits of either side of the political argument, but when the belief that the end justifies the means becomes prevalent, the rule of law disappears. Historically, the next step is anarchy. From the title of an Alan Paton novel, “Cry the Beloved Country.”

Anne Paradis

I will contact who I can, but please update your Civil War blogrolls and remove Blog4History and add my Civil War blog: Civil War Voices @ my Civil War soldier letters archive: Soldierstudies.org.

B4H is becoming less and less a Civil War blog so I would appreciate you passing the word. Thanks much!

I love President’s Day as three day weekends this time of year are always welcomed! And to send it off right, I want to share the results of a new Gallup poll that asked Americans who the nation’s great president was. The results were interesting. Now remember, these are just average folks, not scholars, historians and other intellectuals who know better. However, according to the poll “Americans are most likely to say Ronald Reagan was the nation’s greatest president — slightly ahead of Abraham Lincoln and Bill Clinton. Reagan, Lincoln, or John F. Kennedy has been at the top of this “greatest president” list each time this question has been asked in eight surveys over the last 12 years.”

President Obama, after winning the White House in 2008 proclaimed that “Elections have consequences.” But perhaps we should place an asterisk there and add “Democratic victories only” have consequences. Wisconsin elected a Republican and he is doing what Republicans do. How uncivil for these protestors to not accept the verdict! I wonder if they will be treated like the Tea Party Protests were in the wake of the Obama Election?

Wis. Gov. Scott Walker is attempting to address a serious budget issue in Wisconsin, one of many states that are frankly broke. Wisconsin is $3 billion in debt. (By the way has he once blamed his predecessor?) Among numerous things, the state is simply asking state employees pay a little for their own health care (could care less about the impact on the Unions); as they pay nothing. I’ll repeat that: nothing. I pay almost $700 a month for health care (not complaining by the way, think everyone should pay for their own care.) As a teacher I took a pay cut last year. Did I protest? No. Happy to have a job. And remember, the Left is supposed to be the party of compassion and caring. I don’t see how not going to work and its impact on the children displays their compassion. Do these teachers realize if Walker gives in and does not cut spending he has already told them 20,000 state employees lose their jobs?

I watched the protests this past week in Madison, Wisconsin, and I was stunned by the lack of civility, especially after the shooting in Arizona where the Left found it very easy to blame the Right and preach about needing a “new discourse.” Here’s some of the new civility the Left is delivering:

Some areas of the news are calling the unrest in Wisconsin and elsewhere a “Progressive Revolution.” The Progressive Era Part Two.
MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan seemed to suggest just such a thing. “Are things in our country so bad that it might actually be time for a revolution?” Ratigan asked. “The answer obviously is yes,” he added, and “the only question is how to do it.”

Salon.com has an article proclaiming Why FDR would support the Wisconsin protests, and of course he would. Just look at his New Deal legislation.

I think what is happening in Wisconsin represents the decline of American Exceptionalism (if it even still exists.) State employees having to help pay for their health insurance, my God. Teachers calling in sick so they and their students can protest. These are tough times.

So instead of students being in school and learning in Wisconsin, they are in the streets carrying signs of SOLIDARITY. What does this teach them?

I have no doubt some will report the growing unrest of Unions and the protest over spending cuts as a worker’s unite kind of progressive movement.

Now, a bit of hyperbole on my part? Sensationalism? Sure. Those are but a handful of idoits in the crowd. But the question still stands, How will the unrest in Wisconsin and perhaps elsewhere be remembered?

David Sehat has an interesting commentary over at the CS Monitor concerning today’s Tea Party and the U.S. Constitution.

 The Federalists wanted a strong central government that could correct the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation. Men such as Alexander Hamilton sought a powerful central force that could control inter-state commerce and assert direct taxes, something that today’s Tea Party members would certainly have an issue with.

The states-rights, neo-secessionist, small-government ideologues who seem to have taken over the Republican Party might have a coherent political philosophy. But their views align less with the constitutional framers than with their opponents, the Antifederalists.

Those Tea Party members that understand our history, and in particular the Constitutional debate that followed the Convention, would undoubtedly be Antifederalists. Thomas Jefferson is more of a reflection of Today’s Conservatives and especially the Tea Party than is Alexander Hamilton.

My only concern is those who think that the Tea Party participants should be Federalists at heart. Seems they are the ones who are misconstruing history. Today’s Democratic/Left wants a stronger Federal government.

Now that the situation in Egypt has essentially ended in a military coup, what will this latest Middle East Revolution ascend or descend into? Some say Western style Democracy. Others say a Sharia Law Theocracy. Is this movement a bottom up democratic one or something triggered by the Muslim Brotherhood? Who knows, hopefully some kind of democracy. But here’s a photo (one of many I have seen) that is in English and has a very interesting message. Why Social Justice!? Hmm….

I remember an article by historian Eric Foner posted at HNN after 9/11. Foner hoped we could re-think how we teach American history and that he worried about the “self-absorbed, super-celebratory history promoted in the aftermath of September 11 – a history lacking in nuance and complexity — will not enable students to make sense of our increasingly interconnected world.”

For Foner, and many other historians, “scholars [need] to deprovincialize the study of American history.” However, this “Internationalizing” of our history did not mean to abandon or “homogenizing the particular experience of the United States.” Foner wanted scholars and educators to avoid projecting the so-called American Exceptionalism on the world and to avoid the divisive nature of labels such as “the West.” It was a well written and stimulating article with much validity.

The movement for more multiculturalism has been very popular in certain intellectual and educational circles in America and abroad. It is very prevalent in Social Justice education/teaching, though warped as it is. Do I have a problem with multiculturalism? No, not the idea of it, but with the implementation of it, at times, I do. It can drive teaching that not just emphasizes the problematic aspects of American history, but creates an educational environment where the “nuance and complexity” that is sought becomes indoctrination and ideological. Things like America as a “melting pot” and the idea of “Americanization” become examples of American hypocrisy and depredation.

So with this in mind the following proclamation by the French President Nicolas Sarkozy (note the label of “right-wing”):

French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared Thursday that multiculturalism had failed, joining a growing number of world leaders or ex-leaders who have condemned it.

“My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure,” he said in a television interview when asked about the policy which advocates that host societies welcome and foster distinct cultural and religious immigrant groups.

“Of course we must all respect differences, but we do not want… a society where communities coexist side by side.

“If you come to France, you accept to melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that, you cannot be welcome in France,” the right-wing president said.

Read more…

Apparently several Chicago Mayoral Candidates support the idea of “reparations for descendants of slavery.”

Am I the only one who wonders how on God’s Green (er, sun blasted over heated Co2 saturated…) Earth this is accomplished? Does anyone agree with this idea? I have some concerns.

1. Is this Really Fair? What’s the true goal here?
2. Why? Social Justice. Those people who believe in “cosmic justice” that simply does not exist.
3. How? (Lot’s of hows: how do we determine who was or was not a descendent? How do we pay?, eh, print money I guess…)
4. Who pays for this? My ancestors never owned slaves, I don’t want a dime of my tax money going to such a thing?
5. How about Indians, we need to pay them too? Who else? Time to step up for your Social Justice pay…

Perhaps Spain should pay reparations to descendants of the Aztecs?

Please, someone explain the logic here for me!?!

With so much talk recently of the United States’s involvement in the Middle East and how it violates our Founding principle of “isolation,” I had an interesting discussion recently with my students concerning the historical theme “Isolationism.”

The debate centered on whether or not the United States has always been an isolationist nation? On the surface it is very easy to show cause and effect and change over time with regard to American foreign policy.

But seeing that we are expected to teach (here in Colorado, at least) “Isolationism” as a foregone conclusion, the question stands, “Isolationism, The Myth of the Founders?”

If we first consider George Washington’s Proclamation of Neutrality (1793) and his belief that United States should act”friendly and impartial” towards any “Belligerent Powers.” Washington was being prudent, if you consider the year you know that the United States is but a fledgling nation having just created a Constitution and Bill of Rights. It was struggling to maintain itself. Though his cabinet was somewhat split on who to support in the European conflict between England and France, the road to Neutrality was the obvious one, to be sure.

As President Washington signed the first American Neutrality Act (1794), he seemingly established the tradition of isolation. Moving forward to Washington’s Farewell Address and his appeal to the Nation to keep America’s involvement in “permanent alliances” to a limit, “which to us have none or a very remote relation,” and recommend a policy “to steer clear of permanent Alliances,” the case seems closed.

And, if that does not solidify the argument in favor of America being an “Isolationist” nation, Thomas Jefferson followed up Washington proclaiming that “peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations,” was the goal and to avoid “entangling alliances with none.”

However, as should be noted, neither Washington nor Jefferson had any understanding of “Isolationism” as the word had not yet made it into the English vernacular. Both would arguably have issues with suggesting that the United States be “isolated” from Europe. Both looked to expansion in the West and the continued immigration of Europeans to their “Empire of Liberty” for settlement.

And Jefferson, as was his way, proved to be the enigma as he would send the U.S. marines to “the shores of Tripoli” to rescue Americans kidnapped by Barbary (Muslim) Pirates and to protect American commerce. He would unconstitutionally purchase the Louisiana Territory, an expansion that guaranteed the United States would probably be involved in foreign affairs. Jefferson, in particular, wanted the continued importation of European culture — hardly the stance of an ideologue bent of isolation.

From our involvement as a fledgling colony in the first World War (Seven Years War) to our ideological involvement in the first world crisis after independence: the French Revolution. Perhaps “Isolationism” is but a myth.

The United States of the late 18th and early 19th centuries could not afford an active role in foreign affairs, and perhaps had never intended to be as “isolationist” as we teach our students on a yearly basis.

Read more: http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/E-N/Isolationism-The-myth-of-the-founders.html

The Blue Eagle, a blue-colored representation of the American thunderbird, with outspread wings, was a symbol used in the United States by companies to show compliance with the National Industrial Recovery Act. It was proclaimed the symbol of industrial recovery on July 20, 1933 by Hugh Samuel Johnson, the head of the National Recovery Administration.