Blog #33 - Follow up to Civil Rights unit - Racism dead? Klan in the classroom, say what?

Finally, this blog is getting close to being done.  Part of the reason I've taken a lot of time on it is because I've wanted to say exactly what I mean with the blog.  I try to do that with all of my blogs, but especially b/c this one tends to fall into a sensitive area, I want to be particularly careful about what is said. 

On Wednesday and Thursday, we discussed (as a long-overdue follow-up to our Civil Rights unit) some issues concerning race in America.  One issue concerned how Americans viewed racism after the 2008 election: 1. Was racism a pretty much done deal since the country had elected a black man, so let's, as a nation, move on to other things like our tanking economy?   2. Or, had America achieved some kind of post-racial enlightenment by electing Barack Obama, a man whose skin color would have kept him barred from an equal education had he lived in, say Topeka, Kansas back when Linda Brown lived in the early 1950s (he wasn't born until 1961)?  3. Or, as many of you voiced your opinion agreed, that racism hadn't perished in 2008 and that news of its death had been greatly exaggerated. 

We then turned our attention to the unfortunate occurrence in Lumpkin County H.S. in northern Georgia last week when a few American history students and their teacher offended students as they walked through the school hallways dressed in Klan robes (though the teacher claims that sheets were used, not robes).  The teacher didn't inform anyone of what she was doing, rumors spread throughout the school afterwards that the Klan had been roaming the halls, and that there had been no school-wide announcement to correct the record.  “The brief appearance of four robed and hooded figures caused a commotion in the cafeteria as several students became upset and angry. Some became angrier than others.” Principal Tracy Sanford said 1.

News Update!! - Apparently, in nearby Gwinnett County schools in Lawrenceville, GA, another social studies teacher had the same idea of dressing her kids up in Klan robes for a re-enactment and was told to stop.  However, by the time the teacher was told to stop, she had already done a similar activity with her 8th grade class at Sweetwater M.S..  In the Atlanta Journal Constitution article I found about this event, it makes one major distinction: the Gwinnett County teacher, Stephanie Hunte is black where as the Lumpkin H.S. teacher is white. 

The AJC's Rick Badie wrote about many of the issues that we had discussed in his editorial dated Friday, May 28.  Why weren't these things pre-approved by an administrator?  Why not inform the kids in the school as to what's going on before the students go traipsing through the halls?  But I think he misses the point when he says that the administrators will lend "an ear to those with objections."   I don't think many of us get the point here. 

(If you'd like to tell Mr. Badie your opinion, be respectful and send him a copy of your response and a link to the blog at his email address rbadie@ajc.com). 

I don't think either of these projects should have gotten past the planning stages.  For the most part, asking kids to re-enact something in a structured framework is fine, even if they are reenacting a contentious, controversial or previously accepted idea in history (one makes me think of Social Darwinism).  But, I think there comes a point in time where some issues can be taught in a different way and do not need to be taught through re-enactment.   What were the teachers allowing the students to do as Klansmen?   When the student becomes the person who perpetrated the heinous race crimes, what are we actually trying to teach that child (especially when it comes to the 8th graders - seriously, are they having a moment of soul-searching reflection as the hoods slip over their heads)?  Then, the teachers didn't take into account other people, mainly students of color, who these re-enactments might negatively affect.  One student at Lumpkin H.S., Cody Rider, felt very strongly about it, and had to be restrained by members of the staff in the cafeteria (see video below).  Furthermore,  the Lumpkin H.S. teacher still thinks her students should have just filmed that segment off-campus, which to me, shows that she still doesn't get that there's anything wrong with having her students put on Klan robes...eh, sheets.  She thought she was doing the right thing by teaching her AP students about racism, but could she be teaching the nation something else instead?

I don't even know where to start with questions, b/c I think I answered most of my own questions above. 

Please answer the following questions:
1. Why does it seem that white America tends to be clueless when it comes to racial sensitivity?   If this Klan reenactment offends most members of the black community, but other black Americans don't say anything or other more visible black Americans just dismiss the media circus as a tempest in a teapot, who should you listen to?  Why? 

2. Watch the video below on Tim Wise talking about "How White People Talk About Race" and share your reactions.  Do you think his comments are accurate?  Why or why not? 




Due Thursday, June 3 - 200 words

Sources: 
1. http://chattahbox.com/us/2010/05/25/georgia-students-wear-klan-robes-through-school-with-teachers-ok/
2. http://www.ajc.com/news/gwinnett/gwinnett-schools-investigate-after-535560.html
3. http://www.ajc.com/opinion/rick-badies-gwinnett-a-537781.html?cxntlid=daylf_artr

Blog #32 - Vietnam Debate Blog

This week, we debated America's fate in 1965 - should America escalate the war in Vietnam or withdraw?  There were several nuanced options within the debate: 1. Escalate fully; 2. Escalate slowly and control the risks; 3. Withdraw slowly, negotiate and provide aid to SV; 4. Pull out completely. 

Each option stated their main points vigorously and defended them well.  When the votes came in, 2nd hour had a tie between option 2 and 3; 3rd hour had a tie between option 1 and 2.  Interestingly enough, option 4, the pull-out of Vietnam now choice, only received a couple of votes in each class (but not for lack of trying).  I don't know if this is b/c of the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the backlash vs. an Iraq pullout.  But well done to all involved. 

In the film, Fog of War, that we've been watching recently, former Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara asked the following question when reflecting thing when analyzing America's use of chemical weapons like Agent Orange on Vietnam to defoliate the jungles and make it "easier" for our soldiers to fight and win against the Viet Cong. 

"How much evil must we do in order to do good?"
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara

A couple things to consider when answering this question:  if we're doing evil in order to do good, is that good really a good thing?  If it is a good thing, then at what point do the evil means (that you are using, for instance, Agent Orange) become so heinous that it negates the good that you are doing? 

This is an optional question to answer if you feel like tackling it for 4 extra credit points. 

On a different angle, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has been exposed has having misrepresented his time during the Vietnam Era as he runs for the U.S. Senate spot in this upcoming election.  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/nyregion/18blumenthal.html?src=me&ref=general  It seems that some members of the Baby Boom generation, especially those who serve in the military can't really come to terms with what they did during this time period, Mr. Blumenthal included. 

When talking to a group of veterans, he talked about the "days that I served in Vietnam" when talking supporting our troops unconditionally.  He never served and actually went out of his way to obtain five deferments so that he didn't have to serve like less fortunate soldiers who didn't go to college or have connections like Blumenthal.  His father worked with the Washington Post, and somehow young Dick received the deferment 2-A, one of the most coveted deferments, which meant that his job or role was so important that he needed to stay in the U.S..  This allowed him to finish up his Harvard grad work, go to Britain for more grad work, get a job at the Post, and then worked for the Nixon White House.  Only after the war looked like it was wrapping up did Dick join the Marine Reserves. 

Former president Clinton went overseas during the war while on a Rhodes scholarship and protested the war in Britain, while George W. Bush spent his service time in a cushy Air National Guard post protecting the Alabama skies from Communists. 

Here's an article that examines why politicians lie about their war service: http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/politicians-and-their-fake-war-stories/?ref=nyregion  It makes for some very fascinating reading. 

Your three questions:

1. Why do you think some of the Baby Boom generation have such a difficult time with what they had done (or not done) during the Vietnam War? 

2. Which of the four options in your class (please identify 2nd or 3rd hour) argued the best case and why?  Please include specifics.

3. Why do you think the debate was set up like this (four different views, working in teams, debate, using primary resources)?  Explain. 

18 points (+4 extra if you choose to

answer McNamara's evil/good question). 

300 words minimum - due Monday, May 24, 2010

Blog #31 - Which JFK conspiracy do you believe?

We have been watching Oswald's Ghost and trying to get to the bottom of the mess surrounding the murder of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963.  The Warren Commission, under stress to get to the bottom of the murder, tried to line up the facts and reasons why those facts had happened.  The implications of not coming to a lone gunman conclusion being murdered by Jack Ruby (feeling sorry for Jackie Kennedy who almost everyone loved or felt sympathy for) were staggering:  the murderer would still be on the loose.   So, the Warren Commission did was it supposed to: it presented the government's case for an open and shut case against Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) just in time for President Johnson to trounce Republican senator Barry Goldwater. 

Early on in the film, it appears to present one possible conspiracy with little evidence but conjecture: why would a leftist (LHO) kill a liberal president deep in the heart of Texas where JFK was deeply hated (given the editorials NOT welcoming the president to Dallas) along with the anti-segregationists and Texas oilmen (see pamphlet to the side).  The stuff that we hear on the cable newshows against either Presidents Bush or Obama is nothing new.  It was said 40 years ago.  Talk of impeaching a president was tossed at FDR, Clinton and many other presidents as well.

Another conspiracy that we heard was that the president was killed by the Cubans for his sponsoring of the Bay of Pigs invasion and the confrontation over the missiles in 1962.  LHO's shady past and his passing out of leaflets saying "Hands Off Cuba"  provide some plausibility for that scenario.  Whether these were pro-Cubans who wanted to kill JFK for the Bay of Pigs invasion, or anti-Castro people who were angry about the Bay of Pigs invasion and JFK' s refusal to support the invasion.  The killers could have been Cubans or it could have been Oswald.

In the book, 48 Liberal Lies About American History (That You Probably Learned in School), the #5 Lie was "JFK was killed by LBJ and a secret team to keep Kennedy from getting us out of Vietnam."   The author of the book, Larry Schweikart, argued that all of the top military contractors "put together couldn't equal the revenues of a major car comany or a McDonald's" (36).  There's some debate as to whether President Kennedy was a strong anti-Communist or not, whether he was willing to stay and fight in South Vietnam.  Some staffers stated that Kennedy had expressed uncertainty over remaining there.  Therefore, the "military-industrial complex" apparently has so much pull in the government that it can have a president assassinated (yet today, when our military is so much stronger and the U.S. gov't. withdraws from Iraq, not one single president is killed!  Amazing!). 

Also, there is the mafia involvement scenario.  There are a couple of angles on this.  One angle is that the assassination was retaliation for Attorney General Bobby Kennedy's attacks on the mafia.  They could have used their own killers and used Oswald as a "patsy" like he claimed.  According to Schweikart, there's wiretap evidence against some of the top crime bosses in the nation like Sam Giancana (the mob boss whose girlfriend, Judith Campbell, Frank Sinatra had introduced JFK to) among others (37).  The other angle has to do with killing JFK b/c he was having an affair w/ Judith Campbell (Exner, her married name).  

Then there's Oswald doing the murder by himself.  Pretty much the evidence points to this scenario.  Lawyer Gerald Posner wrote Case Closed  in 1993 tackles the absence of other evidence (the lack of more gunshots, the inability of the conspiracy folks to produce any bullets tied to the crime scene besides Oswald's or any other kind of forensic evidence.  In Oswald's Ghost, the film makes a very good case about how much LHO was underestimated - that he was too stupid, too incompetent, too this or too that to do any of the things that he had done on his own (get dishonorably discharged from the Marines, defect to the Soviet Union, marry a Russian woman and then return back to the U.S.) w/o the help of foreign governments or their agencies. 

Question:

Which JFK murder conspiracy / theory do you personally think has the most credibility?  Why?  Use info from Oswald's Ghost, article "Death of a President", and outside sources if necessary. 

Due Wednesday May 5 - 200 words minimum. 

Sources:

1. Timeline of JFK and LHO's lives from PBS's website for Oswald's Ghost: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/oswald/timeline/
2. Review of Gerald Posner's Case Closed, http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/sl2.htm 
3. Norman Mailer, Oswald's Tale: An American Mystery
4. Josiah Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas: A Micro-Study of the Kennedy Assassination
5. The Warren Commission - http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/index.html
6. Robert Dallek, An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917 - 1963
7. Priscilla Johnson McMillan, Marina and Lee
8. Edward Jay Epstein, Inquest
9. Mark Lane, RUSH TO JUDGEMENT