Category: Research & Commentary

Franklin Delano Roosevelt: The OG Influencer— No Twitter Just Fireside Chats

Franklin Delano Roosevelt: The OG Influencer— No Twitter Just Fireside Chats

By Rhiannon Al-Saadi

Turning on the radio

A nation on the brink of despair. One man’s voice crackled through the radio. 54 million listeners. Two-thirds of America.[1] Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s fireside chats did not just deliver news, but also wove a thread of hope and unity that transformed the very fabric of political communication. In an age dominated by tweets and soundbites, Roosevelt’s intimate conversations set a powerful precedent for how presidents connected with their citizens. His informal and conversational style turned these broadcasts into what would be famously known as his “fireside chats.” Through his fireside chats Roosevelt was able to connect with people right in their homes, creating a personal feeling. This unprecedented use of technology changed the way Americans looked at the presidency. This revolution in communication highlighted several key themes: the technologically advanced nature of radio, the personal connection and accessibility it afforded, the emergence of celebrity culture, and the lasting lessons it offers for future leaders. Together, these elements illustrated how Roosevelt’s fireside chats informed as well as inspired a nation in need. An examination of Roosevelt’s innovative use of radio reveals a profound and lasting impact on presidential communication, setting a precedent that future leaders, such as John F. Kennedy and Donald Trump, would follow. This analysis highlights a clear pattern of technological advancements in communication strategies, illustrating how each president adapted to evolving media landscapes to engage effectively with the American public.

President Roosevelt was first inaugurated on March 3rd, 1933. During this time, the nation grappled with the Great Depression’s harsh realities. Just eight days after his inauguration, Roosevelt delivered his first national radio address, which became a groundbreaking moment in American history. Around this point the radio emerged. In the 1920s everyone wanted a radio in their home; it was the new thing. By the 1930s, it was in every other home. The 1930 census “showed that 40.3% of all families owned a radio set.” This percentage was even higher “in urban areas, with ownership at 50.0%.” Although radio ownership became increasingly common across much of the United States, it remained less widespread in the South, where economic and geographic factors slowed its growth compared to other regions.[2] A lot can change over the course of a decade. Not long later in the 1940s— “despite the economic crisis— [the] radio became commonplace: 86 percent of homes had sets.”[3] Even though the radio’s popularity coincided with a time of great social and economic upheaval, families still gathered around it. During Roosevelt’s presidency, the radio transformed from a luxury item into a normal part of daily life, deeply embedded in American households and communities. The radio served as a primary means of communication, entertainment, and connection to the world beyond their community. For Roosevelt, this technological shift provided an unprecedented opportunity to speak directly to the American people. According to communication expert Christopher Sterling, Hooper Radio reported “nearly 54 million people (of roughly 82 million adult Americans) tuned in to the broadcast.”[4] Although only half the population owned a radio set, two-thirds were listening in at times. This may seem puzzling at first— today this can be seen by everyone watching a YouTube video but only some actually hit subscribe. For the radio, this was possible because it went beyond just a household item. The radio was a shared, communal resource, something previous technologies lacked. Those without a radio in their homes could easily tune in at a friend’s house, a diner, or even in a car. This made radio listening a shared experience that transcended the boundaries of individual ownership, and in many ways, it brought communities closer together. Roosevelt recognized the power of this medium and began using it to connect directly with the American people during their darkest hours.

Amid the chaos of the Great Depression, the fireside chats were not just a communication tool, but a lifeline for people facing mass unemployment, bank failures, and dramatic deflation. Ranging from 1929 to 1939, the Great Depression marked one of the most severe economic downturns in American history. Nearly a quarter of the workforce was unemployed, families struggled to survive as their savings vanished and businesses collapsed. The stock market crash of 1929 had triggered a financial panic, soon after the banking crisis only worsened that disaster. By the time Roosevelt took office in 1933, more than nine thousand banks had failed, wiping out the savings of millions of Americans.[5] Due to this, public trust in the government and the financial system was at an all-time low, and many Americans were desperate for reassurance and a sense of direction. This put a lot of pressure on Roosevelt, but still he confidently promised to tackle the nation’s economic challenges. Historian Geoffrey Storm notes that “the letters he received from New Yorkers illuminate Depression-era conditions and indicate an early instance of the intimate bond established between Roosevelt and his listeners.”[6] This bond, cultivated through the fireside chats, allowed Roosevelt to directly engage with the anxieties of the American public, offering both guidance and comfort during the nation’s time of uncertainty.

Most historians agree that Roosevelt’s fireside chats significantly impacted political communication. It is how historians approach it where these things differ. The main two approaches reflect the influence from a media history or political history angle. On one hand, historians like Bruce Lenthal, Harold Holzer, and Geoffrey Storm highlight how Roosevelt’s fireside chats influenced media approaches, resulting in more direct and accessible communication with the American people.[7] Lenthal’s work specifically does a deep dive into the radio, analyzing the technological and cultural impact of it. Lenthal argues that the radio is to credit for the rise of modern mass culture. He and Storm examine the technological innovations in relation to the cultural impact of the fireside chats. The two of them are quite interested in the history of the radio, making their contributions slightly narrow. Storm adds substantial information on what the technology of the fireside chats meant for society, such as how it helped reach a wider audience across different regions. Holzer has less of a focus on the radio and more of a focus on the technology relevant at certain times. This is because he looks at the history of media throughout the presidencies, not just at Roosevelt’s radio. Like the other approaches, Holzer looks at technologies’ impact on modern media strategies and its role in engaging the public, though for multiple different presidents. Together these historians draw attention to Roosevelt’s media strategy as they find the fireside chats impact relates to its technologically advanced nature.

On the other hand, there is the political history focus. Political historians look at the impact of Roosevelt’s use of radio on his administration, particularly how it shaped public opinion and solidified his leadership during the crisis. They focus on the fireside chats in terms of fostering national unity and engagement. William Edward Leuchtenburg, Richard W. Steele, and Tom Lewis primarily focus on the public sentiment, rather than the technology.[8] Leuchtenburg emphasizes how Roosevelt’s New Deal policies reshaped American society, with mention of people’s reaction to his fireside chats. Looking at social and political history, Leuchtenburg makes captivating insights on how Roosevelt’s use of radio transformed presidential communication, allowing him to connect directly with Americans in their homes, build trust, and shape public opinion during the Great Depression. Steele’s article “The Pulse of the People: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Gauging of American Public Opinion,” emphasizes Roosevelt’s strategic methods for gauging public sentiment, highlighting how the president used informal feedback and media interactions to respond to American concerns. By examining Roosevelt’s strategy, Steele is firmly rooted in political history. He continues this focus in his article “The Great Debate: Roosevelt, the Media, and the Coming of the War, 1940–1941.” In this, Steele argues that Roosevelt strategically used the media to gain support for his plans of intervention. Lewis takes these two ideas, from Leuchtenburg and Steele, and combines them when he explores the direct impact of the fireside chats on building a personal connection. Lewis argues the emergence of celebrity culture within the context of radio highlights how Roosevelt utilized the medium to cultivate a public persona. Lewis incorporates a considerable amount of cultural history by looking at the cultural impact of Roosevelt’s political identity. Still, the core focus is on how these efforts were used for political gain, making it political history. These historians generally analyze the broader dynamics of Roosevelt’s fireside chats to public opinion, to do this they take a more legacy related approach to understanding Roosevelt’s impact.

Building on these insights, this analysis will explore how Roosevelt’s fireside chats were successful for both technological and political history reasons. The current historical discussion is limited in its view of the fireside chats. Roosevelt’s use of the radio transformed presidential communication for both technological reasons and the personal connections the fireside chats formed. However, while historians focus on these aspects in isolation, few have fully explored how Roosevelt’s fireside chats laid the groundwork for future presidents. Today, the echoes of Roosevelt’s fireside chats can still be heard in the way presidents communicate with the American people. The groundbreaking fireside chats strengthened Roosevelt’s relationships, created his public persona, and made future presidents embrace the precedent. Roosevelts’ influence cannot be attributed to just one historical category. The combined reasons make a tangible strategy that continued after Roosevelt. The fireside chats represented a game changing development in political communication, due to their technological innovation making them direct and personal. One did not need to be a politician to understand the policies being discussed. At the same time, Roosevelt’s use of radio contributed to the rise of celebrity culture, positioning him as a prominent public figure whose personality resonated with Americans and made him a recognizable and influential leader. Comparisons with future presidents, including but not limited to, John F. Kennedy, who emulated Roosevelt’s personal connection through strong stage presence, and Donald Trump, who harnessed the elements with social media, illustrate how advancements in technology have continually influenced presidential communication strategies. Roosevelt was not setting out to make this precedent, but in trying to help his country recover, he revolutionized the presidency. This raises an important question; how did Roosevelt use the radio to revolutionize the way future presidents communicate with the American people? This analysis will argue that the legacy of the fireside chats is still present today. Where much of the current discussion stops is at Roosevelt’s direct impact, and this fails to address the next question; what have later presidents done to follow in Roosevelt’s footsteps? Ultimately, this analysis aims to contribute to current historiography by highlighting how Roosevelt’s fireside chats not only reshaped the nature of political communication but also established a framework for future leaders to connect with the public in increasingly personal and engaging ways, reflecting the evolving relationship between technology and political communication.

The tech behind the talk

The once revolutionary technology, the radio, transformed how Americans experienced both political news and general culture. The most transformative aspect of the radio was the direct communication it provided. Lenthal, author of Radio’s America, notes the radio as cutting edge technology in the 1930s. For the first time, Americans were able to listen to live broadcasts, giving them unmediated access to national events and shaping their understanding of politics and culture. Lenthal further explains that for people listening “the government that had seemed so far away […], suddenly felt meaningful in his own house.”[9] This is to say previous interactions with the presidency were physically distant and felt that way too. Leuchtenburg said in his book, The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy, “most Americans in the previous 160 years had never even seen a President” the news was their only choice.[10] A newspaper represents someone else’s account of events. It is written after the fact, whether that be hours or days later. And then it is read even further from the original date, when a person finally sees it and has time for it. The more and more this goes on, the news begins to feel like a game of Telephone— what once was, now becomes a distant version of the original.[11] None of that could be said for Roosevelt’s fireside chats. He spoke directly to the American people, explaining why his ideas, such as the New Deal, were going to help them. They heard the president speak. From his mouth to their ears, with the exact words he said it to them specifically. To experience the president speaking directly to you, with no delay and no middle man, marked a profound shift in how Americans engaged with their leader. This forever altered the way future presidents would communicate with the American people.

Not only did the radio allow direct unmediated communication with the president, but it also extended the accessibility of information across the nation. By eliminating the barriers of traditional news outlets, the radio made it possible to reach millions of citizens. Previous barriers holding back news accessibility were typically monetary. In the early 1900s, most people got their news through newspapers or newsreels.[12] This means people had to buy each issue or a movie ticket to stay informed. The radio brought political messages into people’s homes, workplaces, and public spaces. This unprecedented ability to broadcast news to such a wide audience at once, fundamentally altered the dynamics of political communication, which enabled Roosevelt to connect with the American public in ways never before imagined. Doing so reshaped the relationship between the government and the citizens. As Steele notes in “The Great Debate: Roosevelt, the Media, and the Coming of the War,” “Roosevelt’s presidential addresses, particularly his fireside chats, were as popular among newsreel viewers as they were among the nation’s radio audiences.”[13] Since radio dominated mass communication during Roosevelt’s presidency, he used it to address millions of Americans, extending his reach greatly. However, it is important to highlight the significance of newsreels, they were brief films screened in movie theaters that showcased significant events. Most would assume that newsreels would be more popular as it was on a screen, something still present today. But while newsreels were widely popular, radio offered an additional layer of accessibility, allowing Americans to tune in directly from their homes without the need for a movie ticket.

While the radio expanded accessibility, it also fostered a collective experience, as millions of Americans listened together in real-time, creating a shared moment of national engagement. Unlike any other medium before it, the radio allowed millions of people to engage with the same event or broadcast simultaneously, creating a sense of collective participation. Not owning a radio did not equal not listening to one.[14] Roosevelt capitalized on this unique characteristic, using his fireside chats not just as a platform for delivering his policies, but as an opportunity to connect the American people. Across the country, people from different families and different towns would come together and have listening parties for Roosevelt’s broadcasts. According to Lenthal, “simply listening to the radio was often a shared experience: Americans in the 1930s typically listened with groups of family or friends.”[15] Figure 1, a 1938 photo, showed how Roosevelt’s real-time address to the nation created an immediate connection with listeners. Even if they were listening cramped up in a small room with nowhere to sit, people would still come together to listen to the radio.[16] The American people were brought together by the shared cultural experience of hearing their president speak directly to them. This type of collective experience was unprecedented at the time— today, we might experience similar collective moments through viral memes with millions of views, but in Roosevelt’s era, the radio was the groundbreaking technology that made such a connection possible.

With a discussion of the technological innovation behind the fireside chats, a key point often missing is the simple aspect that this communication came directly from the President of the United States of America. This was not a slick big business’s PR stunt, nor a cheerful ad for a local store. This was the President, the country’s leader, using this advanced technology to directly engage with the American people. Leutchenbrug confirms that Roosevelt was “the first chief executive to take full advantage of the capacity of radio to project a president’s idea.”[17] What set Roosevelt apart from other figures using the radio stemmed from his unique ability to turn the technological medium into a means of political leadership. Roosevelt used the radio not only to inform but to cultivate a relationship with the people, making them feel personally connected to their government. His broadcasts were more than just announcements. The fireside chats served as a way to project leadership, confidence, and authority during one of the country’s most difficult periods. Roosevelt understood the power of this new communication tool to foster trust, shape public perception, and solidify his influence as the nation’s leader. The impact of his fireside chats reached far beyond the immediate information he conveyed— it transformed the way Americans viewed their president, setting a new standard for political communication that future presidents would adopt and adapt.

Bringing the president home

            Roosevelt broke down the boundaries between the president and the people by forcing himself into American living rooms, giving millions of Americans the sensation that they were having a conversation with the president. Americans tuned in to listen to the president in the comfort of their own homes, creating the sensation that Roosevelt himself stood in the room with them, speaking to each individual as if he was any other friend in their own home. This powerful illustration is captured in Figure 2, a 1940 photograph, “The Fireside Chats: Roosevelt’s Radio Talks.” The photo has a father and daughter intently tuning in to one of these broadcasts, symbolizing the intimate, family-centered atmosphere Roosevelt cultivated through his radio addresses.[18]

The photograph conveys more than words ever could, as listening to Roosevelt speak in one’s own home highlights the personal connection it made the American people feel. Historian Geoffrey Storm put it perfectly when he says that listening to the fireside chats was “a highly personal, immediate experience that reduced the limitations of geographical separation to forge new, wider notions of community.”[19] Roosevelt intended for his fireside chats to sound personal, as though he were addressing each listener individually, rather than delivering a formal, distant speech. At the time, the radio served as a revolutionary technology capable of bringing the president’s voice as though he were right there in the room with them. Prior to radio, people in different sections of the country frequently did not hear directly from the president because of geographic distance.[20] It was so personalized that Lewis notes that “some people placed Roosevelt’s picture beside their radios, so they might see him as he spoke.”[21] This highlights the intimate relationship listeners developed with Roosevelt, viewing him as a personal figure rather than just a distant politician. To have a picture of the president in one’s home means it was a source of comfort, familiarity, and reassurance. Bridging the physical gap between himself and the American people, Roosevelt’s fireside chats helped to strengthen the relationship and make him feel less like an inaccessible politician and more like a trusted presence in every home.

            In addition to creating a personal connection, Roosevelt’s fireside chats were characterized by his use of simple, clear language that spoke directly to the concerns and experiences of ordinary Americans. Roosevelt made that motivation clear too. During his very first fireside chat, on March 12 1933, titled “Fireside Chat on the Banking Crisis,” he emphasized that his actions were “for the benefit of the average citizen.”[22] Instead of using complex political or economic terminology, Roosevelt broke down the issues at hand into terms that anyone could understand, regardless of their background or education. He carefully explained the banking crisis and the steps the government was taking to address it in straightforward language, ensuring that people felt informed and reassured— given the circumstances, that reassurance was certainly needed. He referenced this again seven years later in another fireside chat, having said “I tried to convey to the great mass of American people what the banking crisis meant to them in their daily lives.”[23] Furthermore, not only did Roosevelt talk without political jargon, like a real person, but he as well had an “informal delivery” that contributed to accessibility.[24] Roosevelt’s approachable tone made listeners feel comfortable sending letters to him in response to his fireside chats. For example, F.B. Graham, a woman who wrote to Roosevelt after listening to one of his fireside chats, described them as “neighborly” and noted that “in simple words [he] explained the great things he had done, so that all us unfamiliar” would understand.[25] This letter, written by a listener who was not a political expert but a regular American citizen, demonstrates the easy comprehension of the fireside chats. Roosevelt’s use of simple language, paired with his informal yet authoritative delivery, allowed him to communicate effectively with people across the nation. From this understanding, Roosevelt built a unique relationship with the American people, increasing his popularity. By addressing ordinary citizens in a language they could easily understand, he made complex policy discussions feel personal and approachable, rather than distant and formal.

By speaking in simple, relatable terms, Roosevelt made political issues more understandable, which opened up the political process, encouraging greater public participation and involvement in government decisions. Roosevelt’s decision to speak informally went beyond just making his message clearer to the public. The fireside chats were a deliberate effort to make politics more approachable and relatable for ordinary Americans. The fireside chats were void of political lingo that those “unfamiliar with the technicalities” would be confused by.[26] At the time, political discourse remained largely secluded to the educated elite or political insiders. Roosevelt’s straightforward language invited a wider range of citizens— regardless of their social or educational background— into the conversation. Something essential during this time was that the banking crisis ruined thousands of normal American lives. By opting for simplicity he made it possible for the people being affected to understand the issues at hand. This gave them a sense of participation in the national dialogue and empowered them to engage more deeply with the decisions that shaped their desperate circumstances. By ensuring that Americans from various parts of society understood the topics being discussed, his fireside chats helped close the divide between the public and the government. As historian Leuchtenburg notes, Roosevelt “greatly broadened the political agenda and encouraged outsiders to enter the civic arena” not only through his fireside chats but also by his openness to new ideas and people previously excluded from Washington.[27] By making politics less intimidating, Roosevelt encouraged people to believe that they could engage with and even influence government decisions. Roosevelt himself said this too in his first fireside chat, he made his audience known when he said he was having this broadcast for “the comparatively few who understand the mechanics of banking but more particularly with the overwhelming majority who use banks for the making of deposits in the drawing of checks.”[28] Roosevelt wanted all American listeners to know they were meant to hear this. The fireside chats were not for the banking specialist or politicians, it was to talk to real people with real concerns, who might not fully understand the technicalities of the circumstances. Roosevelt’s fireside chats ultimately contributed to a more informed and involved population by changing their relationship between the people and the government.

The fireside celebrity

            When the radio emerged as a powerful medium, it influenced not only how the American people got their news, but it also marked the birth of a political celebrity. Roosevelt was the first person to mix politics into the entertainment industry, elevating him to household-name status alongside the iconic movie stars of the 1920s and famous athletes. The radio played a crucial role in the development of celebrity culture. Before the rise of the radio, Americans were mostly confined to local communities, with limited access to people or happenings outside of their immediate surroundings.[29] While the film industry had already begun to expand cultural boundaries, the radio offered a different kind of connection. The radio brought national conversations directly into American homes, it was centered on live, real-world content. As for magazine culture, it was alive, but it did not reach people like the radio did.[30] The development of the radio created an expansion of the “bounds of geography.”[31] For example, people in the Midwest could suddenly walk into their living room and hear about the lives of people in the cities. Given that America is not a walkable country, this is essential towards celebrity culture. There cannot be a celebrity culture when regional divides are limiting access. With the radio, every American can listen to events happening nowhere near them, whether it be New York, Hollywood, or overseas. The cities were no longer the sole holders of information—suddenly, anyone anywhere could be an informed citizen. This new level of awareness not only transformed how Americans consumed news but additionally allowed public figures to reach national audiences in ways previously unimaginable. Where once individuals were confined to local newspapers, magazines, or word-of-mouth to hear about the lives of famous people, the radio created an instantaneous, nationwide conversation. It allowed personalities to transcend their regional bases, gaining widespread recognition across the country. This made it possible for figures such as movie stars, musicians, and politicians to become national household names, a phenomenon that would eventually blossom into what is known today as celebrity culture.

            Roosevelt’s widespread media presence cemented his celebrity status, as reflected by the flood of letters he received from ordinary Americans, eager to communicate with their president. The feelings invoked by Roosevelt’s fireside chats made people wish they could talk to him. If the president is already sitting in one’s living room, it only makes sense to continue the conversation by writing to him. Similar to celebrities today, Roosevelt received a lot of fan mail. Roosevelt’s carefully managed persona was embraced by the American people, causing a constant “flow of letters to the White House.”[32] Whether it be a simple hello, a political inquiry, or a message of congratulations— Roosevelt received it all. His desk, often piled high with letters from ordinary citizens, served as a constant reminder of the public persona he fostered with millions of Americans. Each letter was a reflection of their hopes, struggles, and trust in his leadership. According to investigative reporter Stephen Smith, Herbert Hoover, Roosevelt’s predecessor, could not relate. Whereas Hoover received around eight hundred letters a day. Roosevelt received eight thousand.[33] Roosevelt’s ability to connect with the public was not only a product of his own charisma, but also of his family legacy. Harold Holzer, author of President v.s. the Press says that Roosevelt’s cousin, Theodore Roosevelt, had set the foundation for the Roosevelt family’s public image, teaching Roosevelt the power of leveraging personal charm and a strong public presence.[34] The power of this can be seen in Figure 3, a photograph that depicts Roosevelt with a mountain of letters on his desk. This parallels modern YouTubers’ unboxing fan mail videos.[35] Like YouTubers today, sitting in front of a camera surrounded by fan mail, more than they could ever realistically read, Roosevelt was in the same situation a little less than a hundred years ago. Roosevelt’s overwhelming fan mail was a clear sign that his connection with the public went far beyond politics, creating a new type of political figure whose reach and influence rivaled that of modern-day celebrities.

Roosevelt’s influence knew no borders. His communication had a far reaching impact, with listeners all over the globe tuned in. One notable example is a fourteen year old kid from Cuba, named Fidel Castro, who wrote to Roosevelt addressing him as “my good friend Roosevelt.”[36] This personal address demonstrated how Roosevelt’s use of the radio not only connected him with Americans, but also extended his reach to international audiences. His unique ability to make Americans and foreign citizens alike feel personally connected to him made him a “celebrity” in the modern sense of the word. This shift from national leader to global icon marked a new era in political communication, blurring the line between celebrity and politician. The timing was crucial given the context of the Great Depression. During a global crisis, Roosevelt was able to extend his influence and status further than the national borders, establishing him as not merely the leader of the United States of America, but as a figure of widespread fame.

Beyond the spotlight, Roosevelt’s charismatic personality was a calculated approach to public opinion that transformed him into more than just a political leader. Roosevelt became a symbol of trust and stability. The fireside chats provided Roosevelt a unique opportunity to be a politician with a celebrity like relationship. Taking full advantage of the opportunity, Roosevelt carefully scripted his public persona. Steele says in his article “The Pulse of the People,” that this is because Roosevelt “never thought that good government spoke for itself” and actively sought to shape public sentiment, recognizing that public attitudes could significantly impact his administration’s success.[37] Lewis points to how Roosevelt harnessed radio to build his image in a time of crisis, arguing that “Roosevelt used radio to unite a fearful nation and to expand his popular appeal.”[38] Many assume Roosevelt’s high popularity came from “the product of some special intuitive sense,” but Steele argues it was in fact “deliberately constructed and carefully maintained.”[39] By closely monitoring the press and engaging with citizens’ concerns, Roosevelt not only showcased his confidence and responsiveness but also fostered a sense of connection and trust among the public. This proactive engagement helped cultivate a loyal following and reinforced the idea that effective leadership involves understanding and addressing the needs of the American people.[40] Roosevelt’s careful management of public sentiment was not only about maintaining trust— it had also been about restoring and building confidence, particularly during times of uncertainty. During Roosevelt’s second fireside chat, he said it himself: “I made clear to the country various facts that might otherwise have been misunderstood and in general provided a means of understanding which did much to restore confidence.”[41] Therefore, Roosevelt’s celebrity-like status played a crucial role in shaping the nation’s perception of him as a trustworthy and dependable leader during times of crisis.

Long before social media, Roosevelt started the idea of a political celebrity through the power of the radio, using his voice to shape not just public opinion but an entirely new kind of public figure. Roosevelt’s public persona extended far beyond his position in office, with his influence shaping not only political landscapes but also the cultural and social fabric of the nation. This status stemmed from his remarkable ability to connect with the public in a way that felt deeply personal. Roosevelt’s strategic fireside chats fostered a sense of leadership that elevated him to a person of unprecedented recognition and influence. The 1920s movie stars were recognizable and of course everyone knew who Babe Ruth was, but none of them had influence over the country like President Roosevelt did.

Taking Note From Roosevelt

            Roosevelt’s fireside chats had a lasting impact that extended far beyond his presidency. The fireside chats influenced future presidents to follow in Roosevelt’s footsteps, by embracing the technology of the time. After Roosevelt died in office on April 12th 1945, his vice president Harry Truman, succeeded him. He continued Roosevelt’s use of the radio, even announcing Japan’s surrender in WWII over the radio.[42] By continuing Roosevelt’s use of the radio, Truman ensured that the nation remained connected during a time of great change and uncertainty, honoring Roosevelt’s legacy and demonstrating the lasting influence of the fireside chats. Over time the development of technology’s effect on the presidency has only deepened. As technology continues to evolve, its influence on presidential communication only grows, shaping how future leaders will connect with the public and furthering Roosevelt’s impact.

            Technological advancements are like fads, they leave just as fast as they enter. Only seven years later and the radio was old news. The television, growing in popularity, quickly became the new staple in every home. In 1952, the Eisenhower campaign became the first to have televised ads. This happened through his series “Eisenhower Answers America,” where just like Roosevelt, Eisenhower directly addressed America. The timing of this was essential given that Lewis says “by 1953, when there were more than 17 million television sets in the United States.”[43] The television proved to be especially useful for addressing controversy, as it allowed candidates to directly engage with the public in a personal and immediate way. A notable example of this is when Eisenhower’s VP, Richard Nixon gave a televised speech famously titled, “Checkers.” Political historian, John Malsberger, notes this speech as having “produced an outpouring of popular support for Nixon and erased doubts about his candidacy.”[44] The televised speech was able to humanize the nominees and clear the air regarding financial concerns the nation had. Roosevelt did the same regularly, in one particular fireside chat, Roosevelt had to clear the air about his Recovery Program. During this broadcast he explained his actions and gave “a word of encouragement,” to help address some of the issues people were having.[45] Roosevelt and Eisenhower understood the power of direct communication through emerging technologies, using radio and television to not only address controversy but also build trust and connect with the American people during times of uncertainty.

            John F. Kennedy took advantage of the television like never seen before. Kennedy’s remarkable charisma and public appeal was a defining feature of his presidency, making it possible for him to connect with Americans in a way that few other leaders had before. Kennedy, like Roosevelt, understood the ability of technological advancements to create a personal connection with the public. Whereas Roosevelt established the use of radio to reach the masses, Kennedy capitalized on the growing influence of television to do the same, using it not just to inform, but to inspire. Kennedy’s personal narrative— his youthful energy, his family legacy, and his polished public persona— played a key role in this media strategy. Holzer notes that Kennedy “brought not only movie star looks to the political table but also a substantial if slightly padded résumé. Like TR [Theodore Roosevelt] a genuine war hero and published writer, he was also, like FDR, the scion of multigenerational political royalty and, like both Roosevelts, a graduate of prestigious Harvard.”[46] This carefully crafted image of Kennedy as both a man of action and intellect helped reinforce the connection he fostered through the media. This point about Kennedy can be directly related to Roosevelt’s aim with his fireside chats. As previously stated, Roosevelt “never thought that good government spoke for itself” and actively sought to shape public sentiment.[47] Beyond his televised speeches, Kennedy’s ability to engage directly with the media was evident from his first day in office. During his inaugural press conference, the young president responded to thirty-seven separate press questions, surpassing Roosevelt’s record and demonstrating his command over complex issues. As Holzer further observes, this moment “placed his grasp of complex matters on full display.”[48] By utilizing television and press interactions in such a direct and accessible way, Kennedy continued the legacy set by Roosevelt, demonstrating how future presidents would adapt to changing media landscapes to connect with the American people.

Both Roosevelt and Kennedy effectively bypassed traditional print media to connect directly with the American public— Roosevelt through radio broadcasts and Kennedy through the television. As Holzer notes, “if FDR possessed the perfect voice for radio, JFK boasted the perfect appearance for TV.” Roosevelt’s strong oratory skills and commanding voice made his radio broadcasts particularly effective. On the other hand, Kennedy’s “irresistible” appearance and charismatic stage presence made him a natural fit for the visual medium of television, where his image played a crucial role in engaging viewers.[49] While Roosevelt’s radio broadcasts relied on the power of voice and verbal persuasion, Kennedy’s television appearances capitalized on the visual appeal and personal connection that the medium offered. Following Roosevelt’s example, Kennedy recognized the power of using a new medium to engage with the American people and continue the tradition of presidents speaking directly to their citizens. Kennedy did this by playing on his natural charisma and good looks.

            The significance of  Kennedy cannot be understood without discussing the first ever televised debate. During this 1960 debate, Democratic nominee Senator Kennedy wiped Republican nominee Vice President Nixon out of the park. This is not something historians or the everyday American would disagree with. Anyone can watch the recording to see Kennedy’s strong stage presence and ability to answer the questions at hand. Nixon on the other hand appeared weak with a very evident cold. His suit was too big, he had sweat dripping down his face, and he looked like death. Many attribute Nixon’s failed televised debate to his loss to Kennedy. Historian Mark White says it is important to note that “Americans who watched it on television thought Kennedy had triumphed,” but those who only listened in on the radio saw the debate as “evenly matched.”[50] People who were able to physically see Kennedy’s golden tan and charisma, were confident in his win. While those who only heard the debate saw the two as equal because there was no visual support giving Kennedy a leg up. The visual impact of the television gave Kennedy an edge. The debates themselves were a series of discussions that stretched over several weeks, each providing both candidates with the chance to present their views. Going into the election, Nixon had significant advantages. As Vice President, he brought extensive experience in foreign affairs and was older than Kennedy, which contributed to his greater experience in office. However, despite these strengths, the youngest person ever to run for president and the first Catholic to do so, Kennedy, ultimately won. Just as Roosevelt’s fireside chats helped solidify his image as a strong leader, Kennedy’s confident appearance during the debate contributed to his image as the more capable candidate. Nixon, despite his experience, struggled with the medium. In both cases, the media became a pivotal force in influencing public opinion and helped determine the outcome of the election.

            Failing to use technology as efficiently as Roosevelt is part of the double edged sword. Nixon won supporters back during his “Checkers” speech, but he was not able to do that following the Watergate scandal. The media’s constant coverage of this stain on Nixon’s record kept the scandal in the public eye and only amplified public skepticism. This made it nearly impossible for Nixon to regain America’s confidence. Unlike his earlier political battles, Nixon could not craft a favorable narrative or regain control of the message. Nixon’s struggles to harness the power of emerging media differed from Roosevelt’s skillful use of radio which helped maintain his public image. Ultimately, Roosevelt’s strategy set a precedent that Nixon was unable to follow.

            Around twenty years later, Ronald Reagan, also known as “The Great Communicator,” won the presidency. Holzer says Reagan “found himself in precisely the right place at exactly the right time to ride the crest of a media revolution,” much like Roosevelt had done during his time in office.[51] Comparably to Roosevelt, Reagan regularly addressed the American people. He did this through “broadcasting weekly Saturday-morning addresses,” to the nation.[52] Reagan’s weekly talks quickly became a fixture in the lives of many Americans, much like Roosevelt’s fireside chats had. Just as families once gathered around the radio to listen to Roosevelt, Americans tuned in to hear Reagan speak in a direct, relatable way. Reagan’s ability to connect with the public caused him to be given the nickname, “The Great Communicator.” This came from his ability to speak casually, friendly, and clearly to the country. Similar to Roosevelt’s fireside chats which resonated with Americans for the same reason. Additionally, Reagan’s Hollywood acting background allowed him to utilize the media in a way not previously done. Reagan was able to swoop in from Jimmy Carter’s negative media portrayal and win the 1980 election. Carter was a Washington outsider— a peanut farmer from Georgia— up against a man who had experience in front of cameras. Reagan’s effective use of media and his ability to connect with the public reflected the lasting influence of Roosevelt’s legacy.

            Even though the internet was emerging during George H.W. Bush’s time in office, with the birth of the World Wide Web and the introduction of email to the White House, he did not fully embrace the potential of the internet. Bush had a bad relationship with the media in multiple forms, including both the internet and the traditional press. Holzer believes that the press was always looking to “embarrass” Bush. This contrasts sharply with Roosevelt, whose effective use of new technology fostered a direct and positive connection with the American people. This left Bush’s suppressor, Bill Clinton, with the opportunity to sweep in “as an appealing Southern Governor,” with an actually good relationship with the media.[53] It was under the Clinton administration that the White House got its own official website, even though it could have been made much earlier during the Bush administration. Having a website meant that news was more accessible due to its far reach, much like Roosevelt’s fireside chats, which connected with a broad audience. When looking at Figure 4, a screenshot from the original White House website, it is clear that the layout was simple and easy to navigate.[54] This allowed the everyday American to see what was going on in the nation, just as Roosevelt’s broadcasts provided clear, direct information to the public. Clinton’s embrace of the internet and his strong rapport with the media allowed him to successfully engage the American public in ways Bush could not, solidifying his place as his successor. Clinton was able to do this because he, much like Roosevelt, recognized the power of the media.

            The power of television is undeniable, just look at the fact that the American people saw George W. Bush’s initial reaction to 9/11 because a camera happened to be on him when he was informed. The footage was released after the fact, but it still goes to show the power of technology. In the last two decades a new technology has taken over the presidency: social media, the current trend in a long line to come. Social media has redefined the way politicians interact with the public, shifting away from the one-way communication style of television and radio. Instead of simply broadcasting messages, social media allows for two-way conversations between politicians and voters. This shift has made politicians more accessible and relatable, as they can now directly respond to questions, share personal moments, and engage in real-time discussions with the public. Modern presidential campaigns depend on it. Holzer credits President Obama’s team as the first in history to use Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to teach his policies. By using social media, Obama “expanded and personalized his messaging by using the most modern available technologies to reach the widest possible audiences.”[55] This mirrors Roosevelt’s fireside chats which expanded and personalized information access. While Roosevelt’s chats were one-way communications, Obama’s use of social media allowed for two-way conversations, making his messaging even more personalized and interactive. The reach Obama’s Twitter had was unmatched, Holzer says that by the end of Obama’s presidency he “attracted more than 104 million followers— more than anyone in the country at the time, even runner-up singing sensation Katy Perry.”[56] Roosevelt’s fireside chats laid the groundwork for future presidents to connect more directly with the public, and Obama’s use of social media built upon that legacy, and took it one step further by transforming presidential communication into a more interactive and personalized experience.

Similarly, there is another president who took advantage of the changing media landscape and used social media to connect with the American people. That president would be Donald Trump. Trump made communicating with the American people even more direct and even more personal by using his Twitter account as his own personal diary instead of a professional platform. This completely bypasses traditional media narratives. It is important to note that this was the case even prior to his presidency. Before Holzer evaluates Trump’s use of technology, he draws attention to the fact that “Donald Trump commenced deploying Twitter to promote his television series, flaunt his hotels and residential properties, and, most of all, tout himself. It was the perfect merger of technology and personality, medium and messenger.”[57] The Twitter addiction did not falter after Trump’s inauguration. Throughout his campaign, presidency, and impeachment, Trump never stopped tweeting. In a May 2020 The Collegian opinion piece, it was noted that although “Twitter is his preferred form of communication with the country,” Trump frequently claims social media is censoring conservatives.[58] This newspaper reinforces the idea that the American people saw how Trump preferred social media over traditional news outlets. Much like Roosevelt’s use of the radio evading traditional media, Trump did the same, with the added complexity of personal narrative and controversy, reflecting how technology has continued to shape presidential communication.

In today’s media landscape, the power of direct communication has reached such a point that public figures like Trump can choose to bypass traditional media events altogether, such as refusing to attend the White House Correspondents’ Association gala or even a presidential debate. After one bad roast, Trump decided “he would never attend a White House Correspondents’ Association gala again.” He had the power and confidence to refuse an important public relations event because he could speak to the American people whenever he wanted through Twitter. Holzer says Trump had this ability because “by then, his Twitter feed was attracting far more viewers than the correspondents’ affair anyway.”[59] Trump did not need to do any press that gave him even the slightest bit of trouble, he has direct communication at any time he pleases. This shift in power dynamics is evident not only in his refusal to attend traditional events but also in his ability to opt out of presidential debates. Presidential debates were traditionally viewed as essential for candidates to directly engage with the public, it was the candidates time to tell the American people why their policies would help them. Roosevelt did this through his fireside chats, just as Trump did this through his Twitter. Now this country is at a point where candidates have the confidence to rely on their own platform. Trump’s ability to threaten or refuse participation marks a dramatic shift in how political communication is approached. Trump had a platform that allowed him to control the narrative without ever needing to face traditional media or public scrutiny, making debates and other traditional PR events seem optional, rather than necessary. Roosevelt’s legacy was built upon and furthered by Trump’s use of Twitter, transforming presidential communication in ways Roosevelt never could have imagined.

Turning off the radio

The fireside chats were more than a communication tool. They were a guidebook for future presidents on how to use emerging technology to relate, inform, and inspire the American people. Roosevelt made politics feel intimate, as both a friend and a celebrity figure. Roosevelt’s fireside chats set a precedent for future presidents to engage with citizens on a personal level, bypassing traditional media filters. Since then, presidents have adopted this communication style, which combines current technology, attachment, and accessibility. Each generation of leaders have had to repeat Roosevelt’s history of adapting to the constantly evolving media landscapes to effectively engage with the American people. New technologies will continue to alter the ways presidents communicate, but one thing will remain constant: the need to embrace effective and current communication. Future presidents must draw lessons from the past as technology develops further, striking a balance between the influence of new media and respectable leadership. In an era when political figures communicate through tweets, Roosevelt’s intimate fireside chats remind us of the profound power of personal connection in politics. Roosevelt transformed a nation through the simple act of speaking directly to his people.


References

Primary sources

Barnes, Jack. “Social Media Companies Ban ‘Dangerous’ Accounts Ahead of 2020 Election After Criticism.” The Collegian Vol. 116, No. 19 (May 2020): 2.       

Castro, Fidel. “Letter to Roosevelt.” Cuba, November 1940.

 “Family Listening to Radio.” National Archives. 1938.

Graham, F. B. “Letter to Roosevelt.” Iowa, n.d.

 “President Franklin D. Roosevelt reads congratulatory telegrams on Nov. 4, 1936, after re-election victory over Alfred Landon.” New York Daily News Archive. November, 1936.

Roosevelt, Franklin Delano. “Fireside Chat on the Banking Crisis.” Radio Broadcast. March, 1933.

Roosevelt, Franklin Delano. “Fireside Chat (Recovery Program).” Radio Broadcast. July, 1933.

Roosevelt, Franklin Delano. “Fireside Chat.” Radio Broadcast. December, 1940.

Roosevelt, Franklin Delano. “Second Fireside Chat.” Radio Broadcast. May 1933.

“The Fireside Chats: Roosevelt’s Radio Talks – Photo 3.” Library of Congress. 1940.

 “The first White House website homepage.” National Archives and Records Administration. 1994.

Secondary sources

Holzer, Harold. President v.s. the Press. New York: Dutton, 2020.

Kluskens, Claire. ““Census Fun Fact #3 – Do You Own a Radio Set?” History Hub (October 2020).

Lenthal, Bruce. Radio’s America: The Great Depression and the Rise of Modern Mass Culture. Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 2007.

Leuchtenburg, William Edward. The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.

Lewis, Tom. “‘A Godlike Presence’: The Impact of Radio on the 1920s and 1930s.” OAH Magazine of History Vol 6, No. 4 (1992): 26–33.

Malsberger, John W. “Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and the Fund Crisis of 1952.” The Historian Vol 23, No. 3 (2011): 526-547.

Smith, Sam. “Letters to Franklin Delano Roosevelt” APM Reports (November 2014).

Steele, Richard W. “The Great Debate: Roosevelt, the Media, and the Coming of the War, 1940–1941” Journal of American History Vol 71, No. 1 (June 1984): 69–92.

Steele, Richard W. “The Pulse of the People. Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Gauging of American Public Opinion” Journal of Contemporary History Vol. 9, No. 4 (October 1974) 195-216.

Sterling, Christopher H. ““The Fireside Chats”—President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1944)” National Registry (2002).

Storm, Geoffrey. “FDR and WGY: The Origins of the Fireside Chats.” New York History Vol 88, No 2 (2007): 176–97.         

White, Mark. “Apparent Perfection: The Image of John F. Kennedy” History Vol 98, No. 2 (April 2013): 226-246.

[1] Christopher H. Sterling, ““The Fireside Chats”—President Franklin D.  Roosevelt (1933-1944)” National Registry (2002): 2.

[2] Claire Kluskens, “Census Fun Fact #3 – Do You Own a Radio Set?” History Hub (October 2020).

[3] Bruce Lenthall, Radio’s America: The Great Depression and the Rise of Modern Mass Culture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 56.

[4] Sterling, 2.

[5]  Geoffrey Storm, “FDR and WGY: The Origins of the Fireside Chats.” New York History, Vol 88 Number 2 (2007): 176–97.

[6] Storm, 178.

[7] Lenthal; Harold Holzer, President v.s. the Press (New York: Dutton, 2020).; Storm.

[8] William Edward Leuchtenburg, The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997).; Richard W. Steele, “The Great Debate: Roosevelt, the Media, and the Coming of the War, 1940–1941” Journal of American History, Vol 71 Issue 1, (June 1984) 69–92.; Richard W. Steele, “The Pulse of the People. Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Gauging of American Public Opinion” Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 9 Number 4 (October 1974) 195-216.; Tom Lewis, “‘A Godlike Presence’: The Impact of Radio on the 1920s and 1930s.” OAH Magazine of History, Vol 6 Number 4 (1992): 26–33.

[9] Lenthal, 83.

[10] Leuchtenburg, 14.

[11] Telephone: a children’s game where players form a circle, and the first person whispers a message to the next. Each person passes on what they heard, but by the time the message reaches the last person, it’s often distorted.

[12] Lenthal, 7.

[13] Steele, “The Great Debate,” 72.

[14] Lenthal, 58-59.

[15] Lenthal, 77.

[16] See Figure 1.

[17] Leuchtenburg, 14.

[18] See Figure 2.

[19] Storm, 179.

[20] Leuchtenburg, 14.

[21] Lewis, 31.

[22] Franklin Delano Roosevelt, “Fireside Chat on the Banking Crisis.” Radio Broadcast (March 1933).

[23]  Franklin Delano Roosevelt, “Fireside Chat.” Radio Broadcast (December 1940).

[24] Leuchtenburg, 14.

[25] F. B. Graham, “Letter to Roosevelt.” (Iowa, n.d.). “— so that all of us unfamiliar with the technicalities might understand.”

[26] Graham.

[27] Leuchtenburg, 15.

[28] Roosevelt, “Fireside Chat on the Banking Crisis.”

[29] Lewis, 29.

[30] Steele, “The Pulse of the People,” 198.

[31] Lenthal, 56.

[32] Storm, 31.

[33]  Stephen Smith, “Letters to Franklin Delano Roosevelt,” APM Reports (November 2014).

[34] Holzer, 93-94.

[35] See Figure 3.

[36] Fidel Castro, “Letter to Roosevelt.” (Cuba, November 1940).

[37]  Steele, “The Pulse of the People,” 195.

[38] Lewis, 30.

[39] Steele, “The Pulse of the People,” 195.

[40] Lewis, 31.

[41]Franklin Delano Roosevelt, “Second Fireside Chat.” Radio Broadcast (May 1993).

[42]  Steele, “The Great Debate,” 70.

[43] Lewis, 32.

[44] John W. Malsbergerm, “Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and the Fund Crisis of 1952.” The Historian, Vol 23 No. 3 (2011): 526-547.

[45] Franklin Delano Roosevelt, “Fireside Chat (Recovery Program).” Radio Broadcast (July 1993).

[46] Holzer, 195.

[47] Steele, “The Pulse of the People.” 195. Quote previously referenced in the prior section.

[48] Holzer, 202.

[49] Holzer, 198.

[50] Mark White, “Apparent Perfection: The Image of John F. Kennedy” History, Vol 98 No. 2 (April 2013): 226-246.

[51] Holzer, 306.

[52] Holzer, 310.

[53] Holzer, 327-328.

[54] See Figure 4.

[55] Holzer, 377.

[56] Holzer, 379.

[57] Holzer, 409. Flog: promote or talk about something repetitively or at excessive length.

[58] Jack Barnes, “Social Media Companies Ban ‘Dangerous’ Accounts Ahead of 2020 Election After Criticism,” The Collegian, Vol 116 No. 19 (May 2020): 2.

[59] Holzer, 409.

Challenges of Teaching African American History in Secondary Schools

Challenges of Teaching African American History in Secondary Schools

There are Four Perspectives in this article

Teaching the APâ African American Studies Course By Imani Hinson

Students Hunger for Cultural Knowledge By Romelo Green

Emphasizing Cultural Relevancy & Providing Different Cultural Perspective By Nefe Abamwa

Focus on Mass Struggle, Not Just the Black Elite By Adam Stevens

Imani Hinson, Romelo Green, Nefe Abamwa, and Adam Stevens

Imani Hinson, Romelo Green, Nefe Abamwa, and Adam Stevens presented on a panel at the 2025 conference of the American Historical Association. Hinson is a social studies teacher in the Howard County Maryland School District who formerly taught in Brooklyn and an item writer for the College Board AP African American Studies program. Green and Abamwa teach at Bellport High School in Suffolk County, New York and Stevens teaches at Brooklyn Technical High School. The session was chaired by April Francis-Taylor of Hofstra University and also included papers by Alan Singer of Hofstra University and Justin Williams of Uniondale High School.

Teaching the APâ African American Studies Course

By Imani Hinson

“History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again.” – Maya Angelou

Each year I start my students off with a week of lessons to understand why we study history in the first place and to get students specifically to understand why varied viewpoints are so important. This year I had my students reflect on a quote from Maya Angelou and asked them why they thought some political leaders across the United States did not think African American history was important and why they thought this history was considered controversial.

My students responded with the understanding that by learning history we can hope to not repeat it but also that learning this history does not aim to make individuals feel bad for the deeds done but rather understand the historical situations in which our country was founded and the continued history that is shaping the way our country is moving forward today. Despite the pain and suffering lived by many in this country, especially African Americans, it is important to uncover truths about our shared history. The APâ African American Studies curriculum provides students with a chance to do just that; tackle tough questions, tough realities, glean an understanding of the world that they live in today, and it gives them a chance to acknowledge a history that many of them have not learned before.

The APâ curriculum has a fantastic starting place with the African Kingdoms of Mali, Songhai, the Hausa States, and more. Students are able to do a deep dive into the history of Africa that many of them had never been taught about before. A question I get often from my students is “Ms. Hinson why are we not taught this in World History or any other history class?” The truth is that a lot of this history was unknown or kept secret for many years. In my classroom, we delve into the nuances of this history so that students understand how it differs from the traditional documents and writings they usually learn about in Eurocentric history classes. I introduce them to griots and students learn that different cultures pass down history in different ways. Much of the early history we know from African civilizations was passed down orally making it much harder for historians to uncover truths about these societies.  My students learned that Christianity was in Africa before European arrival when they study about places such as Lalibela. They learn about trade starting in the 8th century along the East Coast of Africa that connect places with the Mediterranean region and Central and East Asia. Students uncover truths about the Great Zimbabwe and amazing structures, built not by Greeks or aliens, but by the local Zimbabwean people who garnered their wealth from the Indian Ocean trade routes. Timbuktu is not a fictional place, but a nation where trade, advanced institutions of knowledge, and wealth resided.

Before being exposed to this curriculum, my students were taught that Africa was backward, a continent ripe for exploitation. They saw Africa, not as the birthplace of humanity with rich cultures, but rather a place that Europeans conquered and a continent that continues to have issues to this day.

Challenging misleading notions continues as students learn about the African diaspora. Before being exposed to this curriculum, they believed African Americans had no culture and were only brought to the Americas for harsh work and enslavement because of the color of their skin. I overheard an exchange in my classroom in which one student of color was poking fun at another. A West African student asked another Black student, “Hey, where are you from?” The student responded, “Oh well, I am just Black.” The West African student laughed and said “Oh, I’m so sorry y’all don’t have any culture.” That was an eye-opening exchange. I joined the conversation and asked, “What do you mean by that?” The student explained that they never heard of any African American culture and that Black people did not know where they came from. The conversation continued:

“Well why do you think that African Americans don’t know where they come from?”

“Well, I am not sure I guess slavery.”

“Correct, but do you know about all that Black people had to do to overcome of the obstacles of enslavement? Do you know the years of oppression that then followed enslavement that African Americans continued to make strides towards crafting a new identity?”

“The music you listen to is African American culture, some of the pieces of clothing or slang that you use are African American culture. The food that you eat, a lot of is African American culture.”

“Wow I never thought about that.”

“You should take the APâ African American studies course so you can learn more about Black culture!”

The sad reality is that so many of our students think this way. They believe that Black people are a people without history and this misleading notion really stems from the fact that we have not done a good job as a society to unpack these misconceptions. In some states they still teach that slavery was a benevolent work system where the enslaved learned important skills, sugarcoating the reality of what enslavement was. Why don’t students learn that there was slavery in New York and in other northern localities? Why don’t students learn that Free Blacks and people who escaped from slavery played a crucial role in the abolitionist movement and that African Americans have fought in every war in the United States even before its inception, that 200,000 Black soldiers and sailors fought in the Civil War to end slavery and the right to be full citizens of the nation of their birth?

The hardest part about teaching APâ African American studies course is getting students to relearn the history that was taught to them over and over again since they entered school. Black people were slaves, the Civil War happened, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, Reconstruction took place, African Americans got some rights, then skip to the Civil Rights Movement, and that’s Black history. But there is so much more to African American history. Students truly do not understand that African Americans as a people continuously strove to be accepted as valuable contributors to this great nation. Even when they were told to “go back to Africa,” they stayed and fought for equality. It is hard to teach history in a society that try to erase the African American past by making it seem Un-American to shed light on the contributions of Black people to this county.

As a society we have prevented students of color from learning the truth about their heritage and culture and permitted all students to believe in a factionalized past. As a corrective, APâ African American studies is not just a class for students of color. Ideally, African and African American history should be interwoven into World History and United States history classes, not just relegated to an elective.  Black history truly is both World and U.S. history.

It is challenging for many young people to see the correlation between history and the world that we live in today. I started a lesson on sugar being the driver for enslavement in the Americas showing students newspaper headlines discussing chocolate companies using child slave labor and asked students would they still eat chocolate knowing where it came from. Many of the students had to think long and hard about it, but eventually most of them confessed that “yes, they would still eat it.” After a gallery walk showing various documents about the correlation between sugar and enslavement and economics, we came back together to have a discussion. I asked my students how the legacies of sugar plantations and slavery continue to impact economic disparities and race relations today? A student raised her hand and said, “what we see is that enslaved people were working for free and that their enslavers were making loads of money because of their hard work.” I asked, “What does that mean for the Black community today?” Another student responded, “Well this means that many Black communities don’t have the same amount of money as white people because they got rich while we didn’t get anything.”

Another student added, “Well that is the reason why so many Black people have struggled to make generational wealth. It is almost as if we started at a different place” and then another explained “they basically had a 300-year start.” This is the reality that people who criticize the APâ African American studies curriculum are afraid of students uncovering; uncovering how this history continues to play out in America today.

Some people fear the acquisition of knowledge because they know that with knowledge can come change. The APâ African American studies course should not be labeled controversial or Un-American; in fact, it is the exact opposite. African Americans fought to be a part of this country and continue to fight for the country to stand true to its democratic values of all people having the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The course does not blame students for the past but rather brings them into the conversation about how we can continue to hold America to its promise by including the history of all of the people who helped to build this great nation. Thank you.

Students Hunger for Cultural Knowledge

By Romelo Green

My name is Romelo Green. I am a social studies teacher in the South Country Central School District located on Long Island, Bellport, New York. I teach 11th-grade U.S. History & Government and 12th-grade AP U.S. Government & Politics. In both courses, African American history is a component of the course framework. Being a social studies teacher in the contemporary societal and political landscape presents various challenges. As historians and educators, we are entrusted with the responsibility of addressing topics that can often be sensitive and complex. It is imperative that we present these subjects in a balanced manner, offering to our students various perspectives. Many of these topics are deeply rooted in political discourse, requiring us to navigate these discussions with care.  Moreover, we face the ongoing challenge of countering the misinformation that our students see daily through various social media platforms. We also must remain informed about rapidly evolving current events. We must be equipped to respond to our students’ questions with a neutral stance. Additionally, it is essential for us to remain compliant with state standards, ensuring that we cover all mandated material effectively, and thereby preparing our students for state assessments.

As an African American growing up, I did not hear many lessons pertaining to the deep roots of my own culture. This would include my high school and college experience. Many of the more nuanced topics in (African) American history were only brought to the surface for me once I became a teacher and began to conduct my own research, or through collegiate circles within my own department. This would include the Tulsa Race Massacre, the Haitian Revolution, the true history of policing in America, and the fact that Africans sold other Africans into slavery. I almost never heard of the achievements of African Americans except for the popular few who are always brought to light at certain points in American History (MLK, W.E.B Dubois, Malcolm X, etc…) The drastic omission from our curriculum and our textbooks leaves us with a very limited view of the African American experience.

When we learn about our culture in a public setting, it is usually generalized and only discusses the traumatic experience of African Americans rather than highlighting the achievements of individuals representing our culture. In my school some of the teachers (who are here with us in the audience today) conducted a study using focus groups to try and create a more culturally responsive classroom. Through their research they found that students representing various cultural groups have high interest in learning more about their own culture, however, the students stated that when it is taught in the classroom it is either generalized or just taught wrong. In other words, they know more about their own culture than their teachers.

What I see is that we have two factors at play.

  • Our students hunger for cultural knowledge.
  • Many teachers are unable to conduct such discourse freely and/or accurately.

For example, the legacy of slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow laws, and the Civil Rights Movement are pivotal components that require a sensitive and comprehensive examination. Inaccurate or incomplete teachings risk perpetuating misunderstandings and stereotypes. What we then need to do is find a balance where teachers are enabled to speak freely in the classroom providing students with facts and hard truths about historical cultural experiences. The students need to be inspired to think critically and be leaders of inquiry-based research. As such, the role of the teacher extends beyond mere instruction to include being a facilitator of dialogue, ensuring a supportive educational environment that encourages critical thinking and open discussion, while carefully steering conversations to be constructive rather than polarizing.

A teacher’s freedom of speech in the classroom is one that is of great complexity, although we all have freedom of speech under the first amendment, our right to freedom of speech in educational settings is not absolute. The question then becomes what must we do as educators? With greater political pressure from the media, parents and the community, how do we still educate and fulfill the students’ drive for knowledge, while maintaining accordance with school or state policy? I think this is where we lean on our students and allow them to be leaders in the classroom. Allow our students to ask the questions and conduct the research, allow them to present information to each other and to hear the perspectives of their peers. As I mentioned our job is now to facilitate and ensure dialogue proceeds in a constructive manner. In order to do this successfully, our students need lessons on misinformation, fact-based research, and evaluating reliable sources. All of which is in alignment with NYS standards. Our teacher preparation programs also need modules on culturally responsive teaching, equipping our prospective teachers with the tools needed to navigate sensitive material respectfully and effectively.

Lastly, professional development for educators is also essential. Teachers need training and resources to confidently navigate the difficult and often sensitive topics inherent in African American history. By investing in their development, schools can create more informed educators who are better equipped to address the diverse needs of their students.

Emphasizing Cultural Relevancy and Providing Different Cultural Perspectives

By Nefe Abamwa

Good morning, my name is Nefe Abamwa. I teach 9th and 10th grade Global History, as well as Pre-AP World at Bellport High School on Long Island. Today’s panel is geared towards the challenges of teaching African American history and how to make the content more relevant. However, I believe it is also a part of a larger conversation on how to make the classroom culturally relevant as well.

As a first-generation Nigerian-American, my culture has greatly shaped me. My parents immigrated from Nigeria to America in the 80’s and early 90’s for better employment opportunities. My father became an accountant for the NYC Comptroller’s Office, while my mother became an RN, ultimately practicing at Pilgrim State Psych Ward. They’ve always emphasized and instilled the value of education in my siblings and I. We were raised to view education as an essential tool for success and advancement. Nigerians often tend to joke that we have three options for careers; to either become a lawyer, doctor, or engineer. In our culture, an advancement in education and an outstanding career is nothing short of an expectation. Growing up in a household and with family where these values were the norm, you could understand the confusion I faced when I began to attend Amityville Public Schools. A district notoriously known for violence, poor academics and administration, and its low-income community.

Throughout my educational career in Amityville, there were many issues I observed that made an impact on me, in regard to the staff and students. I noticed a cultural disconnect between teachers, who were predominantly white, and students, who were predominately black. I noticed that many of my peers did not value school and did not seem to understand, or care, that it could lead to endless opportunity and an escape from their environment. Lastly, the most impactful observation I noticed was that many students and staff were very ignorant and uneducated about African culture. Unfortunately, many of these observations continued to trend throughout my college, postgraduate, professional, and personal life overall. From interactions with colleagues, college professors, church members, peers, and most recently a NYSUT a union member; African culture and history tends to be stigmatized, stereotyped, and homogenized. As I faced these experiences, I would often have conversations with my parents unpacking these interactions and how disappointing it was to have these encounters so often. During these discussions, my parents would share their own experiences in America, where they too have faced racism and ignorance from people of all races, backgrounds, and levels of education.

My cultural values and upbringing, compared to my educational experiences, inspired me at a very young age to go into education. I felt there was a strong need and lack of support for students in low-income communities that may not have proper guidance otherwise; I wanted to show students of color that there are opportunities beyond their environment; and I wanted to make the classroom experience more culturally relevant. I began to instill these changes during my student teaching assignment in a 6th grade classroom at Washington Middle School in Meriden, Connecticut. The demographics there were very similar to Amityville Public Schools, as were the observations I made initially throughout my primary and secondary educational experience. In my class, I began a daily segment at the beginning of the period called “Figure of the Day”. “Figure of the Day” started off as a daily 5-minute black history lesson, during Black History Month, after learning that students knew very little about any historical black figures. These 5-minute sessions would often unintentionally run over time due to the conversations and engagement it brought out of students. Soon enough, students were so intrigued, they would request people they wanted to learn more about. Eventually, that grew into wanting to conduct their own research and present their own projects. And it ended with us expanding “Figure of Day” to cover other races and cultures, well after Black History Month had ended. With each lesson presented, whether it was from me or their peers, I could tell each student found a connection, was inspired, and genuinely excited by what they were being taught because not only was it interesting, but very relatable. Many would go home and discuss what they learned with their parents and share more with their peers the following day.

During my first year at Bellport High School in 2020, I taught my very first Global 10 class. To describe that experience as challenging would be an understatement. 10th graders and 6th graders are quite different, as you can imagine. And this was during covid. Half of my students were in person, half of them online and I’ve never met, and engagement was at an all-time low. That year I decided to conduct a project to reflect on revolutions, a prominent topic in Global 10. Throughout the year, students learn about many revolutions including the French, Haitian, and Latin American revolutions, as well as unifications such as the German and Italian. All of these movements highlight the effects of nationalism, or pride in one’s country or culture. I wanted to show that many of the issues that lead to revolutions still endure today. At the time, the #EndSARS movement was occurring in Nigeria. This was a campaign to stop police brutality led by the Nigerian youth and made international news. I felt learning about this movement was a great way to connect students to issues outside of America as well as bring awareness to some African culture and societies. Students watched a cover of Childish Gambino’s “This is America” called “This is Nigeria”, which highlights political, economic, and social issues Nigerians face. Then, my students produced questions to ask one of my cousins in Nigeria about his experience there. He was able to respond to the questions with a series of videos. Through this and document analysis, students realized many of their own experiences and issues were similar. Many were also surprised to learn that my cousin had an iPhone and could make videos. For these students, this project helped humanize a continent that is often seen as lesser than and irrelevant.

Lastly, during the Imperialism unit, for Global 10, I emphasize the long-lasting effects of White Man’s Burden and eurocentrism, as many students are unaware of how these concepts influence many aspects of our lives. I include how these concepts have impacted the world’s view of anyone that is not a WASP. This is done through document analysis, where students study different events, letters, and political cartoons. I teach them to focus on tone, POV, and how images are portrayed. When conducting these lessons, it’s easier to find the British view of imperialism versus Africans. For African perspectives I use sources such as Jomo Kenyatta’s “Gentleman of the Jungle”, documentaries, primary documents, and my own parents and grandparents’ experiences of living in Nigeria and having government positions while under British occupation. We discussed how Europeans had many negative impacts, disregard and ignorance towards natives because they had different lifestyles and only cared for profit. We also study how ignorance and stereotypes play out in modern society, pop culture, and their own personal lives today. These activities often lead to discussions about common stereotypes and misconceptions about different races, cultures, and religions. When beginning these activities, students are often embarrassed and resistant to participate at first; but it opens up important dialogue about why it is dangerous to think that way. I find that not only are most students genuinely intrigued by history behind many of these misconceptions and stereotypes, but they often notice that these lasting impacts have affected them as well. What is most rewarding is when they are able to identify and call out these issues in their own lives and well after the lesson has been taught.

As a social studies teacher that emphasizes cultural relevancy and providing different cultural perspectives, I fear retaliation, being silenced, or accused of pushing certain agendas. I believe teachers must maintain a certain level of academic freedom and it is an absolute necessity for students to learn how to have hard and constructive conversations without having to agree with one another, especially in today’s climate. Unfortunately, I never experienced a teacher that brought these things to my attention but, I was fortunate enough to have a support system and grow up in an environment where I had exposure, which then fostered my own curiosity. I would like to pay that forward and not only be a support and role model for students, but to help them make the connections and realize the importance of education.

Focus on Mass Struggle, Not Just the Black Elite

By Adam Stevens

“Is Black resistance the highest form of Black excellence?” During Black history month the past few years this has been the focusing question in the Black history class I teach at Brooklyn Technical High School. By February we have been together since September, and the range of opinion on this question is wide. The room crackles with intellectual energy.  Scholarship and emotion combine to produce forceful arguments. Radical and conservative traditions contend. Outside the classroom we are saturated by a media environment where images of Black wealth are iconic, think Beyonce and Jay-Z. From time to time these Black images compete for our attention with images flowing out of what I’ll call a Black radical or activist tradition – think ‘End Racism’ appearing in NFL end zones or black screens on social media in the wake of the killing of George Floyd.

Inside our K-12 school buildings Black achievement is generally embodied in homage to great Black individuals, our unspoken mission is to lift our students out of the working class into the middle class or to keep them firmly planted in the American middle class. We may even provide a platform for a handful to become truly rich, to achieve ‘generational wealth.’. This unspoken mission is shared by parents, and if we are being honest, we hold it as a mission for our own children as well.

Our schooling involves an implicit renunciation of working-class life; under capitalism, workers are not winners. Yet workers are what most of our students will be. Black history in the United States is, by and large, the history of a working people. I have my students read passages from Barbara Fields’s seminal essay “Race, Slavery and Ideology in the United States.” Fields is careful to remind us that plantations in the American South existed to produce cotton first, not white supremacy. In small groups my students are taken aback by a passage that describes the numerous recollections of planters, overseers and enslaved persons of circumstances where the ‘smooth running’ of the plantation required the planter taking the word of the enslaved over that of the overseer, or of overseers being dismissed because of their management practices.

The power of economic development and class goals continued after the end of slavery. During a century of Jim Crow, a Black middle class and Black elite clawed their way up out of economic precarity, even as state-sponsored and vigilante racist terror haunted them. In the post-Civil Rights Movement era, a Black middle class was consolidated.  In April of 1968 elite institutions threw open their doors to the Black in a cynical but consistent response to the mass uprisings after the shooting of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in April of 1968.

Should curriculum focus on the history of a Black elite? The tenets of ‘social history’ seek to ground historical investigation in the lived reality of the masses of the people, to get us away from understanding history as the work of ‘great men.’ When the masses are white, the rules of American racism have meant that we are studying a group that, over time, has experienced great chances for uplift, for rising in social status. Social history of the white working-class rests on a certain implicit substrate of hope. The problem in Black history is that for the whole era of slavery and much of the period after that ‘hopeful narrative’ is by definition closed.

This continent would not house a world power if it were not for the stolen  labor and amassed capital of the slavery era. Silence on slavery and its afterlife suits a ruling class that would have us forget this one fact. This is why the hysteria over Critical Race Theory. Forget slavery. Forget Jim Crow. Forget George Floyd. The U.S. ruling class knows what they did to get where they are, what they do to stay there, and they don’t want the next generation being reminded of it.

In the face of these stark facts of history and given the political headwinds, teaching of Jim Crow by retreating into the salve of figures of Black Excellence such as Madam CJ Walker feels safer not just in the face of conservative school boards, but as a way to boost the morale of a room where the course material can otherwise feel like a catalogue of Black suffering. Of course, by neglecting struggle, we don’t know what to do with Nat Turner, let alone John Brown, or Paul Robeson, or Claudia Jones, or W.E.B. DuBois.

That’s why historians and teachers matter so much. We need historians and teachers who can foreground the majesty of the Black struggle for liberation, for justice. We need historians and teachers who invite us to have pride in the broad masses of our ancestors, not just the elites. We grasp intuitively, perhaps, that it was the action of these broad masses that formed the motive force behind every great liberation movement of our history.  Black history as hero worship of great leaders disempowers every student who can’t see themselves becoming the next Martin Luther King. This problem is one that King grappled with himself on the day he died, there in Memphis, binding himself more closely to the cause of the sanitation workers of that city. He was building a Poor People’s Movement with a strong anti-imperialist element. The images of those Black workers with signs reading “I Am a Man” are iconic but they are iconic as protesters, not just as workers.

Eugene Genovese (Roll, Jordan Roll, Book Three, Part Two) helps my students understand slavery as a world where far more choice was exercised by the enslaved than we are given to imagine. I teach the returning veterans from World War I and World War II whose refusal to accept the business as usual of Jim Crow. Their energy gave birth to a Harlem Renaissance and a Civil Rights Movement. To see Black workers gathered in their masses, politicized, in motion against racism as the most powerful force in history, to see honor and glory in joining such a movement, this is an alternative view of Black Excellence and approach to curriculum. Teaching the struggles of ordinary Black people for dignity and equality is the curriculum focus we need to empower our students to survive and defeat the growing threats of fascism and war and to avert climate disaster. 

 

 

Virtual Reality as part of Inquiry into the Boston Massacre

Virtual Reality as part of Inquiry into the Boston Massacre

Russell G. Hammack, Elizabeth K. Wilson, Lisa Matherson

One of the major catalysts that began the American Revolution was the Boston Massacre. This event enraged the local colonial citizens after the increase in taxation and occupation of Boston by the British military. In March 1770, local citizens began to protest against the British by throwing snowballs and rocks on King Street (Reid, 1974). During this event, several British soldiers led by Captain Thomas Preston were detached to quell the conflict (Kellogg, 1918). However, the arrival of the British soldiers only further angered the colonials on King Street. Whether ordered, or unintentionally discharged, the British soldiers fired on the crowd. “On this, the Captain commanded them to fire; and more snowballs coming, he again said, damn you, fire, be the consequence of what it will (The Boston Gazette,1770, p.1). This resulted in the deaths of five colonists, including Crispus Attucks, and the wounding of six others (The Boston Gazette,1770). This article aims to provide social studies teachers the resources using virtual reality experiences as part of an investigative lens to teach the Boston Massacre while integrating the C3 framework of inquiry-based instruction.

Background

In 1767, the British government passed the Townshend Acts, which placed an additional tax on imported goods to the American colonies (Hinderaker, 2017). Although the British crown considered the tax a success, protests and boycotts began throughout the colonies, specifically in Boston. To end the colonial protests, the British government responded in 1769 by sending nearly 2,000 British soldiers to occupy Boston and enforce the tax mandate (Hinderaker, 2017).  “Reports of fighting between soldiers and civilians had been a staple of the Patriot press during the period, but, for the most part, local publications portrayed civilians as the victims of military aggression and praised the town and its leaders for restraining their anger at the abuse” (Messer, 2017, p. 509). By 1770, resentment for the British occupation exploded, resulting in the Boston Massacre. “By this fatal manoeuvre three men were laid dead on the spot and two more struggling for life; but what showed a degree of cruelty unknown to British troops, at least since the house of Hanover has directed their operation, was an attempt to fire upon or push with their bayonets the persons who undertook to remove the slain and wounded” (The Boston Gazette,1770, p.1).

Inquiry-based learning

Inquiry-based learning involves student-led investigations with proposed questions, collecting and analyzing data, and forming evidence-based arguments while the teacher is facilitating the inquiry process (Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn, 2007). Inquiry allows learners to examine authentic problems and enhance their understanding (Wirkala & Kuhn, 2011). Levy, Thomas, Drago, and Rex (2013), affirm that inquiry promotes academic investigation and the creation of evidence-based argumentation. Inquiry-based instruction builds upon disciplinary questioning, investigative evaluation, and reflection to develop and defend ideas and concepts (NCSS, 2013). Inquiry-based instruction centers on analyzing information, using evidence to develop arguments and support conclusions (Monte-Sano, 2010). Despite the framework, having students ask meaningful questions and draw conclusions from various sources leads to increased social studies content knowledge (Grant & Gradwell, 2010). However, inquiry-design should incorporate content-related questions, summative tasks in which arguments are developed, sources to support arguments that are constructed, and taking informed action where students take action on a contemporary issue (Grant, Swann, & Lee, 2017).

Virtual Reality vs. augmented reality: What is the difference?

The birth of VR and AR, as cited within most research, began in the 1960s with the work of graphics pioneer Ivan Sutherland (Bolter, Engberg, & MacIntyre, 2021). With the technological advances that have happened since that time, many state what Sutherland created was more aligned to AR than VR, but it paved the way for VR. AR and VR were “twins when birthed as they began as variations of the same technological idea” (Bolter, Engber, & MacIntyre, 2021, p 22).

So, what exactly is AR and VR?

  • Virtual Reality (VR): “an artificial environment which is experienced through sensory stimuli (such as sights and sounds) provided by a computer and in which one’s actions partially determine what happens in the environment” (Jerald, 2015).
  • Augmented Reality (AR): “AR allows the user to see the real world, with virtual objects superimposed upon or composited with the real world. Therefore, AR supplements reality, rather than completely replacing it” (Azuma, 1997)

            Improvements in computing power, software capabilities, and display technologies allowed VR and AR to become mediums with great promise. Afterall, we have seen what Hollywood has been able to do with this technology. Simply watch a George Lucas or Pixar movie. These possibilities have found their way into the world of education, such as the Boston Massacre which we highlight in this article.

The experiential learning of VR

One aspect of using virtual reality is creating a classroom environment where learners can feel more present in a virtual simulation than in other types of traditional learning (Kafai, 2006). Virtual agents allow a personalized learning experience tailored to individuals that might otherwise be expensive or unreachable (Baylor & Kim, 2005). These three-dimension virtual experiences provide sensory information for a more realistic and engaging immersion experience (Pstoka, 1996; Walshe & Driver, 2019). Thus, the user can be part of the virtual environment by performing actions (Bardi, 2019). This type of environment promotes learning about the past through the delivery of digital media and incorporating specific exhibits and artifacts from different historical sites (Harley, Poitras, Jarrell, Duffy, & Lajoie, 2016).  “By using realistic virtual depictions of dangerous crises, learners can experience the chaos and affective stressors that are typically accompanied with actual crises” (Bailenson, Yee, Blascovich, Beall, Lundblad, & Jin, 2008, p. 110). This type of augmented reality experience can immerse learners into the past with reeling life settings for engagement (Bronack, 2011). These virtual experiences offer opportunities for student investigations and real-life encounters not experienced in a traditional classroom (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2008). Additionally, 3-D virtual environments can bridge the gap between experiential learning and representation in learning (Jonassen, Peck, & Wilson, 1998). 

VR devices

A trip into any store that offers for purchase a VR device will prove that there are a plethora of devices from which to select. The selection choice will depend on the type of experience you wish to have through the use of the device. After researching several articles, reviews, and personal trials, we offer three options below – a high, medium, low, if you will. However, we realize that most educators have very little funding and will look for the cheaper options. The experiences offered by the cheaper options, while not the same as the most expensive, are experiences that can still be valuable to students.

LowGoogle Cardboard (https://arvr.google.com/cardboard/) The Google Cardboard is one of the most affordable options at around $10.00. The headset is really a holder for the smartphone, which is where all the content plays. The content available for this headset is mostly free and more readily available than others. 
MediumVR Headset for iPhone & Android + Android Remote 1.0 – for Kids (https://www.amazon.com) This mid-range VR option is $59.99. This headset is a smartphone VR system that supports both apple and android products. The content and applications are also mostly free and more readily available.  
HighOculus Meta Quest 2 – (Meta.com) The Oculus Meta 2, at $399, offers a more robust VR experience in that audio is inside the headset and hand tracking with the controllers. Another option from this device is that you can connect to a PC via a cable to access more experiences from the library of apps and games.  

Before purchasing a device, you should review each device and make your selection based on what you wish for your students to gain from the experience.

The IDM

To critically evaluate the Boston Massacre, we propose using a model of inquiry; the Inquiry Design Model (C3 Teachers, 2016). Within this model of inquiry, we plan to implement the richness of a virtual reality experience. “The IDM approach, like the C3 Framework, respected the integrity of the core social studies disciplines but also recognized that authentic learning in social studies classrooms necessitated the interdisciplinary pursuit of a compelling question” (Cuenca, 2021, p.301). For teachers using the IDM, three major components must be considered: developing compelling and supporting questions, exposing students to resources, and developing tasks and informed activation activities (Crowley and King, 2018). “Beginning with a compelling question and standards alignment, the model suggests a series of supporting questions, related formative performance tasks, and sources for completing these tasks” (Molebash, Lee, & Heinecke, p.23, 2019). Cuenca (2021) stated:

Based on the nature of the compelling question, the tasks had different purposes, such as developing research, writing, and/or deliberative skills. Regardless of the purpose of the tasks, the inquiry narratives consistently featured teachers scaffolding tasks to ensure that students were able to address the compelling question they were pursuing. In short, teachers were often asked to facilitate how students organized inquiries to help them progressively become more skilled and independent enquirers (p. 306).

“The assumption is that teachers can take a blueprint and make it their own because they know their students’ strengths, they have their preferred style of teaching, and they understand their teaching context better than a curriculum writer” (Swann, Danner, Hawkins, Grant, & Lee, p.233, 2020). Swann, Lee, and Grant (2018) contend that:

The original IDM blueprint is structured so that students explore a compelling question through supporting questions, formative and summative performance tasks, and a range of disciplinary sources. The inquiry crescendos into an evidence-based argument, which can be broadened through an expressive extension and/or a civic experience. Teachers play an important role in this process by engaging students in the compelling question, scaffolding their source work, and ensuring they are mastering the content and developing skills through the successive formative performance tasks (p.134).

Our IDM

            For this specific inquiry-based learning segment, we have decided to use the richness of primary resources infused along with the experiential learning of virtual reality. At the start of the inquiry, teachers can select a topic from their state standards. For this inquiry, we have chosen the Boston Massacre. After selecting a standard and topic, the classroom teacher can begin to develop a compelling question. Our compelling question is: how did the Boston Massacre become one of the sparks that started the American Revolution? The compelling question is an overarching question that will take several days of instruction as part of a learning segment to answer fully. To begin the inquiry with students, there is an introductory activity called staging the question. We decided to have students watch a short video clip and then answer the following question: Who was responsible for the massacre and bloodshed on King Street in Boston?

For each day of instruction, the inquiry is divided into supporting or daily questions. Formative tasks to help answer the supporting questions along with featured resources, such as primary documents and virtual reality resources are used for each supporting question. For the first day, our supporting question is: what events led to the Boston Massacre? Students are asked to construct a timeline leading up to the Boston Massacre, thus, providing information on events and actions before the Boston Massacre. Students are provided with a list of primary resources and applications for developing the timeline. For the second day of the inquiry, students will answer: what were the colonists’ perceptions of the Boston Massacre? Students will be placed into groups, Colonists and British soldiers, and conduct a primary document analysis and watch a VR video on the Boston Massacre using VR headsets. After watching the VR experience on the Boston Massacre, students will be asked to construct a reflective journal on what happened on King Street. This will give students a unique perspective of each group, leading to historical empathy. For the third day of the inquiry, students will be asked: what happened to the British soldiers that killed the colonists on King Street?  After examining the featured primary resources, students will be asked to develop a judicial debriefing summarizing the Boston Massacre trial.

To assess students, the IDM offers the opportunity to participate in performance-based assessments geared toward answering the compelling question. Our performance assessment will divide students into three groups: Tensions rising (emphasizing events before the Boston Massacre), the Boston Massacre, and the Boston Massacre Trial. Each group will be assigned the task of conducting a live simulation/reenactment of their event in class. The reenactment should be no longer than 3-5 minutes. In an optional performance-based assessment, as part of the IDM, students will create and design their video of the Boston Massacre using a variety of AR and video resources. For social studies teachers, both assessments could be used as a student option or as a classroom extension.

At the end of the inquiry is the portion that provides tremendous relevancy to the curriculum, the informed action. For this part of the inquiry, we asked students to use their personal experiences with virtual reality and augmented reality and choose a local or community issue of concern. Students will design an augmented reality presentation or show, using Google Street View, displaying the issue in a community forum or school blog. Students might invite parents, teachers, and community leaders to discuss the issue and offer potential solutions.

 Inquiry Design Model (IDM) Blueprint™
Compelling QuestionHow did the Boston Massacre become one of the sparks that started the American Revolution?
Standards and PracticesSocial Studies Course of Study- State Standards Grade 5 Standard 7 Determine causes and events leading to the American Revolution, including the French and Indian War, the Stamp Act, the Intolerable Acts, the Boston Massacre, and the Boston Tea Party. Grade 10 Standard 3 Trace the chronology of events leading to the American Revolution, including the French and Indian War, passage of the Stamp Act, the Boston Tea Party, the Boston Massacre, passage of the Intolerable Acts, the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the publication of Common Sense, and the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
Staging the QuestionUsing a video clip on the Boston Massacre, pose the question to the students, Who was responsible for the massacre and bloodshed on King Street in Boston? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2QNZf_8V_w  
Supporting Question 1 Supporting Question 2 Supporting Question 3
What events led to the Boston Massacre?  What were the colonists’ perceptions of the Boston Massacre?What happened to the British soldiers that killed the colonists on King Street?
Formative Performance TaskFormative Performance TaskFormative Performance Task
Students will construct a timeline leading up to the Boston Massacre; thus, providing information on events and actions prior to the Boston Massacre.    After watching the VR experience on the Boston Massacre, the class will be divided into two groups; Colonists and British soldiers. Based on the students’ perspective of the primary sources provided, including the VR video, students will be asked to construct a reflective journal on what happened on King Street.      After examining the featured sources, students will be asked to develop a judicial debriefing summarizing the Boston Massacre trial.
Featured SourcesFeatured SourcesFeatured Sources
British occupation of Boston
https://www.historycentral.com/Revolt/british.html
Stamp Act
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/stamp-act-1765
Quartering Act
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/quartering-act-1765
Declaratory Act
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaratory-act Timeline using Sutori, TimeGraphics, and Lucidchart		Boston Massacre VR Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O05rNWygHF4
Paul Revere’s Engraving
https://ap.gilderlehrman.org/resource/paul-revere%27s-engraving-boston-massacre-1770		John Adams Diary Entry https://www.famous-trials.com/massacre/199-diaryentry Boston Massacre Trial Evidence
https://www.famous-trials.com/massacre/210-evidence    
Summative Performance TaskArgumentThe teacher will divide students into three specific groups: Tensions rising (emphasizing events before the Boston Massacre), the Boston Massacre, and the Boston Massacre Trial. Each group will be assigned the task of conducting a live simulation/reenactment of their event in class. The reenactment should be no longer than 3-5 minutes.
ExtensionStudents will create and design their own video of the Boston Massacre using a variety of AR and video resources. Google Streetview
https://www.google.com/streetview/ Canva
https://www.canva.com
Taking Informed ActionFrom using their personal experiences with virtual reality and augmented reality, students will choose a local or community issue of concern. Students will design an augmented reality presentation or show, using Google Street View, displaying the issue in a community forum or school blog. Students might invite parents, teachers, and community leaders to discuss the issue and offer potential solutions. Google Streetview
https://www.google.com/streetview/

The purpose of this article is to provide a framework of inquiry, while using virtual reality to investigate the Boston Massacre. By advancing through the inquiry, students can develop a constructivist approach to their own historical knowledge and their personal experiences through the historical immersion of virtual reality (Wadsworth, 2004). In addition, students can further their technology-based skills by developing their own augmented reality video. The informed action portion of the IDM model gives civic meaning by addressing the community issues and problems, thus, promoting active citizenship. By transforming social studies classrooms into places where students can express these civic principles, democratic citizenship begins (Dewey, 1918). Our aspiration is to give social studies teachers the needed instructional resources, especially virtual reality, to be part of the overall historical learning experience for students. By using VR, students can further investigate and build their own historical knowledge.

References

(1770). The Boston Gazette, pp. 1–1.

Amazon. (2024). Amazon.com: VR headset. VR Headset for iPhone & Android.

Bailenson, J. N., Yee, N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C., Lundblad, N., & Jin, M. (2008). The Use of Immersive Virtual Reality in the Learning Sciences: Digital Transformations of Teachers, Students, and Social Context. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 102–141.

Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(1), 95-115.

Bardi, J. (2019).  What is virtual reality? [Definition and examples].  Retrieved from  https://www.marxentlabs.com/what-is-virtual-reality

Bronack, S. C. (2011). The role of Immersive Media in online education. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59(2), 113–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2011.583186  

C3 Teachers. (2016). Retrieved February 18, 2019, from http://www.c3teachers.org/

Crowley, R., & King, K. (2018). Making Inquiry Critical: Examining Power and Inequity in the Classroom. Social Education, 82(1), 14–17.

Cuenca, A. (2021). Proposing Core Practices for Social Studies teacher education: A qualitative content analysis of inquiry-based lessons. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(3), 298–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487120948046  

Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting Class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. McGraw-Hill.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan.

Grant, S. G., & Gradwell, J. M. (Eds.) (2010). Teaching history with big ideas: Cases of ambitious teachers. Rowman & Littlefield.

Grant, S. G., Swann, K., & Lee, J. (2017). Inquiry-based practice in Social Studies Education: Understanding the inquiry design model. Routledge.

Harley, J. M., Poitras, E. G., Jarrell, A., Duffy, M. C., & Lajoie, S. P. (2016). Comparing virtual and location-based augmented reality mobile learning: emotions and learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(3), 359–388.

Hinderaker, E. (2017). Boston’s Massacre. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.

Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1998). Learning with Technology: A Constructivist Perspective. Merrill.

Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Playing and making games for learning: Instructionist and Constructionist perspectives for game studies. Games and Culture, 1(1), 36–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412005281767 

Kellogg, L. P. (1918). The Paul Revere Print of the Boston Massacre. The Wisconsin Magazine of History, 1(4), 377–387.

Levy, B. L., Thomas, E. E., Drago, K., & Rex, L. A. (2013). Examining Studies of Inquiry-Based Learning in Three Fields of Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 387-408. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248711349643

Messer, P. (2017). “A scene of Villainy acted by a dirty Banditti, as must astonish the Public”: The Creation of the Boston Massacre. The New England Quarterly, 90(4), 502–539.

Molebash, P., Lee, J., & Heinecke, W. (2019). Teaching and Learning Inquiry Framework. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 8(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v8n1p20

Monte-Sano, C. (2010). Disciplinary literacy in history: An exploration of the historical nature of adolescents’ writing. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(4), 539-568.

National Council for the Social Studies. (2013). College, career, and civic life (C3) framework for state social studies standards. Washington, DC: NCSS. 

Psotka, J. (1996). Immersive training systems: Virtual reality and education and training. Instructional Science, 23, 405-423. 

Reid, J. P. (1974). A Lawyer Acquitted: John Adams and the Boston Massacre Trials. The American Journal of Legal History, 18(3), 189–207.

Swann, K., Danner, A., Hawkins, M., Grant, S. G., & Lee, J. (2020). Zooming Inquiry: Online Teaching with the Pomodoro Technique. Social Education, 84(4), 229–235.

Swann, K., Lee, J., & Grant, S. G. (2018). Questions, Tasks, Sources: Focusing on the Essence of Inquiry. Social Education, 82(3), 133–137.

Walshe, N., & Driver, P. (2019). Developing reflective trainee teacher practice with 360-degree video. Teaching and Teacher Education, 78, 97–105.

Wadsworth, B. J. (2004). Piaget’s theory of cognitive and affective development: Foundations of Constructivism. Longman. Wirkala, C., & Kuhn, D. (2011). Problem-based learning in K-12 education: Is it effective and how does it achieve its effects? American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1157-1186

New York State Halls of Fame Tour

New York State Halls of Fame Tour

Edited by Alan Singer

New York State is home to several Halls of Fame honoring people from different fields. Some are well known, and others are obscure.

Sources: https://wbuf.com/ixp/554/p/upstate-new-york-museum-and-halls-of-fame/  https://www.bcc.cuny.edu/about-bcc/history-architecture/hall-of-fame-for-great-americans/

Best Known

The Hall of Fame for Great Americans in Bronx, New York opened in 1901. It is now located on the Bronx Community College campus. It currently has 96 busts; busts of Southern Generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were removed. Busts for an additional four people elected to the hall were never installed because organizers ran out of money. You can view a virtual tour of the Hall of Fame for Great Americans. https://www.bcc.cuny.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/virtual-hall-of-fame-website.pdf

National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in Cooperstown, New York opened in 1939 with its first five inductees, Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Christy Mathewson, and Walter Johnson. As of July 2024, the hall honored 244 former major league players, 39 Negro league players and executives, 24 managers, 10 umpires, and 36 “pioneers, executives and organizers.” The Hall of Fame includes one female member, Effa Manley, a Negro League executive. The museum displays baseball memorabilia. https://baseballhall.org/

National Women’s Hall of Fame in Seneca Falls, New York opened in 1973. The inaugural Induction Class included Jane Addams, Marian Anderson, Susan B. Anthony, Clara Barton, Mary McLeod Bethune, Elizabeth Blackwell, Pearl Buck, Rachel Carson, Mary Cassatt, Emily Dickinson, Amelia Earhart, Alice Hamilton, Helen Hayes, Helen Keller, Eleanor Roosevelt, Florence Sabin, Margaret Chase Smith, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Helen Brooke Taussig, and Harriet Tubman. In 2020, it opened to the public in its new home at the former Seneca Knitting Mill. https://www.womenofthehall.org/

A Little Less Famous

North American Fiddlers Hall of Fame is in rural Redfield, New York in the Adirondack region. It is located in a converted farmhouse. It houses artifacts, pictures, AV tapes, records, and memorabilia of old time fiddling & fiddlers and has free concerts. Famous inductees include “Chubby” Wise who recorded nearly 50 albums. https://www.facebook.com/p/North-American-Fiddlers-Hall-of-Fame-and-Museum-100063476745882/

National Abolition Hall of Fame in Peterboro, New York is located near the Finger Lakes region in the building where the first meeting of the New York State Anti-Slavery Society was held in 1835. Currently 28 anti-slavery activists are honored. https://www.nationalabolitionhalloffameandmuseum.org/  

National Soaring Hall of Fame and Museum established in 1969 is an aviation museum that preserves the history of motorless flight. It is located on top of Harris Hill near Elmira, New York. https://www.soaringmuseum.org/

National Toy Hall of Fame in Rochester, New York is part of the Strong Museum of Play. It celebrates toys that have inspired creative play and enjoyed popularity. The Magic 8 Ball was inducted in 2018. Millions of the hand-held fortune telling toy have been sold since it was first marketed in 1945.

National Toy Hall of Fame

Bare Knuckle Boxing Hall of Fame is located in Belfast, New York in Allegany County. The museum and Hall of Fame are in the training barns of the great champion John L. Sullivan. Famous Inductees include George Godfrey, “The Leiperville Shadow,” one of the best African American bare knuckle fighters of his era.  https://wnywilds.com/listing/bare-knuckle-boxing-hall-of-fame/

D.I.R.T. Stock Car Hall of Fame and Classic Car Museum is located next to the Weedsport Speedway in the Adirondack Park. It honors the achievements of modified stock car drivers. Famous inductees include “Barefoot” Bob McCreadie who broke his back five times while racing. https://www.discoverupstateny.com/packages/3566/dirt-hall-of-fame-classic-car-museum/

International Boxing Hall of Fame in Canastota, New York honors boxers, trainers, and other contributors to the sport. Famous inductees include Muhammed Ali, Carmen Basilo, Ezzard Charles, Joe Frazier, Emile Griffith, Jake LaMotta, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Sugar Ray Robinson, Marvin Hagler, Sugar Ray Leonard, George Foreman, Roberto Duran, and Joe “Newsboy” Brown, who was born in Russia, and boxed at the opening of the Olympic Auditorium in Los Angeles in 1925. http://www.ibhof.com/

International Maple Hall of Fame in Croghan, New York honors people who “excelled in research, development, and leadership in the North American Maple Industry.” Its most famous inductee is Lloyd Sipple of Bainbridge, N.Y. who began making maple syrup during World War II to address a nationwide shortage of sugar. https://maplemuseumcentre.org/post.php?pid=14

National Purple Heart Hall of Honor in New Windsor) New York honors award recipients to “remind us of human sacrifices and the cost of freedom.” Ensign Jesse Brown’s citation (Korea-U.S.N.) reads: “Ensign Jesse L. Brown was the first African American naval aviator. While flying a mission 4 December 1950 his aircraft was hit, causing him to crash land in enemy territory.” https://www.thepurpleheart.com/

Catskill Fly Fishing Hall of Fame in Livingston Manor, New York, preserves the “heritage of fly fishing in the Catskills” and educates the “next generation of anglers.” https://cffcm.com/

New York State Country Music Hall of Fame in Cortland, New York pays tribute to the legacy of New York State and national country music performers. Hall of Fame members include Glen Campbell, Tammy Wynette, and many Grand Ole opry stars. https://www.iloveny.com/listing/new-york-state-country-music-hall-of-fame/2897/

National Dance Hall of Fame in Saratoga Springs, New York “honors innovators who have made outstanding contributions to American professional dance across all genres.” More than fifty choreographers, dancers, artistic directors, designers, composers, and critics are recognized, https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g48562-d218331-Reviews-National_Museum_of_Dance_Hall_of_Fame-Saratoga_Springs_Saratoga_County_New_York.html

New York State Convenience Store Hall of Fame in Albany, New York was established in 1996 to honor retailers and suppliers for exceptional achievement in and service to New York State’s convenience store industry.”  https://nyacs.org/hall-of-fame?layout=adgcreative:grid#

National Stand-Up Comedy Hall of Fame is located in Jamestown, New Yor’s National Comedy Center. Its first inductee’s included George Carlin, Joan Rivers, Richard Pryor, and Robin Williams. https://comedycenter.org/

National Museum of Racing and Hall of Fame in Saratoga Springs, New York was founded in 1950 and is currently located by the Saratoga Race Course. Among the horses inducted here are Man O’ War (1957), Exterminator (1957), Citation (1959), Spectacular Bid (1982), American Pharoah (2021), Secretariat (1974), and Seabiscuit (1958). https://www.racingmuseum.org/

International Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame in Albany, New York was established in 2019.  It is located on the mezzanine level of the MVP Arena. Inductees include Bobo Brazil, “Stone Cold” Steve Austin, Bret Hart, and “Gorgeous George” Wagner. International Maple Hall of Fame in Croghan, New York honors people who “excelled in research, development, and leadership in the North American Maple Industry.” Its most famous inductee is Lloyd Sipple of Bainbridge, N.Y. who began making maple syrup during World War II to address a nationwide shortage of sugar.https://maplemuseumcentre.org/post.php?pid=14

Online Halls of Fame

Long Distance Runners Hall of Fame in Utica, New York was formed in 1971. The building is currently closed. Famous inductees include Frank Shorter who won the marathon gold medal at the 1972 Olympics in Munich. This hall of fame can be viewed at https://www.rrca.org/about/hall-of-fame/

New York State Golf Hall of Fame: Famous inductee include Joey Sindelar, a major contender in the U.S. Open and Masters tournaments in early to mid-1990s. Find information and inductees at https://nysga.org/about-hall-of-fame

Governed by Despots: John Swanson Jacobs Chronicles Enslavement and Resistance

Governed by Despots: John Swanson Jacobs Chronicles Enslavement and Resistance

By Alan Singer (reprinted from New York Almanack)

Governed by Despots: John Swanson Jacobs Chronicles Enslavement and Resistance

The University of Chicago Press recently published a unique account of an escape from enslavement in North Carolina decades before the Civil War. The United States Governed by Six Hundred Thousand Despots (2024) by John Swanson Jacobs tells of his escape from enslavement by North Carolina plantation owner and Congressional Representative Samuel Sawyer in 1838 while he and the slaveholder were in transit through the City of New York. Jacobs eventually made it to Australia where his story was published serially in 1855 by the Sydney Empire. It was later republished in 1861 in London, UK under the title “A True Tale of Slavery” by The Leisure Hour: A Family Journal of Instruction and Recreation. The 1861 version of Jacob’s story is available online at the website Documenting the American South.

John Swanson Jacobs was born in 1815 in Edenton, North Carolina, the younger brother of his better-known sister Harriet Jacobs, author of Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl (1861). Harriet Jacobs originally published her book under the pseudonym Linda Brent, possibly to protect those who remained enslaved at home. In the book she referred to her brother John as “William” and Samuel Sawyer, the white father of her two children who “owned” both them and John, as “Mr. Sands.” John Swanson Jacobs, safely in Australia, published under his own name.

In 1838, Sawyer traveled north because he and his fiancé planned to be married in Chicago, Illinois where she had family. He was able to bring an enslaved John Swanson Jacobs with him to New York State because although slavery had been abolished there in 1828, state law permitted enslavers visiting or residing in New York part-time to maintain slaves within their households for up to nine months. This statute was not repealed until 1841.

The following is an excerpt from chapter 5 of A TRUE TALE OF SLAVERY that was published in The Leisure Hour: A Family Journal of Instruction and Recreation (No. 478–February 21, 1861). In this excerpt, Jahn Swanson Jacobs describes his escape from slavery while in New York City.

“THE latter end of the third year after I was sold, my master was elected Member of Congress. I was ordered to get ready for Washington . . .  After my master had been there a short time, he went to board with Mrs. P—-, who had two young nieces here, to one of whom he was soon engaged to be married. As good luck would have it, this young lady had a sister living in Chicago, and no place would suit her like that to get married in . . . Everything was ready, and the hoped-for time came. He took his intended, and off we started for the West. When we were taking the boat at Baltimore for Philadelphia, he came up to me and said, “Call me Mr. Sawyer; and if anybody asks you who you are, and where you are going, tell them that you are a free man, and hired by me.”

We stopped two or three days at the Niagara Falls; from thence we went to Buffalo, and took the boat for Chicago; Mr. Sawyer had been here but a few days before he was taken sick. In five weeks from the time of his arrival here, he was married and ready to leave for home. On our return, we went into Canada. Here I wanted to leave him, but there was my sister and a friend of mine at home in slavery . . . I tried to get a seaman’s protection from the English Custom-house, but could not without swearing to a lie, which I did not feel disposed to do.

We left here for New York, where we stopped three or four days. I went to see some of my old friends from home, who I knew were living there. I told them that I wanted their advice. They knew me, they knew my master, and they knew my friends also. “Now tell me my duty,” said I. The answer was a very natural one, “Look out for yourself first.” I weighed the matter in my mind, and found the balance in favour of stopping. If I returned along with my master, I could do my sister no good, and could see no further chance of my own escape. I then set myself to work to get my clothes out of the Astor House Hotel, where we were stopping; I brought them out in small parcels, as if to be washed. This job being done, the next thing was to get my trunk to put them in. I went to Mr. Johnson’s shop, which was in sight of the Astor House Hotel, and told him that I wanted to get my trunk repaired.

The next morning I took my trunk in my hand with me: when I went down, whom should I see at the foot of the steps but Mr. Sawyer? I walked up to him, and showed him a rip in the top of the trunk, opening it at the same time that he might see that I was not running off. He told me that I could change it, or get a new one if I liked. I thanked him, and told him we were very near home now, and with a little repair the old one would do. At this we parted. I got a friend to call and get my trunk, and pack up my things for me, that I might be able to get them at any minute. Mr. Sawyer told me to get everything of his in, and be ready to leave for home the next day. I went to all the places where I had carried anything of his, and where they were not done, I got their cards and left word for them to be ready by the next morning. What I had got were packed in his trunk; what I had not been able to get, there were the cards for them in his room.

They dine at the Astor at three o’clock; they leave the room at four o’clock; at half-past four o’clock I was to be on board the boat for Providence. Being unable to write myself at that time, and unwilling to leave him in suspense, I got a friend to write as follows: — “Sir–I have left you, not to return; when I have got settled, I will give you further satisfaction. No longer yours, JOHN S. JACOB.”


This note was to be put into the post-office in time for him to get it the next morning. I waited on him and his wife at dinner. As the town clock struck four, I left the room. I then went through to New Bedford, where I stopped for a few months . . . The lawyer I have quite a friendly feeling for, and would be pleased to meet him as a countryman and a brother, but not as a master.”

Once free, John Swanson Jacobs moved to New England where he became an active abolitionist. His efforts took him to Rochester, New York and vicinity on a number of occasions and to New York City at least three times, in May 1849, October 1850, and July 1862. On May 11, 1849, the New York Herald printed an account of a speech by Jacobs at an American Anti-Slavery Society meeting where he called on attendees to make it “disreputable” for people who claimed to be Christians to hold other people in bondage. According to North Star on October 24, 1850, Jacobs spoke in New York City calling for active resistance to fugitive slave laws following the seizure of James “Hamlet” Hamilton by slavecatchers and on July 28, 1862, New York Independent reported on an interview with Jacobs where he recounted his experience as a cook on a British ship, with the support of British authorities in the Bahamas, that was attempting to enter the port of Charleston, South Carolina in violation of the federal blockade of Southern ports (252-258). Excerpts from these articles follow.

American Anti-Slavery Society (New York Herald, May 11, 1849)

“A slaveholder named Skinner, who was a skinner in every sense of the word, was in the habit of coming every year, to visit his brother, Re. Dr. Skinner, who . . . lived at 160 Green[e] street; and yet the baby-stealing, women-whipping tyrant never received a rebuke from his reverend brother, at whose table he sat . . . If anyone asked him what must be done to abolish slavery, his answer was, that it must cease to be respectable. They must make it disreputable, and then slaveholders would be ashamed of it . . . If they had less of religion, and more of Christianity, it would be all for the better” (252-254).

Meeting of the Colored Citizens of New York (North Star, October 24, 1850)

“My colored brethren, if you have not sword, I say to you, sell your garments and buy one . . . I would, my friends, advise you to show a front to our tyrants, and arm yourselves; aye, I would advise the women to have their knives too . . . I advise you to trample on this bill, and I further advise you to let us go on immediately, and act like men” (256).

Running the Blockade (New York Independent, July 28, 1862)

“[A] very intelligent colored man, formerly a slave in North Carolina, but recently for several years a resident of England, called at our office the other day, and related facts showing that British vessels are stilled engaged in running our blockade, and that the British officials in the Bahamas are, if possible, more inimical to our Union than are the same class of people at home . . . He shipped as a cook on board the steamship Lloyds, at London . . . ‘for Havana and any of the West Indies Islands’ . . . the captain (Smith) announced to the crew that he designed to run the blockade before Charleston, and offered three months pay extra to such as would remain with the ship . . . Jacobs refused to go to Charleston at any price whatever, and demanded, what was his undoubted right, that he be sent home to London. After various efforts on the part of Capt. Smith to indure (sic) Jacobs to either go to Charleston or to settle and sign a satisfaction, he attempted coercion. He had Jacobs taken before a police magistrate to answer the charge of having deserted the ship . . . The law was all on the side of Jacobs, but the public sentiment of Nassau was so strongly against him, and in favor of the unlawful and contraband trade with the Rebels” (257-258).

Herman P. Levine: A Brooklyn School Teacher in the Mexican Revolution

Herman P. Levine: A Brooklyn School Teacher in the Mexican Revolution

Dan La Botz

This article was adapted from the author’s book, This Riding with the Revolution: The American Left in the Mexican Revolution: 1900-1925 (Leiden: Brill, 2024).

Herman Levine, a Brooklyn public school teacher, was a Socialist, an anti-war activist, and on June 5, 1917, his personal and political convictions led him to refuse to register for the draft—and he said so publicly. The result was a series of conflicts with the draft board, the school board, and the courts that propelled him to seek refuge in Mexico, then in the midst of revolution. He would spend several years there, organizing the Industrial Workers of the World until he was deported back to the United States.

Born in 1893, Levine had grown up in in Brooklyn. He attended Public School 84 in Brooklyn, graduated with honors, and then went on to Brooklyn Boys’ High School and later took courses at City College of New York where he was an outstanding student. In 1913 he won the college’s first annual oration contest with a speech titled: “War—What For?”1 Like many Jewish immigrant children, Levine aspired to become a professional, in his case an educator.1 In 1914 Levine became a schoolteacher, taking a job at Public School 160 at Rivington and Suffolk streets on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, and became active in his profession. “He originated a series of departmental conferences in which he wrote and lectured extensively,” wrote a newspaper reporter. “This system was made the subject of a special borough teachers’ conference in September 1916.”2 While
teaching, the intellectually ambitious Levine also took courses in history and government at Columbia University.
1 “Draft Opponent,” The Call, 13 June 1917; “Draft Slackers,” The Call 7 June 1916.

2 ‘Draft Opponent May Be Jailed’, The Call, 13 June 1917.

In addition to his teaching and studies, Levine was active in the Socialist Party and a member of the Addison Socialist Club in Brooklyn. One of the Socialist Party’s principal activities was anti-war
work, and Levine was also an anti-war activist. In early April of 1917 he participated in a lobbying effort as part of a peace delegation to the U.S. Congress in Washington, D.C. He also served as a
delegate from the Addison Socialist Club to the First American Conference for Democracy and Terms of Peace, which had been organized by the newly formed People’s Council.

Twenty-three years old when the U.S. began conscription on 5 June 1917, Levine was required to register. “He surrendered himself to authorities after registration day, declaring that he was opposed to war and therefore was compelled by his principle to refuse to register, as to do so would mean acquiescence in the war,” reported the Socialist newspaper The Call.3 Levine reported voluntarily on 6 June to United States Marshal James M. Power, announcing that he had not registered and did not intend to. Not having $1,000 bail, he spent the night in the Raymond Street jail. On 7 June he appeared for arraignment in federal court in Brooklyn with his attorney Winter Russell.4 In short order Levine was tried and found guilty of violating the conscription law.

On 18 June Levine appeared in court again, this time for sentencing. United States Judge Chatfield offered him one more chance to register. His parents and sisters begged him to take it. “Levine replied that he believed the war to be unjust, and that as his principles forbade him to fight, he would not register.”5
3 “Draft Opponen,” The Call,’ 13 June 1917.
4 “Kramer Trial,” The Call,8 June 1917.
5 “Limit of Law,”The Call, 14 June 1917; “Get’s Law’s Limit,” The New York Times,14 June 1917.
6 ‘Levine Dismissed,” The Call, 13 July 1917; “Board Dismisses Levine,” The New York Times,12 July 1917.

The Judge then sentenced Levine to serve 11 months and 29 days—the maximum penalty less one day. The judge stipulated that the sentence had to be served in jail with no time off for good behavior.
Before leaving the courtroom, Levine was involuntarily registered for the draft by the
authorities.

Apparently, a prison term was not enough punishment, for Levine was also fired from his job. The state commissioner of education deprived Levine of his license to teach, and the school board at a meeting on 11 July 1917 dismissed him from his teaching position at Public School 160.6 The state and the school board made it impossible for Levine to practice his profession in his native state, and no doubt this became another factor in driving him into exile.7

While in jail, Levine was duly notified that he would still have to appear for his mandatory physical examination. Standing on his principles, he wrote from jail to The Call, rather sententiously, “I shall…not raise any technicality, but offer myself as a sacrifice, if need be, to the greedy, exploiting and devastating system of capitalism.”8 As Levine’s statement makes clear, he was a conscientious objector to the war because he was a socialist opposed to capitalist wars.

In Minneapolis, Minnesota on 21 September 1919 the board of education dismissed D.J. Amoss from his teaching job at Central high school because of his alleged membership in the Industrial Workers of the World.

7 “Minneapolis Teacher,” The Call, 22 September 1917, p. 9.
8 “Levine Refuses Physical Test,”, The Call, 9 August 1917.

He asserted, “My life will affirm what my mind and heart dictate. I have refused to do their bidding by refusing. Such actions were not uncommon at the time.to register. I will refuse to do their bidding in the future.”9 Levine’s statements published in The Call, thus also served, as he surely realized, as anti-draft and anti-war propaganda. His own intransigence might serve an inspiration to other young men to resist.

Levine also wrote a letter from jail to a friend who then passed it on to be published in The Call:

My fate is by no means sad. What can be higher than to oppose that barbaric and inhuman process of killing our fellow men whom we have never seen and against whom we bear no hatred. I cannot be really sad, and if gloomy moments do appear, they are hurried off by the gleam of the coming day.10
“The coming day,” as his friend and the readers of The Call would have understood, was an allusion to the coming socialist revolution. Levine advised his correspondent, apparently, another socialist
conscientious objector, to stick to his principles.


9 “Levine Dismissed by School Board,” The Call, 40; “Teacher Who Resisted Draft Content in Jail,” The Call, 3 September 1917.
10 ‘Teacher Who’ 3 September 1917.

Having been registered against his will in prison, when Levine finished his prison sentence, he was still subject to the draft, and, if he refused, to imprisonment. Evidently preferring his freedom, he must have left for Mexico immediately upon release in June 1918. Levine reached
Mexico City shortly thereafter, and adopted two aliases and identities: Mischa Poltiolevsky, claiming to be a Russian immigrant, and Martin Paley, an American schoolteacher. Levine’s experience in jail and prison must have hardened his radical convictions, for when he left and fled to
Mexico, he continued his political activity, though now as a leftist labour organiser rather than as an anti-war activist.

A Brooklyn school teacher in Tampico

Levine’s decision to go to Mexico was not unique. Americans didn’t go to Canada because it was part of the British Empire which was already at war. Mexico credate no barriers to American war resisters who wanted to enter the country, and what began as a trickle became a steady stream, and
soon, some would claim, a flood. The New York Times reported in June of 1920—a year and a half after the end of the war—that an estimated 10,000 draft evaders still remained in Mexico.11 Senator Albert Bacon Fall told the Associated Press that an estimated thirty thousand Americans had crossed into Mexico to evade the draft law.12 American politicians and the press called them “slackers,” a derogatory term that the war resisters adopted as a badge of honor.

Many American war resisters went to Mexico City, but Levine went to Tampico in the state of Tamaulipas, a city that was then a center of the relatively new oil industry dominated by British and American companies. He eventually found work as a clerk there set about re-organizing the local
chapter of the Industrial Workers of the World, also known as the Wobblies.

Tampico, the principal port for the Mexican oil industry, had developed rapidly beginning with the outbreak of the war in Europe in 1914. With the expansion of industry there was also a rapid growth in the number of oil workers, stevedores and seamen. These workers, often led by Spanish anarchists or sometimes American Wobblies, formed unions which grew rapidly in size, strength, and militancy.

11 ‘Ask Mexico to Send Draft Dodgers Back,” The New York Times, 7 June 1920, p. 9.
12 Linn A.E. Gale, “They Were Willing,” Gale’s Magazine, March 1920, p. 1. 3

Labor unionism in Tampico had begun during the first years of the twentieth century when workers had established a variety of unions, such as the Moralizing Union of Carpenters (Unión Moralizadora
de Carpinteros). By 1915, the major anarcho-syndicalist labor federation, the House of the World Worker, had reached Tampico, and began organizing both trades and industrial workers. The practice of striking to improve wages and working conditions became widespread and frequent among workers in Tampico.13

The Industrial Workers of the World already had a foothold in Tampico before Levine arrived. While it remains unclear if the IWW had any specific strategic plan for Tampico, in general the IWW organized unions of workers in a particular industry with the goal of affiliating them eventually into a national and then a worldwide industrial union, the One Big Union, as they sometimes called it.14

13 Gruber, Adelson, Steven Lief 1982, “Historia Social de Ios Obreros Industriales de Tampico, 1906 1919,” (Doctoral dissertation, 1982, Colegio de México), pp. 424–70.
14 Cole, Peter, David Stuthers, and Kenyon Zimmer 2017, Wobblies of the World: A Global History of the IWW.

In the United States, the IWWs strategy led it to organize oil workers, copper miners, lumberjacks in the spruce forests, and agricultural workers in the wheat fields: all strategic wartime industries (spruce wood was used to build airplanes). Following capital and heavy industry over the border to the south, Wobblies found themselves working in Mexican mines and oil fields, as well as on
Mexican docks and on ships of various nations. There they would employ the same strategy of industrial unionism and direct action.

One group of the Industrial Workers of the World arrived in Tampico in force in 1916 when the C.A. Canfield arrived in port. The crew of the Canfield belonged to the IWWs Marine Transport Workers (IWW MTW), and many were Spanish speaking. They recruited Mexican seamen to their union, which probably also gained a foothold among the stevedores. Pedro Coria, a Mexican IWW organizer from Arizona arrived in Tampico in January 1917 and organized Local #100 of IWW-MTW.15 Workers in Tampico had many grievances, (London: Pluto Press, 2017), pp. 124 but one of their major complaints was that they were paid in varying worthless currencies, so they demanded pay in gold or silver. In 1917 there was a series of strikes that began over this issue, culminating in a
great general strike in the Tampico area involving petroleum workers and stevedores from both the House of the World Worker and the IWW.16 The US Embassy sent a note to the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs in October of 1917 on ‘The Tampico Situation’, which gives an impression of the
US government’s concerns. The note reads:

Reports from Tampico indicate that place is quiet but that labor leaders are agitating for a general
strike to which the Germans and Industrial Workers of the World are disposed to lend support. It is
reported that the National Socialist Congress to which delegates from the United States and Cuba have been invited is now in session. A great many of the delegates are said to be anarchists, and the situation seems charged with danger.17

On 8 January 1919, Excelsior, a Mexico City newspaper, repeated a story that had apparently originated in New York that there were “secret soviets” in Tampico, organized by the IWW.18

15 Norman Caulfield, “Wobblies and Mexican Workers in Mining and Petroleum, 1905-1924,”
International Review of Social History, April 1995, Vol. 40, No. pp. 51-751995), p. 57.
15 Cole et all, Wobblies, pp. 124–39. 16 Cole et all, Wobblies, pp. 124–39.
17 US Embassy to Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations, unsigned, ‘Memorandum: The
Tampico Situation’, 13 October 1917, Expediente 18-1-146, SRE.
18 Paco Ignacio Taibo II, Los Bolshevikis: Historia narrativa de los orígenes del communism en Mexico: 1919

By the time Levine arrived in Tampico in 1919 or 1920, the IWW was an established organization among industrial workers with a legendary militancy. Levine joined in the work of the IWW as editor of the group’s newspaper. In 1920, US intelligence agents reported that Mischa Poltiolevsky—they apparently believed this was Levine’s real name—”is working in Tampico under the name of M. Paley. He is a very active agent/”19 They were correct.

Levine had become one of the most dynamic leaders of the Tampico IWW organizing among stevedores and oil industry workers. The former socialist Levine had undergone a conversion experience: he had given up his membership in the Socialist Party and had joined the IWW. During the period between 1917 and 1919, he rethought his political ideals, rejecting his belief in socialism and espousing instead revolutionary syndicalism. In a letter to the Industrial Workers of the World headquarters in Chicago, he explained his personal situation and his political views:
I have never learned a trade, nor am I a manual worker, and this I regret, for I recognize that the workers on the job must prepare themselves to run industry, and the workers on the job must determine radical tactics during the struggle to attain their aim, because they alone are surrounded by that environment from which real radical measures surge. I am opposed to political action. An
industrial administration must be prepared for industrially. Political action wastes energy that could be used in the class struggle—on the job. I intend to learn a trade as soon as possible, so that my views may arise in the proper environment. Until then, I shall suggest nothing— but shall affirm that radicals on the job, in the factory, on the farm, in the mine—theirs is the final voice.

1925 (Mexico: Joaquin Mortiz, 1986), p. 32.
19 Memo of 26 May 1920 from the military attaché of the American Embassy to the Director
of Military Intelligence, G.S., Washington, D.C. on the subject of Bolshivist [sic] propaganda,
Record Group 165, Box 2290, USMID, USNA.

Levine concluded his letter, “I was a member of the Socialist party, Local Kings [County], N.Y., but sent in my resignation last May [1919].” In a hand-written postscript he added, “As soon as I become a worker on the job, I intend to join the IWW. But for the present as an office worker, I cannot do so.”20

Why did Levine leave the Socialist Party? Perhaps because so many prominent figures in the party had supported the war and even gone to work for the Wilson administration. Or maybe Levine had fallen under the influence of American or Mexican Wobblies who had convinced him of their
revolutionary syndicalist principles and strategy. Or perhaps his own experience as a slacker had simply driven him to the left, and, at the time, the far left was the IWW.

20 Letter (unsigned) by Levine to Whitehead, November (date scratched out), 1919, Record Group 165, Box 2290, USMID, USNA. 21 A number of copies of El Obrero Industrial can be found in Record Group 165, USMID, US

In any case, though he did not have an industrial job—or perhaps precisely because he did not have such a job—Levine, using the name M. Paley, became the editor of the Tampico IWW newspaper, El Obrero Industrial (The Industrial Worker). The newspaper was just one or two tabloid size sheets of paper folded into four or at most eight pages, written in Spanish it was aimed at the Tampico oil workers and stevedores. Its articles advocated direct action and industrial unionism and called for the use of the general strike to create a workers’ government.21 Levine’s newspaper and his
organizing activities became a serious concern to the US Military Intelligence Division (USMID). The USMID officer in Laredo, Texas wrote to his superiors in July 1920:


The [US] Government is receiving copies of “The Industrial Worker” [El Obrero Industrial] paper being printed in Tampico, which in its editorials is spreading the doctrine of Lenine and Trotzky. The paper says the strikers will not cease until they have accomplished their purpose. Reports also state that at their meetings the strikers have red flags and that the cry ‘Vive la Russia’ [sic] can be heard. The oil companies told the laborers that the pay will not be increased one cent, as they claim
they are paying the best salary in the country.22

National Archives. The newspaper reported on local activities in Tampico, but its main political ideas were identical to those of the IWW of the United States: direct action, industrial unionism the general strike.


At the time many IWWs were supporters of the Russian Revolution and the Soviet government, and some were attracted to the Bolsheviks, who were in the process of organizing the Communist International. As editor of El Obrero Industrial Levine, like other Wobblies, followed the Russian
Revolution with sympathy and offered it his support from afar. Later he would join in the foundation of the Mexican Communist Party (PCM).

The writer B. Traven, whose real name was Ret Marut and who was a German revolutionary refugee of the post-war conflicts in that country, lived in Tampico in the early 1920s. Traven spent some time
with members of the Industrial Workers of the World and left a picture of the American radicals in his novels Die Baumwollpflucker (The Cottonpicker) and Der Wobbly (The Wobbly). In his fictional account of a strike Traven gives us some idea of Levine’s Tampico:

in this country [they] do not suffer from a clumsy, bureaucratic apparatus. The union secretaries do not regard themselves as civil servants. They are all young and roaring revolutionaries. The trade unions here have only been founded during the last ten years, and they have started in the most modern direction. They absorbed the experience of the Russian Revolution, and they embody the
explosive power of a young radical force and the elasticity of an organization which is still searching
for its form and changes it tactics daily.23

22 Report from Intelligence Officer, Laredo, Texas, to department Intelligence Officer, Fort
Sam Houston, Texas, 23 July 1920, Record Groups 165, in Box 2291, USMID, USNA.
23 Heidi Zogbaum, B. Traven: A Vision of Mexico (Wilmington, DE: SR Books,

Traven’s stories and novels caught the spirit of Tampico’s Wobblies and other radical unionists.
The employers took the matter of what they saw as the foreign-inspired labor unions in Tampico quite seriously.

R.D. Hutchinson, of the British ‘El Águila’ Oil Company told the Bulletin of the National
Chambers of Industry that the Tampico general strike of 1920 represented a “giant step toward the dictatorship of the proletariat,”

He went on: Mexican workers have unionized with the goal of imposing themselves on capital in Tampico and they have done it at the insistence of two different kinds of agitators: some foreigners, who, preaching Bolshevik ideas, have done a profound job, a deep job among the proletarians of the oil zones; and the others, Mexican politicians, who pursuing, if not identical goals, disrupt the peace by attacking the established interests at this crucial moment.24

As both Traven’s novel and this company manager’s remarks suggest, Levine, Coria and other slackers together with the Mexican workers had constructed a powerful, radical industrial union movement in Tampico that threatened the existing order.

Scholarly Resources Inc., 1992), p. 14, citing B. Traven, , Die Baumwollpflucker. (Hamburg. 1962),
p. 72. Wobbly movement.

The British government was also alarmed at the growth of the IWW in Tampico and other cities. The British Ambassador, H.A.C. Cummins reported to Lord Curzon at the Foreign Office in London in April of 1921, “The I.W.W. organization obtained some influence here during the war, an influence which has not lessened, and it is known that the confederated labor unions [CROM] are being directed by these dangerous extremists, and that they are laying plans with a view to establishing a Soviet administration in Mexico.”25 As Cummins’s communication indicates, in Tampico both
the IWW and the more moderate state sponsored CROM unions carried out militant campaigns against the employers.

While both foreign employers and foreign consuls sometimes exaggerated the threat from the IWW, their exaggerations were based on the very real, and quite formidable Wobbly Movement.
24 “Las Últimas Huelgas Según Seis Industriales Prominentes,” Boletín de la Confederación de Cámaras

The fight within the Mexican IWW

There are always fights between people in business and politics and the 1910s and 20s were a period of particularly ferocious struggles everywhere. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson fought the Socialist Party and the IWW, severely weakening the former and virtually destroying the latter. The Republicans fought the Democrats and defeated them leading to the reactionary and corrupt President Warren G. Harding. In Russia, Joseph Stalin fought and defeated Leon Trotsky. In America Socialists fought Communists and the AFL fought the IWW. So it is not surprising that here was also a fight in the Mexican IWW.

In Mexico, it became a personal fight between slackers Herman Levine and Linn A.E. Gale over the question of who represented the real IWW in Mexico. Gale was a small-town journalist, a former low level, local politician from New York, facing criminal prosecution for his debts and also fearing he might be drafted fled to Mexico with his wife Magdalena, a secretary who worked to support him. He published Gale’s Magazine which combined socialism and spiritual and promoted himself as the leading American leftwing intellectual and activist in Mexico, mailing his magazine to influential American radicals.

Industriales, (August 1920) , pp. 10 25 Bourne n.d., p. 307.


While Levine worked in Tampico organizing petroleum workers into the IWW, Gale, with the political backing of Mexican President Venustiano Carranza’s Minister of the Interior, Manuel Aguirre Berlanga published article s supporting Carranza’s notoriously corrupt and avaricious government, claiming it was progressive or even potentially socialism. At the same time, Gale claimed to be the leader of the Mexican IWW, and though he didn’t do much organizing, he gave out
IWW membership cards and photographs of the American Socialist Party leader Eugene V. Debs.

The situation was complicated by the fact that Gale also claimed to be the head of the Communist Party of Mexico (PCdeM), made up of the same clique that formed his IWW, while Levine sympathized with the rival Mexican Communist Party (PCM) that had been established by American slacker Charles Francis Phillips, Indian Manabendra Nath Roy, and Russian Bolshevik (Communist) Mikhail Borodin. All of this was taking place at a brief moment when revolutionary syndicalists around the world were briefly attracted to the Communist movement, just as they were in Mexico.
We know Levine’s opinion of Gale and his IWW group from a long letter (eight single-spaced pages) in which Levine wrote to “Fellow Worker Whitehead,” that is, Thomas Whitehead, the secretary-treasurer of the IWW in the United States. Whether or not a copy ever reached Whitehead is unclear, because the letter was intercepted by USMID. Levine portrayed Gale as the
antithesis of a genuine labor organizer. The letter gives us a great deal of insight into
Levine’s political principles and his notion of the proper role as an American revolutionary and labor organizer in Mexico and it is worth reviewing in some detail.26

26 The following several citations come from this letter. Letter (unsigned) to Whitehead from Levine, date November (date scratched out) 1919. Box 2290, Record Group 165, US National Archives.

Levine wrote, ‘He [Gale] is a businessman seeking political preferment and social position’, while Gale’s Magazine is ‘not a radical nor socialist organ’. He went on:

The name characterizes it admirably. It is Gale’s magazine—to boost Gale, first, last and all the time. No sincere radical ever did nor ever will launch a magazine with his name in the title. Levine claimed that Gale had had little contact with Mexican workers, but that those few Gale had met had been disgusted by him.27

Levine was particularly critical of Gale’s praise of Carranza and Berlanga.
“The Mexican government is a government of the government, by the government and
for the government,” wrote Levine. “They are not frank in their statements—but they are brutally frank in their acts; force, brute force being the rule and Berlanga is the official in charge of such proceedings”.

27 Letter (unsigned) to Whitehead from Levine, date November (scratched out) 1919. Box 2290,
Record Group 165, US National Archives. The following several citations come from this letter.

Levine pointed out to Whitehead that it was Berlanga who had quashed the teachers’ strike of 1919.


In general, Levine was critical of Gale’s notion that the Mexican government was a radical government moving toward socialism. What had the peasants and workers gained? asked Levine. “The worker’s reward? The right to have the military forces used against him when he goes on strike, printing presses seized, union halls closed.” Levine gave the examples of the suppression of the Mexico City teachers strike in May and of the Tampico oil workers strike in November of 1919.
“What is the essence of the Mexican Government?” asked Levine rhetorically. “It is an incipient capitalist state.” Carranza, Levine argued, had ‘tried to establish industry on a firm capitalist basis’, inviting the Chambers of Commerce of Dallas, Chicago and other US cities to come to Mexico to help:

Carranza invited them to invest capital in Mexico, but denied them any special privilege. He wants
Mexico to develop on a capitalist basis, without intervention of foreign capitalist governments. “Mexico for the Mexican Capitalists, for the Mexican Government” is his slogan.

Most modern historians would agree with Levine’s assessment of the Carranza regime. Levine argued that Gale’s call for support of Mexico against foreign intervention missed the point that the Mexican government actually supported foreign economic investment and protected foreign investors.

Tampico oil is in the hands of foreign exploiters. But when workers go on strike, the union halls are
closed down, printing presses seized despite specific constitutional provisions to the contrary, right of assembly denied—by whom? Not by foreigners, but by the military officials of that very government which we are asked to defend. Levine lumped Gale together with
Gompers as foreigners meddling in Mexican workers’ affairs:

Mexican radical policy will be determined by Mexicans. The Mexican working class is fighting its
fight where it ought to be fought—on the job. It [the Mexican working class] is not revolutionary—but it becomes aroused over the right to organize—as is proved by the Orizaba [textile] strike now before the public eye. Mexican Labor is too conservative, its leaders and organizations being bound up with the American Federation of Labor. But there are radical elements, and it is to them that we must look for action.

Interestingly, while he and other American slackers participated in the Mexican labor movement, Levine clearly believed that Mexican workers should ultimately determine its policies. Levine concluded his critique by arguing that:


Radicals should fight intervention, not by praising and supporting the Mexican Capitalist Government—but by denouncing the war as capitalist in its origin, by refusing to fight for the American Capitalist and his Mexican counterpart, and by demonstrating that the only sane
solution for Intervention is Workingclass [sic] Revolution.

American radicals should fight against American Capitalism; Mexican Comrades should fight their
own exploiters. The class struggle— cannot—will not— be sidetracked.


The letter ended: “cooperation with [Gale] by the IWW is dangerous to the Wobbly movement.” Levine clearly believed that genuine labor organizers would work not with Mexico’s capitalist government, but with the “radical elements” among the industrial workers in the organization of the class struggle. Levine, as this letter makes clear, held Gale in utter contempt.28

28 Letter (unsigned) to Whitehead from Levine, date November (date scratched out) 1919. Box
2290, Record Group 165, US National Archives.


The fight for the backing of the American IWW

The battle between the American slackers for control of the Mexican Industrial Workers of the World was fought both in Mexico and in the pages of the IWW magazine and newspapers in the United
States. Both slacker groups in Mexico wanted the endorsement of the Chicago headquarters of the IWW, and each wrote long articles arguing its point of view and attacking the opposition. The imprimatur of the Chicago office of the IWW was just as important for the slacker unionists as the
endorsement of the Moscow headquarters of the Communist International was for the slacker Communists.

As usual, Linn Gale struck the first blow with an article titled ‘The War Against Gompersism in Mexico’ published in November 1919 in The One Big Union Monthly, the magazine of the IWW
executive committee in the United States. He recounted the first national congress of the Mexican Socialist Party and attacked M.N. Roy for voting to admit Gompers. He also attempted to discredit.

The Indian revolutionary M.N. Roy. Gale wrote that the ‘Hindu’ (M.N. Roy) is “said by some to be a
spy for the American government. As to the truth of this I do not know.” He claimed that during the congress Roy had been “working hand-in-hand with [Luis N.] Morones,” the corrupt leader of the CROM. Gale explained that “Roy voted in favor of seating Morones, casting the deciding vote!!!” Consequently, Gale explained, he and others had withdrawn from the Socialist Party and formed Communist Party of Mexico, a tiny group headed by Gale, which was “in favor of Industrial Unionism.”

The following several citations come from this letter.

The editor of The One Big Union Monthly observed that,

“Not knowing the condition in Mexico, we publish the above with some mental reservation, insofar as we believe that the I.W.W. men of Mexico may take a different view of cooperation with the new Communist party.”29 In the same issue there appeared an excerpt from Gale’s Communist Party of Mexico manifesto, obviously sent to the paper by Gale, endorsing the IWW, denouncing the AFL,
calling for the use of strikes, boycotts and sabotage, and looking forward to the eventual establishment of the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat.” The manifesto also called for a “Constant and intelligent co-operation between the Communist Party and the industrial unions of Mexico and the Communist Parties and industrial unions of other countries.”.30

29 Linn A.E. Gale, “The War Against Gompersism in Mexico’, The One
Big Union Monthly, November 1919, pp. 23–5.
30 “I.W.W. in Mexico,” The One Big Union Monthly, November 1919, p. 50.

The other slacker faction was not long in responding in the American Wobbly press. Irwin Granich [Mike Gold] wrote a long article, “Sowing Seeds of One Big Union in Mexico,” in which he described political, economic, and social conditions, and rebutted Gale’s attack. Granich gave his
own report on the first national congress of the Mexican Socialist Party, and his own interpretation of events. First, he argued that the Socialist Party congress really functioned as a kind of IWW convention. As he put it:

The Socialist party, dominated by I.W.W. elements, had called the congress because there was no union able to call it. It was called for the purpose of bringing to the workers the message of One Big Union and to help them create a national body based on industrial lines.

The Mexican Socialist Party congress, said Granich, succeeded in doing so despite the sabotage of Luis Morones and Linn Gale. He described Gale as “an American adventurer and labor provocateur
who has a shady past and has just organized a so-called Communist party of six or seven members for some sinister ends.” Gale “is really a nonentity, dangerous only because he is trying to bleed the movement for money, and because he is of the type that will ultimately sell out and turn spy—if he
has not already achieved this profitable end, as the Soviet Bureau in New York believes.” Granich asserted that despite Morones and Gale, the congress had been a success and the delegates had launched two new magazines, El Soviet in Mexico City and El Obrero Industrial in Veracruz.31

31 Irwin Granich, Irwin [pseud. of Michael Gold], “Sowing the Seeds of One Big Union in Mexico,” The One Big Union Monthly January 1920 , pp. 36–7.

In the March 1920 issue of The One Big Union Monthly, the editor felt obliged to explain why he was continuing to print letters from the rival slacker factions in Mexico, and his explanation bears citation because it shows the American IWW’s interest in establishing continental industrial
unionism. “First,” wrote the editor,” it is just as important for us to be familiar with conditions down in Mexico as it is for us to know conditions in Canada. The question of direct cooperation between the One Big Union of Canada, of United States and of Mexico is bound to come up in the near
future, and for that reason it is necessary that we should be somewhat conversant with men and condition[s] in Mexico as well as in Canada.”


“Second,” wrote the OBU editor, “we want our members to know the state of affairs down in Mexico City when they get down there, so they do not act blindly.” Finally, said the editor, the IWW rejected
political parties, whether Socialist or Communist. “We enjoy to see the politicians destroy one another before an audience of wage workers,” because “it fills the workers with disgust for the political game and makes them turn to industrial organization.” So he let the debate in the pages of his magazine continue.32 The editor asked that future articles respond to a number of specific questions, namely a history and survey of the Mexican labor movement, a discussion of the experiments in the Yucatan, a discussion of the roles of Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa, and a
survey of Mexican industry with statistics.

32 John A. Jutt, “The Mexican Administration of the I.W.W,”

José Refugio Rodríguez, Secretary of Gale’s IWW organization, took up the offer and wrote an article on “The Working Class Movement in Mexico” which avoided the recriminations of the earlier articles and described general conditions of Mexican labor. Rodriguez’s article characterized the
various leaders and tendencies in the Mexican Revolution. He rejected support for Álvaro Obregón, who was “seeking the support of the American and Mexican financial interests,” and also repudiated
Carranza who was “at best only a Liberal.” Rodríguez also characterized Villa and Zapata. He wrote (wrongly and falsely) that the former “is no more and no less than a despicable murderer who once served in the American Army and there learned completely the science of killing his fellow human beings.” He expressed admiration for Zapata as an “honest man,” but noted that “the tales published in foreign periodicals about the wonders of ‘Zapataland’ make us laugh and also make us shed bitter tears”:

His “Zapataland” only existed over a few hectares of land in the days of its greatest success. It was very crude, undeveloped, unorganized, and could not therefore, last long. In the great land over which Lenin is the guiding figure and where Industrial democracy has come to remain forever, there is much of science, order, skill, wisdom and shrewdness, to match that of the capitalist empires without. But there was none of this in “Zapataland”—only honest intentions, high ideals, bad
organizations, big blunders and inevitable failure.33

Gale’s Magazine, February 1920, p. 44.

What is striking in Rodríguez’s essay is the nearly complete rejection of all of the Mexican revolutionary factions, including the plebeian movements of Zapata and Villa, and his absolute confidence in Lenin and the Russian model. Gale and his comrades, it seemed, having rejected the Mexican revolution entirely, intended to implant the models of the Chicago-based IWW and the
Moscow-centered Communist International.

Levine leads the IWW into the United Front

Whatever appeared in the papers in Chicago, the fight to control the Mexican IWW would be settled in Mexico and Mexican workers would play a central role. Levine had found two allies in his struggle against Gale. Both Charles King and Pedro Coria had been active; in the Industrial Workers of the World in the United States, as well as in Mexico. A USMID report, probably written by José Allen, who was simultaneously head of the Mexican Communist Party and a US spy, described
Levine’s new supporters. The description of King was brief:

King claims to be an American Communist. He has been in Mexico approximately eighteen months. He is five feet eight inches tall; weight about one hundred and sixty pounds; dark hair; dark eyes; swarthy complexion. He is very sarcastic and cynical. He appears to be very well educated; he speaks Spanish and English equally well. Trade unknown.

33 José Refugio Rodríguez, “The Working Class Movement in Mexico,” The One Big Union Monthly, 1920 II, no. 6, 26-27.

The spy’s account of Coria went into more detail, painting a picture of a sophisticated political activist. “Corea [sic] is a Mexican of the railroad man type; age about forty; about five feet eight inches tall; weight about one hundred and eighty pounds; thick, black hair; black eyes; slightly florid complexion,”, wrote Allen.

“He has travelled very widely in the United States and South America; he speaks English very well. He is said to speak Portuguese fluently. For many years he has been a political leader. He is said to have been imprisoned in South America. He is not a very well educated man, but an active mind and great personality make him a leader.”34

34 ‘Who’s Who Material – Mexican Radical Elements’, 15 October 1920. RG 165, Box 2290.

Coria told his own story in an autobiography written in the 1960s. Raised in a military orphanage, Coria eventually became a foundry worker and after working in several Mexican cities travelled to the United States. While living in Chicago, Coria learned to speak English fluently and also became acquainted with the American labor movement. He apparently attended an early convention of the Industrial Workers of the World and became a Wobbly. As a Wobbly organizer in various parts of the
West, Coria had participated in numerous organizing campaigns, strikes, and protest demonstrations.

At various times he was beaten, jailed, and had his life was threatened. As a working-class pacifist in the United States, he opposed both the violence of the revolution in Mexico and United States involvement in World War I. When the Wilson administration suppressed the IWW, Coria fled to Tampico, no doubt because he knew there was an active IWW group there.35

35 Coria, Pedro, “Adventures of an Indian Mestizo,” Industrial Worker (Chicago), January, February,
March, April, and May, 1971. Thanks to Robert J. Halstead for calling this series to my attention and providing a photocopy.

As soon as he arrived in Tampico, Coria made contact with the IWW and joined other Wobblies in organizing Petroleum Workers Industrial Union 230 and Marine Transport Workers union 510. He quickly became one of the most prominent IWW leaders in Tampico and was sent by the local IWW as delegate to the important labor convention in Saltillo, Coahuila held on 1 May 1918, the meeting that produced the Regional Confederation of Mexican Workers (CROM). It must have
been not long after returning from Saltillo that Coria met Herman P. Levine.

Coria’s experience made him a highly valuable IWW organizer. His knowledge of English and Spanish, his familiarity with the labor union and political movements in both countries, and his
courage and dedication made him particularly useful in the attempt to organize the IWW in Mexico. So, it was natural that in Tampico, Coria became one of the closest allies of Levine.

Levine—now backed up by Coria and King—proposed at the 17 October 1920 IWW meetings in Mexico City, which involved both factions, that the IWW’s US rule excluding non-wage-workers be
enforced. The observation of that rule would have meant the expulsion from membership in the Mexican IWW of Gale, the newspaper publisher and his followers: Cervantes López, the printer; Hipólito Flores, the policeman, and other non-worker members of Gale’s committee. Gale responded
evasively that the IWW had to organize soldiers and sailors, and should not, for example, exclude a woman fired from her factory who became a fruit vendor.36

36 Gale 1920, p. 6; ‘Memorandum to the A.C. of S. for Military Intelligence’, 15 October 1920, in
Box 2290, Record Group 165, USMID, USNA, an account of these differences within the IWW, probably written by José Allen, says that Pedro Coria was disputing the leadership of the union with Gale and Charles King. This is probably the same struggle. See also Taibo II 1986, p. 101.

There was another important element in this debate, in addition to the question of a member’s social class. Levine and Coria also proposed to take the Mexican IWW into an alliance with the anarchists, anarcho syndicalists, and the other Mexican Communist Party (not the one run by Gale) in order to form a united front among all the labor radicals in Mexico. It was this issue that accounted for the presence at the Mexico City meeting of Jacinto Huitrón, a leader of the anarcho-syndicalist labor
movement, and Manuel D. Ramírez, a labor activist and the future head of the Mexican Communist Party. It was this group which would later establish the important though short-lived labor organization the Communist Federation of the Mexican Proletariat.37

37 ‘Memorandum to the A.C. of S. for Military Intelligence: Notes on Radical Activities’, 15
October 1920, USMID, Record Group 165, Box 2290, USMID, USNA.

The debate over the rules was postponed, but Gale refused to call another meeting, so the other faction, Levine, Coria and King, now joined by Gale’s former allies Rodríguez, Pacheco and Ortega, called their own meeting of the executive board, revised the rules to exclude non-workers, and elected their own executive committee. Gale was out. Levine had won.

The Gale-Levine faction fight ended in the pages of the IWWs magazine in the United States at the end of 1920. In December, an article apparently written by Herman Levine, announced the victory of
the “wage workers” over the “petit bourgeois” faction led by Linn Gale. “The wage workers faction, the most numerous and the strongest, with the general secretary treasurer and the majority of the G.E.B. [General Executive Board] with them, are continuing in charge of the organization, and hope for better progress now that they have rid themselves of the political and petit bourgeois element,”, stated the author. The IWW, now firmly in proletarian hands, the author reported, was organizing oil workers in Tampico, metal mine workers in Guanajuato, and industrial workers in Mexico City.38

38 Herman Levine, Herman ‘The Mexican I.W.W.’, The One Big Union Monthly, December 1920, p. 57.

After Levine, Coria, and King took charge of the IWW, it immediately entered into a united front with the other factions of the revolutionary labor movement. The anarcho-syndicalists, the IWW, the Mexican Communist Party, and some independent unions formed first the “Revolutionary Bloc,” in August 1920, which subsequently became the Communist Federation of the Mexican Proletariat (FCPM). The FCPM was meant to be an alternative to the CROM. It stood for revolutionary labor
unionism, the fight for workers’ control, the overthrow of capitalism, and, passing through a brief dictatorship of the proletariat, for Social Revolution. While most of its members were anarchists or anarcho-syndicalists, the FCPM sympathized with the Soviet Union. Later the FCPM would become the anarchist General Confederation of Workers or CGT.

In addition to Levine’s wing of the IWW, the Mexican Communist Party (PCM) (that is the party founded by Roy and Phillips) also joined the new federation. Within a few months the PCM Communists were involved in the leadership of a genuine working-class upheaval in Mexico City,
Veracruz, Orizaba and Tampico. Two of the PCM’s new young leaders, Manuel Díaz Ramírez and José C. Valadés were elected secretaries of the executive board of the FCPM.39 The Communist Federation and its activists such as Levine, Valadés and Díaz Ramírez were far more serious about
organizing than Gale had been. For example,

39 Taibo II 1986, Los Bolshevikis, p. 103.

Díaz Ramírez, who was himself from Veracruz, contacted Aurelio Medrano and other leaders of the Orizaba textile workers’ anarcho-communist group, the group with which Gale had been corresponding. Díaz not only wrote them and sent the Communist magazine Vida Nueva and the
Boletín Comunista, but he also went to Orizaba gave a public lecture on “Unionism and Communism.” He met privately with local activists and attempted to win the group over to the Communist Federation of the Mexican Proletariat, and to the Mexican Communist Party.40 Díaz urged the local anarcho-communists and CROM activists to join the Communist Federation and later its successor the General Confederation of Workers (CGT). The Orizaba group decided to stay in the CROM, though they remained in its left wing.41 Nevertheless, Díaz and the Communists demonstrated a new commitment to building the IWW and the Communist Party among workers.

40 García Díaz, Bernardo 1990, Textiles del Valle de Orizaba (1880–1925). (Xalapa, Veracruz: Universidad Veracruzana, Centro de Investigaciones Historicas, 199), pp. 240–1.
41 Ibid., pp. 270–1.

Deported and jailed

Levine’s organizing in Tampico and his fight with Gale had strengthened the IWW in Mexico. He also helped to build the young and fragile Mexican Communist Party. The political winds, however, had shifted. While President Venustiano Carranza had welcomed the American slackers, the new president, Álvaro Obregon, wanted to be rid of them, ordering their arrest and expulsion.

Levine was captured and deported on 25 May 1921.42 He either revealed his citizenship or it was discovered, for the Washington Post carried the news of Levine’s detention to the public in a story
date-lined Laredo, Texas, 27 May 1921: Herman M. [sic] Levine, of New York City, who fled to Mexico in 1918 and is alleged to have engaged in radical activities there, was deported Wednesday from Monterrey, where he was arrested last week. He was immediately taken in charge by military authorities here and is being held at Fort McIntosh.43

42 Letter from Matthew C. Smith, Col., General Staff, Chief, Negative Branch to W.L. Hurley, Office of the Under-Secretary, Department of State, 28 May 1921; Memorandum for file dated 27 May 1921 regarding phone call from Mr. Hoover to USMID. Both in Box 2292, Record
Group 165, USMED, USNA.
43 “Mexico Deports Radicals; Herman M. Levine, of New York Returned to the United States,” Washington Post, 27 May 1921. Clipping in Box 2291, Record Group 165, USMID, USNA

.
44 Memorandum for file, undated by citing General Intelligence Bulletin No. 53 for 4 June
1921, Box 2292, Record Group 165, USMID,USNA.

The US government’s General Intelligence Bulletin No. 53 for 5 June 1921 reported that Levine’s “case will be presented to the Grand Jury for indictment as a slacker.”44

After this point, Levine disappears from the records, but what an experience Levine had had since the day four years before when he decided to resist the draft. The war and the draft forced him to give up his profession, and his country and led him to become a political exile in Mexico. While
Levine remained a radical, the war also caused him to abandon his political party, the Socialists, and led him to adopt the revolutionary syndicalist ideology of the Industrial Workers of the World.

As a Wobbly in Mexico, Levine edited the union’s newspaper in Tampico where he also became one of the union’s leading spirits. Of all the American slackers, Levine was perhaps the only one who really threw himself shoulder-to-shoulder into the organization of ordinary Mexican workers in an attempt to bring about a new industrial and economic order. For a brief period, Levine and his IWW ‘fellow workers’ had led thousands of Tampico’s oil port workers in a mass movement involving strikes that paralyzed shipping, challenged the employers, and troubled two states. Levine had cooperated with the founders of the Mexican Communist Party and Levine himself appears to have become a member. Like other radicals in Mexico at the time, Levine signed his letters “Salud y Revolución Social,” that is, “Health and Social Revolution,” and he added in English with that characteristic Wobbly American accent, “May it come damn quick.” Unfortunately for Levine, it did not come.

Whatever happened to Levine? We do not know, but a cross-reference in the card index of the US Military Intelligence Division files mentions a Herman Levine who was active in June 1932 in the
executive councils of various veterans’ organizations and was a bonus marcher, one of the largest American working-class protests of the era. Could that have been the Brooklyn school teacher Levine who led oil workers in Tampico during the years of the World War and the Mexican Revolution?
We cannot be sure that this is the same man, but it might well have been.

Intentional Use of AI in the Social Studies Classroom for Multilingual Learners

Intentional Use of AI in the Social Studies Classrooms for Multilingual
Learners


Andy Szeto


The introduction of ChatGPT in 2022 has opened up numerous exciting possibilities for teachers, making AI increasingly relevant in the classroom. For social studies teachers working with multilingual learners, AI offers valuable tools to enhance content comprehension and engagement. The intersection of social studies language demands and AI’s powerful capabilities represents a perfect synergy. The recent proliferation of AI-powered tools has significantly improved educators’ ability to bring social studies content to life and address the diverse needs of multilingual students. This article explores how AI can support these social studies teachers by providing tailored resources and facilitating effective teaching strategies.

Student Engagement and SWIRL-ed lessons

In modern social studies education, we must move beyond rote memorization of facts, events, and dates to create more engaging and meaningful experiences for students. The integration of AI presents a significant opportunity to enhance SWIRL—speaking, writing, interacting,
reading, and listening—within lessons.1

1 Andrea Honigsfeld and Maria G. Dove, Collaborating for English Learners: A Foundational Guide to Integrated Practices, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2020).

For instance, when exploring the decision of the United States to join the League of Nations after World War I, teachers can utilize historical chatbots to offer students diverse perspectives on the issue, fostering interactive learning. An activity could involve students preparing and participating
in a debate, supported by real-time audio translation and captioning to ensure inclusivity. AI can transcribe and translate these debates into multiple languages, allowing all students to engage fully.

Additionally, students can write about the topic in their native language, with AI translating their work for peer review and feedback. Through such applications, AI not only facilitates active participation in all aspects of SWIRL but also enriches the learning experience by bridging language
barriers and promoting deeper engagement with historical content. 2
2Tan Huynh, “3 Strategies to Support English Language Learners in Social Studies,” Edutopia,
January 24, 2022, https://www.edutopia.org/article/3strategies-support-english-language-learners-socialstudies/ .

Teaching Academic Vocabulary

Teaching academic vocabulary in social studies instruction is crucial as it empowers students to comprehend complex concepts, engage in higher-order thinking, and effectively communicate their
understanding of historical and contemporary issues.3 AI-powered tools can support multilingual learners by offering customized language resources tailored to individual student language needs. These tools can assist social studies teachers by identifying key vocabulary and facilitating the translation or integration of terms in various languages. For example, a government teacher working with primarily Chinese-speaking students, who is covering the First Amendment and individual rights, might use AI to create a presentation slide with key terms highlighted in a complex text. AI can identify these terms in English, translate them into Chinese, and either embed the translations within the text or provide them as a separate reference.

This screenshot displays an output from ChatGPT used to create a handout featuring key vocabulary
words. These words have been identified and translated into Traditional Chinese to assist in understanding and learning.

AI integration in the classroom allows students to use language more expressively and intentionally. It enables teachers to seamlessly plan for the use of academic language while leveraging all of the students’ language resources. In the same example, the teacher can ask students to choose which of the freedoms from the First Amendment they view as most important and discuss their choices with partners in either language, with the aid of AI-powered tools. 3 This approach not only helps students understand critical concepts but also improves their comprehension by offering translations in their native languages, making the content more accessible and inclusive.4

3 Bárbara C. Cruz and Stephen J. Thornton, “Social Studies for English Language Learners: Teaching Social Studies that Matters,” Social Education 73, no.6 (2009): 271–74.
4 WIDA. Focus Bulletin: Translanguaging. Accessed July 20, 2024.

This screenshot displays an output from ChatGPT used to create a handout featuring key vocabulary
words. These words have been identified and translated into Traditional Chinese to assist in understanding and learning.

Additionally, research has shown that cognates can significantly aid language acquisition for multilingual students.5 Social studies teachers can use this concept into their pedagogical strategies to enhance student comprehension. AI-powered tools are particularly useful in this context. For
instance, an American History teacher, serving students who speak French, English, and Spanish might use such tools to generate a slide illustrating all possible cognates in the Gettysburg Address. This visual aid can facilitate students’ understanding of the document. To be inclusive of all students’
languages, the teacher should ensure that the slide includes cognates relevant to each language spoken in the classroom. The table of cognates, produced automatically and efficiently by AI, serves as a valuable resource for these students.

https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/Focus-Bulletin-Translanguaging.pdf.
5 “Using Cognates to Develop Comprehension inEnglish,” Colorín Colorado, accessed July 19, 2024,
https://www.colorincolorado.org/ellstrategies/cognates.

Screenshot of the output table from the prompt: “Identify any cognates in French and Spanish in the Gettysburg Address.”


Enhanced Media Accessibility

AI-powered tools have greatly improved the accessibility of media content, particularly benefiting language acquisition for multilingual students. These tools can produce transcripts and captions for videos found on online platforms such as YouTube and Vimeo, making it easier for educators to
share content in various languages. They can also efficiently create transcripts and captions for student or teacher-created content, presenting material in multiple languages. For instance, a social studies teacher might ask students to share their immigrant arrival stories, which can then be recorded, transcribed, or captioned in multiple languages. This approach honors students’ cultures, facilitates collaboration, and maximizes translanguaging as a pedagogy, helping students understand
themselves and others better. Students can also practice public speaking by presenting their stories to the class and receiving constructive feedback from their peers. With AI tools, feedback can be offered in any language, further supporting diverse language needs and enhancing the learning experience.

Flexible Planning and AI-powered Tools

Social studies teachers can foster an environment that supports multilingual learners by being flexible with their planning. This involves allowing students to navigate and utilize different language practices as they learn. For instance, in a World History class studying the social aspects during the Industrial Revolution in England, students who speak various native languages might read primary sources translated, in parts or in whole, in their own language, engage in group debates in
English, and annotate texts in any language they choose. Flexibility is crucial here; the goal is to help students process and make sense of what they have learned with direct translation only as needed. AI-powered tools can greatly facilitate this process.

These tools can assist teachers in creating discussion prompts in multiple languages, generating translated texts or primary sources, or even developing multilingual word walls. Such capabilities make it easier to integrate diverse language practices in the classroom and support students’
understanding across different languages.

Flexible Learning Objectives

Teachers can design learning objectives that foster bilingualism and multilingualism by emphasizing skills that transcend specific languages. For example, objectives could include: “Students will be able to analyze the concepts of nationalism and patriotism through collaborative research and discussion,” enabling them to engage with diverse perspectives. By utilizing tools like Google Docs or virtual whiteboards, students can collaborate in real-time, contributing in different languages and using AI to translate their contributions effortlessly. AI allows students to navigate and integrate multiple languages in their work, thus enhancing their language acquisition and comprehension. This
approach encourages inclusive participation and deepens understanding of social studies concepts across linguistic boundaries.

Sample Output from ChatGPT: Exploring the question ‘What does patriotism mean to you?’—a
snapshot of sample student reflection on the essence of national pride and identity. 6 (Katie Novak, “Why UDL Matters for English Language Learners,” Language Magazine, March 9, 2018,
https://www.languagemagazine.com/2018/03/09/why-udl-matters-for-english-language-learners/.
7 Anya S. Evmenova, Jered Borup, and Joan Kang Shin, “Harnessing the Power of Generative AI to
AI and Universal Design for Learning (UDL)

AI intersects with Universal Design for Learning (UDL) by promoting flexible language use to support diverse learners, aligning with UDL’s principles of Multiple Means of Representation and Engagement.6

AI can enhance this intersection by using students’ languages as a starting point for brainstorming ideas, creating real-life scenarios that honor their cultures, reducing writer’s block, and producing materials with varying demands and levels.7 Additionally, AI can provide personalized feedback in
multiple languages, facilitate comparisons between student-generated and AI-generated content for reflective learning, and incorporate speech recognition software to support diverse communication needs. For example, a teacher preparing students for a group debate on whether to join the Patriots’ cause or remain loyal to the British at the onset of the Revolutionary War can encourage engagement by allowing students to research in any language and prepare their talking points in both English and their native languages. The debates can then be conducted in the languages of the students’ choosing, with real-time translation and speech recognition software available to support their participation, making the activity inclusive and accessible for all learners. 8
(Support ALL Learners,” Journal of Educational Technology, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528
024-00966-x. (Published May 14, 2024).
8 Cioè-Peña, M. (2022). TrUDL, a path to full inclusion: The intersectional possibilities of translanguaging and Universal Design for Learning.)


Academic writing

The use of AI in education empowers social studies teachers to effectively support multilingual students in academic writing. AI-powered resources, such as Ethiqly and Khanmigo’s Writing Coach, can assist with the writing process by providing sentence starters, suggesting outlines, and brainstorming ideas for multilingual learners.9 In multilingual classrooms where teachers may not be fluent in all languages spoken by their students, this is especially helpful.

AI can also translate and interpret various languages simultaneously, enabling teachers to enhance students’ understanding and expression in their native tongues. For example, a government teacher can use AI to create sentence starters or templates when asking students to write an argumentative
essay on voting rights. These supports can be provided in their native language, in English, or both, as AI offers the flexibility and simplicity needed to accommodate diverse linguistic needs.

Conclusion

The integration of AI in social studies classrooms has emerged as a transformative tool for supporting multilingual learners, offering unprecedented opportunities to enhance engagement, comprehension, and participation. By leveraging AI’s capabilities, educators can create dynamic
and inclusive learning environments that address the diverse linguistic needs of their students. Whether through enhanced media accessibility, flexible lesson planning, or personalized academic support, AI tools enable teachers to break down language barriers and foster a deeper connection to
historical content.
8 TESOL Quarterly, 56(2), 799–812. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3074
9 “AI and Education: Will Chatbots Soon Tutor Your Children?” The New York Times, January 11, 2024,

As we continue to explore the potential of AI in education, it is essential to prioritize intentional and thoughtful integration, ensuring that these tools complement and enhance traditional teaching methods. By embracing AI’s potential, educators can empower multilingual learners, enrich their
educational experiences, and contribute to a more inclusive and equitable learning environment. Through ongoing innovation and adaptation, AI can play a pivotal role in advancing social studies education and supporting the diverse needs of multilingual learners.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/11/technology/ai
chatbots-khan-education-tutoring.html.

Election 2024: The Dilemma for Teachers

Election 2024: The Dilemma for Teachers


Alan Singer

A major goal of teachers, especially secondary school social studies teachers, is to help students learn to evaluate multiple perspectives on issues by weighing supporting evidence, separating fact from fiction, examining underlying assumptions, and then developing their own informed opinions. As a teacher, I generally withhold my opinion on a topic, however, I have no problem asserting that slavery, genocide, racism, dictatorship, and antisemitism are bad. There are no upsides. When we
consider multiple perspectives, the question we should address is why they happen, not whether they happened in the past or should happen again.

On a variety of topics, I provide students with a package of documents to evaluate that includes things I agree with and things that I don’t. During class, my primary role is to ask questions that promote discussion about the document package and the issues and moderate respectful student to-student conversation. I use this teaching approach whether we are discussing issues from the past such as the causes of the American Revolution, or the present, such as the role of human action in climate change, whether a particular military campaign constitutes war crimes, or if a groups behavior should be identified as terrorism. Important topics for discussion when schools reopen in the fall will be evaluations of the Biden administration’s record on foreign policy, the economy, climate, and the migrant/refugee “crisis.” It will also be legitimate to discuss whether Joseph Biden’s
age and physical and mental condition should be an issue in the election whatever your evaluation of his first administration.

The big problem in September will be what to do about Donald Trump. How do you organize a balanced unbiased discussion and evaluation of a candidate who makes outrageous, hateful, blatantly false statements? He is a candidate convicted of 34 counts in a New York trial and who faces three other criminal cases, who has been found guilty of defamation in a civil suit, who tried to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential election, who continues to claim the 2020 election was stolen, who dismisses any accusation against him as politically motivated, and who demands total immunity against prosecution as a former President.

The November election is going to be a major focus in middle school and high school social studies classes. I am not neutral about slavery, genocide, racism, dictatorship, and antisemitism and I am not
neutral about the threat Donald Trump poses to the future of democracy in the United States and the constitutional foundations of American government and society. I will not use unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, propaganda websites, and Trump sycophantic reports in document packages and pretend students are evaluating legitimate sources.

Even a fact-check exercise of Trump statements leaves a teacher open to charges that they are injecting their opinions into class and trying to influence the ideas of their students. But of course, the job of the teacher is to influence the ideas of their students. Our responsibility to promote civic
discourse supported by evidence and advocate for democracy means we have to influence students to critically think about the campaign and candidates and if that means presenting an accurate picture of the threat posed by Donald Trump, we will have to live with the consequences.

Every teacher will almost definitely have students in their classes who support Donald Trump and the Republican Party, which is their right. They should be welcomed into discussion and encouraged to find evidence to support their positions, but they cannot be permitted to shout down or intimidate other students, things that I witnessed in 2016 and 2020. Donald Trump has continually said scary things, some of which he has backtracked on, and some of which he has not. In my opinion, any one of them should disqualify him to be President of the United States. He told American Jews, already
subject to a rising tide of antisemitism, that “Any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion. They hate everything about Israel and they should be ashamed of themselves.” He described some immigrants as “not people,” “animals,” and “snakes,” accused them of “poisoning the blood of our country,” a statement that echoed the ideas of Adolf Hitler, and is promising mass deportations in violation of constitutional guarantees of due process, guarantees that in the 14th amendment are not limited to citizens. He asserted without evidence that other countries are emptying their prisons and sending criminals across the border. Trump wants “strong ideological screening of immigrants” because if “you don’t like our religion . . . we don’t want you in our country.” He is apparently unaware or does not care that the United States does not have an official religion.

Trump continually berates the American legal system and undermines public confidence in the law, the courts, and the government. He describes people tried and convicted of crimes during the January 6, 2021 violent invasion of the United States Capitol as “unbelievable patriots” being held as hostages and promises to offer these convicted criminals mass pardons if he is elected. Trump dismisses legal charges against his former aides Peter Navarro and Paul Manafort who were convicted, Navarro of contempt of Congress and Manafort of bank and tax fraud, and claims they were “treated very badly.”

Trump lowers the character of political speech as he raises the level of hostility. He denounces Joseph Biden as “Crooked Joe” and as a stupid President and uses vulgar and offensive language to describe other opponents, especially Black women. At campaign stops, Trump warns that if he is not elected, “It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country,” something he later tried to explain away, and that if he does “not win this year’s presidential election, I don’t think you’re going to have another election, or certainly not an election that’s meaningful.” He says he wants to be a dictator, but only on day one.

If elected, Trump says he would support a nationwide ban on terminating a pregnancy after 15 weeks, severely limiting the reproductive rights of women. A rightwing Supreme Court with three members, I hesitate to call them justices, appointed by Trump the last time he was President may well approve such a ban. If Trump is elected President, he threatens to withdraw the United States from the NATO alliance that has helped prevent broader European wars since tens of millions of people died in World War I and World War II or at a minimum sharply reduce U.S. financial support and to once again withdraw the United States from global efforts to minimize climate change because he does not believe in science. At a time when rightwing anti-democratic political movements are gaining followers and threatening to take power in many European countries, Trump has repeatedly expressed admiration for authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin of Russia, Xi Jinping of China, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey, Viktor Orbán of Hungary, and Kim Jong Un of North Korea. He praised the Lebanese-based armed group Hezbollah even though they are listed as a terrorist group by the United States State Department. Trump claims, without evidence, that the war in Ukraine and the Hamas attack on Israel would somehow not have happened if he were President.

In his speeches, Trump continuously lies or exaggerates about his own prowess and record as President. Trump didn’t create the greatest economy or pass the biggest tax cut in U.S. history. He didn’t do more for African Americans than any president since Abraham Lincoln. He didn’t defeat ISIS or increase government revenue and he wasn’t reelected in 2020.

Teachers should not tell students who to vote for or tell them how they are voting, but you are remiss if you do not help them understand who Donald Trump is and what he represents. If you are unsure how to do this, you can have students read and debate the points raised in this essay. Students can evaluate whether it raises legitimate concerns, or it is just anti-Trump propaganda.

Einstein’s Postwar Campaign to Save the World from Nuclear Destruction

Einstein’s Postwar Campaign to Save the World from Nuclear Destruction

Lawrence S. Wittner

This article appeared originally in Foreign Policy in Focus. It is reprinted with permission.

Although the popular new Netflix film, Einstein and the Bomb, purports to tell the story of the great physicist’s relationship to nuclear weapons, it ignores his vital role in rallying the world against nuclear catastrophe. Aghast at the use of nuclear weapons in August 1945 to obliterate the
cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Einstein threw himself into efforts to prevent worldwide nuclear annihilation. In September, responding to a letter from Robert Hutchins, Chancellor of the University of Chicago, about nuclear weapons, Einstein contended that, “as long as nations demand unrestricted sovereignty, we shall undoubtedly be faced with still bigger wars, fought with bigger and technologically more advanced weapons.”

Thus, “the most important task of intellectuals is to make this clear to the general public and to emphasize over and over again the need to establish a well organized world government.” Four days
later, he made the same point to an interviewer, insisting that “the only salvation for civilization and the human race lies in the creation of a world government, with security of nations founded upon law.”

Determined to prevent nuclear war, Einstein repeatedly hammered away at the need to replace international anarchy with a federation of nations operating under international law. In October 1945, together with other prominent Americans (among them Senator J. William Fulbright, Supreme
Court Justice Owen Roberts, and novelist Thomas Mann), Einstein called for a “Federal Constitution of the World.” That November, he returned to this theme in an interview published in the Atlantic
Monthly. “The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem,” he said. “It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one…As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable.” And war, sooner or later, would become nuclear war.

Einstein promoted these ideas through a burgeoning atomic scientists’ movement in which he played a central role. To bring the full significance of the atomic bomb to the public, the newly-formed Federation of American Scientists put together an inexpensive paperback, One World or None, with individual essays by prominent Americans. In his contribution to the book, Einstein wrote that he was “convinced there is only one way out” and this necessitated creating “a supranational organization” to “make it impossible for any country to wage war.” This hard-hitting book, which first appeared in early 1946, sold more than 100,000 copies.

Given Einstein’s fame and his well publicized efforts to avert a nuclear holocaust, in May 1946 he became chair of the newly-formed Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists, a fundraising and
policymaking arm for the atomic scientists’ movement. In the Committee’s first fund appeal, Einstein warned that “the unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” Even so, despite the fact that Einstein, like most members of the early atomic scientists’ movement, saw world government as the best recipe for survival in the nuclear age, there seemed good reason to consider shorter-range objectives. After all,
the Cold War was emerging and nations were beginning to formulate nuclear policies. An early Atomic Scientists of Chicago statement, prepared by Eugene Rabinowitch, editor of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, underscored practical considerations. “Since world government is unlikely to be achieved within the short time available before the atomic armaments race will lead to an acute danger of armed conflict,” it noted, “the establishment of international controls must be considered as a problem of immediate urgency.” Consequently, the movement increasingly worked in support of specific nuclear arms control and disarmament measures.

In the context of the heightening Cold War, however, taking even limited steps forward proved impossible. The Russian government sharply rejected the Baruch Plan for international control of
atomic energy and, instead, developed its own atomic arsenal. In turn, U.S. President Harry Truman, in February 1950, announced his decision to develop a hydrogen bomb―a weapon a thousand times as powerful as its predecessor. Naturally, the atomic scientists were deeply disturbed by this lurch toward disaster. Appearing on television, Einstein called once more for the creation of a “supra national” government as the only “way out of the impasse.” Until then, he declared, “annihilation beckons.”


Despite the dashing of his hopes for postwar action to end the nuclear menace, Einstein lent his support over the following years to peace, nuclear disarmament, and world government projects. The most important of these ventures occurred in 1955, when Bertrand Russell, like Einstein, a proponent of world federation, conceived the idea of issuing a public statement by a small group of the world’s most eminent scientists about the existential peril nuclear weapons brought to modern war. Asked by Russell for his support, Einstein was delighted to sign the statement and did so in one of his last actions before his death that April. In July, Russell presented the statement to a large meeting in London, packed with representatives of the mass communications media. In the shadow of the Bomb, it read, “we have to learn to think in a new way…Shall we…choose death because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest.”

This Russell-Einstein Manifesto, as it became known, helped trigger a remarkable worldwide uprising against nuclear weapons in the late 1950s and early 1960s, culminating in the world’s first
significant nuclear arms control measures. Furthermore, in later years, it inspired legions of activists and world leaders. Among them was the Soviet Union’s Mikhail Gorbachev, whose “new thinking,” modeled on the Manifesto, brought a dramatic end to the Cold War and fostered substantial nuclear disarmament. The Manifesto thus provided an appropriate conclusion to Einstein’s unremitting campaign to save the world from nuclear destruction.

The Atomic Bomb: Albert Einstein’s Letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt
Digital History ID 1184
Author: Albert Einstein
Date:1939
https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textb
ook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=1184

Annotation: In August 1939, six months after physicists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman had demonstrated the process of nuclear fission, Albert Einstein, at the urging of physicist Leo Szilard, wrote to President Franklin D. Roosevelt about the danger of Nazi Germany creating an atomic bomb.


Document: Sir:
Some recent work by E. Fermi and L. Szilard, which has been communicated to me in manuscript, leads me to expect that the element uranium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the immediate future. Certain aspects of the situation which has arisen seem to call for
watchfulness and, if necessary, quick action on the part of the Administration. I believe therefore that it is my duty to bring to your attention the following facts and recommendations:


In the course of the last four months it has been made probable-through the work of Joliot in France as well as Fermi and Szilard in America-that it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium, by which vast amount of power and large quantities of new radium like elements would be generated. Now it appears almost certain that this could be
achieved in the immediate future.

This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs, and it is conceivable-though much less certain-that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy the whole port
together with some of the surrounding territory. However, such bombs might very well prove to be too heavy for transportation by air.


The United States has only very poor ores of uranium in moderate quantities. There is some good ore in Canada and the former Czechoslovakia, while the most important source of uranium is the Belgian Congo.


Yours very truly,

In view of this situation you may think it desirable to have some permanent contact maintained between the Administration and the group of physicists working on chain reactions in America. One possible way of achieving this might be for you to entrust with this task a person who has your confidence and who could perhaps serve in an inofficial capacity. His task might comprise the following:


a) to approach Government Departments, keep them informed of the further development, and put forward recommendations for Government action, giving particular attention to the problem of securing a supply of uranium ore for the United States:


b) to speed up the experimental work, which is at present being carried on within the limits of the budgets of University laboratories, by providing funds, if such funds be required, through his contacts with private persons who are willing to make contributions for this cause, and perhaps also by obtaining the co-operation of industrial laboratories which have the necessary equipment.


I understand that Germany has actually stopped the sale of uranium from the Czechoslovakian mines which she has taken over. That she should have taken such early action might perhaps be understood on the ground that the son of the German Under-Secretary of State, von Weizsacker, is attached to the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institute in Berlin where some of the American work on uranium is now being repeated.
[signed] Albert Einstein


The secret of the bomb should be committed to a World Government, and the United States should immediately announce its readiness to give it to a World Government. This government should be
founded by the United States, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain —the only three powers with great military strength. All three of them should commit to this World Government all of their military strength.


The fact that there are only three nations with great military power should make it easier rather than harder to establish such a government . . . Since I do not foresee that atomic energy is to be a great boon for a long time, I have to say that for the present it is a menace. Perhaps it is well that it should
be. It may intimidate the human race into bringing order into its international affairs, which, without the pressure of fear, it would not do.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/11/einstein-on-the-atomicbomb/656626/

Russell-Einstein Manifesto (London, July 9, 1955)
https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/keydocuments/russell-einstein-manifesto/

In the tragic situation which confronts humanity, we feel that scientists should assemble in conference to appraise the perils that have arisen as a result of the development of weapons of mass destruction, and to discuss a resolution in the spirit of the appended draft. We are speaking on this occasion, not as members of this or that nation, continent, or creed, but as human beings, members of the species Man, whose continued existence is in doubt. The world is full of conflicts; and overshadowing all minor conflicts, the titanic struggle between Communism and anti-Communism.

Almost everybody who is politically conscious has strong feelings about one or more of these issues; but we want you, if you can, to set aside such feelings and consider yourselves only as members of a
biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire.

We shall try to say no single word which should appeal to one group rather than to another. All, equally, are in peril, and, if the peril is understood, there is hope that they may collectively avert it.
We have to learn to think in a new way. We have to learn to ask ourselves, not what steps can be taken to give military victory to whatever group we prefer, for there no longer are such steps; the question we have to ask ourselves is: what steps can be taken to prevent a military contest of which the issue must be disastrous to all parties?


The general public, and even many men in positions of authority, have not realized what would be involved in a war with nuclear bombs. The general public still thinks in terms of the obliteration of cities. It is understood that the new bombs are more powerful than the old, and that, while one A
bomb could obliterate Hiroshima, one H bomb could obliterate the largest cities, such as London, New York, and Moscow. No doubt, in an H-bomb war, great cities would be obliterated. But this is one of the minor disasters that would have to be faced. If everybody in London, New York, and Moscow were exterminated, the world might, in the course of a few centuries, recover from the blow. But we now know, especially since the Bikini test, that nuclear bombs can gradually spread destruction over a very much wider area than had been supposed.


It is stated on very good authority that a bomb can now be manufactured which will be 2,500 times as powerful as that which destroyed Hiroshima. Such a bomb, if exploded near the ground or under water, sends radio-active particles into the upper air. They sink gradually and reach the surface of the earth in the form of a deadly dust or rain. It was this dust which infected the Japanese fishermen and their catch of fish. No one knows how widely such lethal radio-active particles might be diffused, but
the best authorities are unanimous in saying that a war with H-bombs might possibly put an end tothe human race. It is feared that if many H-bombs are used there will be universal death, sudden only for a minority, but for the majority a slow torture of disease and disintegration.


Many warnings have been uttered by eminent men of science and by authorities in and both sides would set to work to military strategy. None of them will say that the worst results are certain. What they do say is that these results are possible, and no one can be sure that they will not be realized. We have not yet found that the views of experts on this question depend in any degree upon their politics or prejudices. They depend only, so far as our researches have revealed, upon the extent of the
particular expert’s knowledge. We have found that the men who know most are the most gloomy.

Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war. The abolition of war will demand is tasteful limitations of national sovereignty. But what perhaps impedes understanding of the situation more than anything else is that the term “mankind” feels vague and abstract. People scarcely realize in imagination that the danger is to themselves and their children and their grandchildren, and not only to a dimly apprehended humanity. They can scarcely bring themselves to grasp that they, individually, and those whom they love are in imminent danger of perishing agonizingly. And so they hope that perhaps
war may be allowed to continue provided modern weapons are prohibited. This hope is illusory. Whatever agreements not to use H-bombs had been reached in time of peace, they would no
longer be considered binding in time of war, manufacture H-bombs as soon as war broke out, for, if one side manufactured the bombs and the other did not, the side that manufactured them would inevitably be victorious.

Although an agreement to renounce nuclear weapons as part of a general reduction of armaments would not afford an ultimate solution, it would serve certain important purposes. First, any agreement between East and West is to the good in so far as it tends to diminish tension. Second, the abolition of thermo-nuclear weapons, if each side believed that the other had carried it out sincerely, would lessen the fear of a sudden attack in the style of Pearl Harbor, which at present keeps both sides in a state of nervous apprehension. We should, therefore, welcome such an agreement though only as a first step.

Most of us are not neutral in feeling, but, as human beings, we have to remember that, if the issues between East and West are to be decided in any manner that can give any possible satisfaction to anybody, whether Communist or anti-Communist, whether Asian or European or American, whether White or Black, then these issues must not be decided by war. We should wish this to be understood, both in the East and in the West.

There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.

Resolution:
We invite this Congress, and through it the scientists of the world and the general public, to subscribe to the following resolution: “In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will
certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them.”

The Exploitation of Enslaved Women During The 18th Century Colonial America

The Exploitation of Enslaved Women During The 18th Century Colonial America

Logan Stovall

Logan Stovall is an eighth grade student at Montclair Kimberley Academy in Montclair, NJ

The 18th century represents a dark period in American history when the institution of slavery thrived, and the exploitation of enslaved Black women flourished. The cruel realities endured by Black women during this time were not only a consequence of their enslavement but were magnified by both their race and gender, perpetuating a cycle of inequality and suffering. Beyond the physical captivity, these women endured a complex oppression that not only involved grueling labor but also made them victims of sexual violence. The harsh reality of this oppression becomes evident when one reflects on how the clothing worn by enslaved Black women served as a physical manifestation of their fragile existence. The clothes they wore were not just rags or pieces of fabric used to cover their bodies; they represented a system that dehumanized and abused them.  During the 18th century, an enslaved Black woman’s gender and race primarily affected the way she lived and thrived in an illiberal society. Understanding the exploitation of enslaved Black women during the American colonial era requires a closer look into the sweat of their daily labor, the sexual abuse they endured, and the clothing they wore that bound them to such a harsh life.

However, before any analysis regarding the exploitation of enslaved Black women is made, one must first consider that the racial stereotypes and discriminatory practices against enslaved Black women during the colonial era were the underlying causes of their mistreatment. The widely accepted racist ideas of Antebellum white slaveholders led them to think of their enslaved people as both biologically and culturally inferior. Due to their understanding of the social hierarchy at this time, slaveholders often whipped and physically mistreated enslaved women under their supervision.[i] In addition to the racist beliefs they held, slaveholders also created various stereotypes about enslaved Black women. One such popular stereotype was the “Mammy” caricature. The “mammy caricature” depicted enslaved Black women as enjoying their servitude, being physically unattractive, and only fit to be domestic workers.[ii]

In contrast to the “mammy caricature”, slave owners also created a more promiscuous stereotype of enslaved Black women: the “Jezebel” figure. The Jezebel caricature was used during slavery to justify a slaveholder’s objectification and sexual exploitation of enslaved Black women.[iii] The Mammy and Jezebel caricatures, along with various other derogatory stereotypes that plagued enslaved Black women, heavily influenced how the rest of the White population during the Antebellum period perceived and treated Black women. Sadly, these caricatures endured for decades even after colonial times.

With racial stereotyping forming the underlying cause of discrimination against Black women, a significant amount of White slave masters often subjected Black women to harsh labor conditions. Enslaved women were often forced to work in the fields from sunrise to sunset where they endured physical and emotional abuse. On larger farms and plantations, for example, women were forced to perform tasks like hoeing and ditching entire fields. These were the most exhausting and uninteresting forms of fieldwork.[iv] Slaveholders also held enslaved women accountable for cleaning and tidying communal areas like stables and expected them to spread manure as a fertilizer.[v] Moreover, slave owners frequently questioned how much time off enslaved women needed to adequately take care of their families and children. When not offered any downtime by their slaveholders, enslaved women had to bring their children with them to the fields and strap them to their backs as they worked tirelessly. [vi]

Black women’s exploitation extended beyond the fields. In many instances, the labor performed by enslaved women was prolonged and complicated. For example, many enslaved women began to work for slaveholders at a very young age. There was little free time for enslaved women to rest, given that most women worked for their master five to six days a week. This included keeping the owner’s homes clean, cooking food, and washing their clothes.[vii] In short, enslaved women were expected to work tirelessly, both in the fields and in the house. The slave masters did not care about  the well-being of their enslaved women and exploited them for their free labor.  For Black women, slavery in the southern colonies meant long days performing menial, exhausting tasks, sometimes in the hot, baking sun.  After working prolonged, hard days for the slaveholders, these women had to care for their own families, which was often a physical and mental challenge due to the absence of time to rest. When enslaved women did not meet the expectations for their work by their enslaver, they would oftentimes be taken advantage of sexually or physically assaulted as a form of punishment. Unfortunately, this possibility became a reality for many enslaved Black women.

Indeed, as the slave population in America grew larger through the importation of slaves, enslaved Black women primarily as reproducers of a valuable labor force rather than merely a part of the labor force.  The sexual exploitation of Black women extended from sexual gratification of their White slaveholders to include reproducing offspring that would expand their workforce. Though slave owners valued enslaved women as laborers, they were also well aware that female slaves could be used to successfully reproduce new labor (more children who would grow up to be slaves) by continuing their role as full-time mothers.[viii] This presented slaveholders with a dilemma because West African women usually had some prior agricultural experience (like growing tobacco and rice) which could be used to the slaveholders’ benefit.[ix]

In 1756, Reverend Peter Fontaine of Charles City County, Virginia, stated that Black females were “far more prolific than…white women.” This form of racial stereotyping made enslaved women extremely vulnerable to physical assault.[x] Many white enslavers raped Black women for sexual pleasure, as well as for their ability to produce children who would become slaves and ultimately increase their wealth. Instead of perpetuating the stereotype that all enslaved Black women were unattractive and were only fit to be domestic workers, they now were feeding into the stereotype that Black women were promiscuous and desired for the reproduction of enslaved children who could be used or sold. This form of physical exploitation was pervasive throughout the Antebellum South.

In addition to labor and sexual exploitation, clothing was another form of exploitation that enslaved Black women were forced to endure. While these women often knitted or otherwise made beautiful garments for White women and their children, the fabrics that enslaved Black women wore themselves offered minimal protection from the weather and had to be inexpensive and easy to make.[xi] Their clothing was so cheap in quality that it often disassembled or tore within weeks. As a result, enslaved women often borrowed clothing from one another or even stole clothing from the slave master’s house. They did this to give themselves or their families warm, sustainable garments, and sometimes, to blend into the free population. Oppressors often made enslaved women wear poor, rugged clothing to symbolize a Black woman’s low status and to cultivate racial stereotypes depicting Black women as inferior. Indeed, one reason why enslaved women wanted to steal White people’s clothes was because they wanted to appear as free Black people with increased status.[xii]

Despite being subjected to clothing exploitation, many enslaved women nevertheless tried to continue to be connected to their former culture by wearing West African garments. Enslaved women working in slaveholders’ homes were expected to cover their heads with lightweight white caps, which other members of the household also wore. However, to continue the West African tradition, many enslaved women also chose to wear brightly colored head wraps that surrounded their heads and were secured with knots and tucking’s.[xiii] They also sometimes wore cowrie shells in their hair; which were very expensive and far more valuable than money. These cowrie shells also appeared in spirit bundles as parts of clothing and jewelry, implying their use as amulets.

Black women not only wore these West African garments to remain connected with their former cultures, but they also wore the garments as a form of resistance against enslavement.[xiv] Enslaved Black women despised their status as slaves but were able to feel proud about and connect to their former West African heritage when they wore their cultural headdresses. The significance of these garments likely gave Black women a feeling of strength and empowerment as they were emotionally frightened by the abuse they faced from their enslavers.

During the 18th century, the exploitation of enslaved Black women through their gender and race greatly influenced the way they survived and flourished in a prejudicial society. Enslaved women were exploited in numerous ways and were expected to address the needs of others to the detriment of caring for themselves and their families. They worked extremely hard, both in the house and in the field, and did whatever they were commanded to do withstanding both physical and emotional abuse. They were often raped through their shabby clothing and physically assaulted by their master’s for punishment, as a means to increase their profit in human labor. But still, an enslaved Black woman was able to overcome these acts of exploitation non-violently and create her own peace by wearing and displaying garments that were distinct to her West African culture. Given all that these enslaved women endured, we should respect and admire their ability to overcome such incredible hardships.

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Smithsonian, and National Museum of African American History and Culture. “Cowrie Shells and Trade Power.” National Museum of African American History and Culture. Accessed November 15, 2023. https://nmaahc.si.edu/cowrie-shells-and-trade-power#:~:text=Europeans%20in%20the%2016th%20century,at%20their%20use%20as%20amulets .

[i] LDHI, “Hidden Voices: Enslaved Women in the Lowcountry and U.S. South,” LDHI, accessed November 27, 2023, https://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/hidden-voices/enslaved-womens-work.

[ii] LDHI, “Hidden Voices,” LDHI.

[iii] LDHI, “Hidden Voices,” LDHI.

[iv] Jennifer Hallam, “The Slave Experience: Men, Women & Gender,” Slavery and the Making of America, accessed November 27, 2023, https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/slavery/experience/gender/history.html.

[v] Emily West, Enslaved Women in America: From Colonial Times to Emancipation (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2017), 29

[vi] West, Enslaved Women, 28.

[vii] LDHI, “Hidden Voices,” LDHI.

[viii] West, Enslaved Women, 28.

[ix] West, Enslaved Women, 29

[x] West, Enslaved Women, 31.

[xi] Daina Ramey Berry and Deleso A. Alford, eds., Enslaved Women in America: An Encyclopedia enhanced credo edition ed. (Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood, 2012), 34 and 35.

[xii] Katherine Gruber, ed., “Clothing and Adornment of Enslaved People in Virginia,” Encyclopedia Virginia, last modified December 7, 2020, accessed November 5, 2023, https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/slave-clothing-and-adornment-in-virginia/.

[xiii] Gruber, “Clothing and Adornment,” Encyclopedia Virginia.

[xiv] Smithsonian and National Museum of African American History and Culture, “Cowrie Shells and Trade Power,” National Museum of African American History and Culture, accessed November 15, 2023, https://nmaahc.si.edu/cowrie-shells-and-trade-power#:~:text=Europeans%20in%20the%2016th%20century,at%20their%20use%20as%20amulets.

Secondary Sources:

Berry, Daina Ramey, and Deleso A. Alford, eds. Enslaved Women in America: An Encyclopedia. Enhanced Credo edition ed. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood, 2012.

Gruber , Katherine, ed. “Clothing and Adornment of Enslaved People in Virginia.” Encyclopedia Virginia. Last modified December 7, 2020. Accessed November 5, 2023. https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/slave-clothing-and-adornment-in-virginia/.

Hallam, Jennifer. “The Slave Experience: Men, Women & Gender.” Slavery and the Making of America. Accessed November 27, 2023. https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/slavery/experience/gender/history.html.

LDHI. “Hidden Voices: Enslaved Women in the Lowcountry and U.S. South.” LDHI. Accessed November 27, 2023. https://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/hidden-voices/enslaved-womens-work.

West, Emily. Enslaved Women in America: From Colonial Times to Emancipation. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2017.