Blog 4 History

Looks like a winner to me!

Had a reader point me to the NEA (National Education Association) website this morning. (As a public school teacher I can’t tweet, blog, facebook, at all hours of the day unlike some on here! I have to teach 32+ students per class from 7:30 to 2:50, then it’s coaching and after school activities. So sorry so late on this.) I digress!

I never thunk to visit the NEA and peruse their recommended reading lists for EDUCATORS, just never occurred to me that there would be anything there to suggest that SOME members of the NEA MIGHT be proponents of Social Justice and also teaching the doctrines of Saul Alinsky. Who is Alinsky you say? Well he “wrote the book on American radicalism.” So why would the NEA have on their 2009 “Recommended Reading” one Saul Alinsky, and his Leftist classic: “The American Organizer”?

I know, it baffles many that this would even be an issue. The other two Recommended Readings: The Introvert Advantage and The Thin Book of Naming don’t sound or look like Conservative Classics. Now if one of them was an extreme Right Wing book by say Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity or, gasp, Glenn Beck, you could argue that the suggested readings have balance. I still would say none of these should be “Recommended Readings.” I don’t pull out Glenn Beck’s Arguing with Idiots and spout from it or quote it! Have never purchased a book or read a book by any of the three. Yes, Mr. Levin, hard to imagine. (Note they do mention so-called “conservative radical” Michael Patrick Leahy’s, Rules for Conservative Radicals. But in an off hand way and not as a recommended reading and good, sounds like more of the same, but from the Right. Don’t want that either!)

But is the NEA asking SOME educators to do just the very thing with Alinsky? I wish we just had to deal with Social Justice proponents, this guy makes them look like boy scouts.

I know. No big deal. That this has nothing to do with what is going on in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, Michigan and maybe even to a city capital near you!, is naive at best.

All the NEA is asking of its members that they: “will discern from Alinsky’s books grassroots organizing strategies that will best help us bring our members together around the common goal of improving public education.” Sounds great, all for it! Yup, improving public education!

Let’s take a look, shall we!

From the NEA website:

Alinsky, the master political agitator, tactical planner and social organizer didn’t mince words…

“Liberals in their meetings utter bold works; they strut, grimace belligerently, and then issue a weasel-worded statement ‘which has tremendous implications, if read between the lines.’ They sit calmly, dispassionately, studying the issue; judging both sides; they sit and still sit.

“The Radical does not sit frozen by cold objectivity. He sees injustice and strikes at it with hot passion. He is a man of decision and action. There is a saying that the Liberal is one who walks out of the room when the argument turns into a fight.

“Society has good reason to fear the Radical. Every shaking advance of mankind toward equality and justice has come from the Radical. He hits, he hurts, he is dangerous. Conservative interests know that while Liberals are most adept at breaking their own necks with their tongues, Radicals are most adept at breaking the necks of Conservatives.

“Radicals precipitate the social crisis by action – by using power. Liberals may then timidly follow along or else, as in most cases, be swept forward along the course set by Radicals, but all because of forces unloosed by Radical action. They are forced to positive action only in spite of their desires …

“breaking the necks of Conservatives”… hmm.

Alinsky is an admitted radical who would absolutely support SOME teachers who blatantly left their jobs, lied about being sick, and encourage their students to “Agitate” with them. I know, I know, how could anyone have such a mindset!? Clearly I have issues. Clearly I am “disgraceful.” They are just striking, er, protesting for their rights.

More from the NEA website:

Alinsky devised and proved thirteen tactical rules for use against opponents vastly superior in power and wealth.

1. “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. “Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. “Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy.
4. “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
6. “A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. “Keep the pressure on.
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. “Major premise for tactics is development of operations that will maintain constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it

For Alinsky it is about: “Agitate + Aggravate + Educate + Organize.” Looks and sounds a lot like what I have seen on the news recently.

Great, just what we need to be recommending that our educators teach, or use or whatever it is SOME do with this great stuff!

LOTS OF QUESTIONS! Why does the NEA promote such a man and such a “radical” (their words not mine) ideology?

Look at the language in the above 13 tactical rules that the NEA is supporting: “Enemy”, “ridicule”, “pressure”, “threat”, “terrifying”!

Sounds like the new civility some people are talking about. This is not the reading that makes for better teachers or students. And is that even the goal here for SOME?

Do we want SOME (ALL, NONE?) OF our educators teaching… using…this?

Do we want SOME OF our teachers more concerned with activism than, I don’t know, proper education?

COULD THIS be PART of the reason why our education system is failing? You tell me!

I know, I know, conspiracy theorist and hate monger…. this is all simply harmless.

Mr. Levin?

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 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!?!

Ever wonder what you can purchase in a store dedicated to “Social Justice”? Let’s take a look!

There’s actually some really nice things that you can purchase:

“The medieval feminist,” Joan of Arc. T-shirt, coffee mug, water jug, lots of goodies with that symbol.

You can also find t-shirts and other stuff with the slogan. “Diversity Rocks! Show your appreciation for diversity, equity, and justice!” Agree, diversity does indeed rock!

How about these (and remember this is a store for Educators and Activists! Maybe someone who is teaching your child some good ole Social Justice!!)

Old Boys Network
Meet Harry Slickman of the Old Boys Network. What a Jackass!

(You can get the following with this stereotype slogan, you know, all those rich white people, like myself, who are keeping everyone else down.)

Hats, Mugs, t-shirts, ect..

(But wait, there’s more: Infant outfits, bibs, boxer shorts, underwear, doggy t-shirt, mouse pads, coasters, and even a pillow. So you can go to sleep and dream about Mean Old Whitey!)

White Supremacy Sucks
White supremacy really does suck. White supremacy is white privilege is racism.

Kill Imperialism
Don’t kill people. Kill imperialism and advocate human rights.

Revolute!
If you care for social justice and peace, help foment revolution!

Got Revolution?
Black T-shirts with a variety of “got _____?” statments (their mis-spelling): got diversity? got peace? got justice? got feminism?

Outraged!
Pay attention! See racism, sexism, poverty, homophobia. And do something! (If you’re not outraged then you’re not paying attention!)

Karl Marx, defender of the working class. (That’s right, he’s a good guy!)

and my personal favorite:

Whitey O. Pressor Thong

(Image at top featured) Whitey is an anti- anti-racism advocate. I know, that doesn’t make sense. Make sure to see the back of the items for Whitey’s “You may be a White O. Pressor If…” list! (Just $23.99)!

Very catchy!! However, my main question here is, what does the Feminist think of such an item!? Are you a “Whitey”? Check out the image to the right and find out!

Anyway, Maybe that’s me, “Whitey O. Pressor.” Gonna get my Whitey on and purchase one for my Woman locked up in my house making my dinner!

Don’t agree with President Obama on pretty much all of his political views, but tonight’s speech in Arizona was, in my humble opinion, his best. Very proud of the President and First Lady. Very proud, they had an opportunity to rise above the political rhetoric, unlike the media, and they did indeed and did so brilliantly. For though some out there strangely mention this shooting while also mentioning political discourse when the horrific event of last Saturday had noting to do with politics, our President was able to rise above those on the Left that could not. Those senseless shootings were the work of a madman bent on mayhem and nothing else, and as someone who knew him stated, he was not political and was not of the Left or the Right, yet so many in the media wished to identify and call out others they disagree with. Rise above, they could not, but President Obama did…

Yesterday the United States House of Representatives kicked off the year with a reading of the Constitution. I thought it a nice gestured, but wondered how many of them have actually read it (you know as much as they read their own bills!) and/or understood what they read? Come to find out they didn’t even read the whole thing! Instead they read an abridged version. The reasoning? To read it in its most modern form. What a mistake. I agree with those who called the Congress out. The Representatives left out the bit about the 3/5 clause and the 18th Amendment! They had an opportunity to offer educators like myself a teachable moment, but missed the opportunity. But then again, by not reading it they brought even more attention to it.

I have seen teachers butcher the meaning and reasoning behind the 3/5 Clause by holding it up as an example of American Injustice and racism. You know, Slaves were not even human, they were only 3/5′s of one! Forgetting that it were the Slave Owners who wanted slaves counted equally and the Abolitionists who thought otherwise. The whole debate, of course, centered around representation and by limiting the South’s ability to count slaves and thus limiting their power in Congress.

And as for the 18th (Prohibition) Amendment, not sure what the big deal was there?

According to this news story, Publishers Weekly NewSouth Books will be censoring their upcoming edition of Mark Twain’s novel Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by removing all instances of the N-word and replace it with “slave.” According to this search result, that would be 90 times the N-word would be replaced. Is this whitewashing history? I think so, as literature it needs to be regarded as an historical document as well and understood within the proper context. Removing what is today an offensive word removes some of the historical and literary importance of the document.

In my regular (Non-AP) United States history class we are in the final two weeks of the quarter and have hit the 1980s. As I have mentioned recently, I use documentaries and docudramas whenever I feel they will be helpful. If the documentary is even tempered in its presentation and is not “boring” I can keep my students engaged. What I mean by “even tempered” is the slant or point of view of the video. Today I showed a video at the recommendation of another teacher. The video, Images of the 80s, produced by ABC and Time Magazine, narrated by Peter Jennings. I got a kick out of it, the 1980s was of course the start of what our textbook calls the “Conservative Revolution.” I won’t even go into how the textbook portrays the events. How Jennings described Ronald Reagan? “Simple” and “lucky.” Now you could call the man lucky (he didn’t die when shot at point blank range), and he did speak plainly to the American people and proudly (patriotism) and he did indeed believe in American Exceptionalism. I’m sure it’s just me, but you could tell just how much Peter Jennings hated the 1980s while watching this video.