Category: Research & Commentary

Local History: The American Revolution in the Finger Lakes

Local History: The American Revolution in the Finger Lakes

Reprinted from New York Almanack based on an essay from the National Park Service’s Finger Lakes National Heritage Area Feasibility Study. https://www.newyorkalmanack.com/2023/09/american-revolution-finger-lakes/#more-98398

Initially, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy (Iroquois) claimed neutrality during the conflict between Britain and the colonists, seeing the disagreement as a civil war and valuing loyalty to their families and to their lands above all else. When the political discontent erupted into the American Revolutionary War, the member nations of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy split their support between the British and newly formed American forces. The majority of nations and individual members supported the British under the belief that those nations would be more likely to keep their relative independence and land under continued British rule, while the Oneida and Tuscarora backed the American Colonists.

As with many American families, alliance was not clear-cut, and in some cases, allegiance was split on a person-by-person basis, which destabilized the clan-based society. What had started as a European civil war on North American soil soon turned the Confederacy against itself, undermining the social unity and political stability that the Six Nations had enjoyed for centuries. In 1778, Loyalists and members of the British-backed nations participated in destructive raids that crippled Continental forces and destroyed frontier settlements in New York and Pennsylvania. Fearing that the New York frontier would be pushed east to the Hudson River if divisive action was not taken, General George Washington ordered General John Sullivan to lead four brigades of men — a sizable portion of the Continental Army — on a scorched-earth campaign that would limit the Haudenosaunee’s ability to attack in the future.

Washington tasked Sullivan with launching a terror campaign to destroy the food supply of the Cayuga and Seneca Nations in the heart of the Finger Lakes and to reduce the Cayuga and Seneca’s forces. Smaller expeditions were tasked with destroying Seneca settlements in western Pennsylvania and Onondaga settlements in Central New York. General Sullivan and his second-in-command, General James Clinton met in Tioga near the Pennsylvania-New York border and began their campaign by destroying the Munsee Delaware settlement of Chemung in present-day Chemung County. Instead of deploying the guerrilla tactics that long served Haudenosaunee well, Confederacy war chiefs and the meager British forces available to counterattack decided to retaliate with a standing battle.

The Battle of Newtown on August 29, 1779, ended in a British and Indian retreat and destroyed morale for the British-backing Confederacy Nations, who now chose to proactively flee to other nearby settlements. For the next two weeks, Sullivan’s forces moved from Seneca Lake to Canandaigua Lake to Chenussio — a Seneca stronghold near present-day Leicester in Livingston County that included 128 multi-family longhouses. By the end of the campaign, Sullivan’s men destroyed more than 40 Haudenosaunee villages, at least 160,000 bushels of corn, countless pounds of stored vegetables and fruit, and only suffered 40 casualties.

While the American forces did not take Haudenosaunee prisoners, the Sullivan Campaign destroyed the nations’ capacity to wage war. By the end of September 1779, more than 5,000 nation members had arrived at the British Fort Niagara expecting food, clothing, and shelter in the face of their catastrophic losses at the hands of the Americans. Instead of lessening the threat to frontier settlements, the Sullivan Campaign increased the animosity of Natives and British alike, laying the ground for fierce fighting within the New York frontier of British-backed Indian raids during the 1780s.

Local History: The Great Depression in New York City

Local History: The Great Depression in New York City

Reprinted from New York Almanack based on an article from the Blackwell’s Almanac, a publication of the Roosevelt Island Historical Society. https://www.newyorkalmanack.com/2023/09/great-depression-in-new-york-city/

As the 1920s advanced, the economy soared. But with that dramatic expansion came irrational exuberance and unchecked speculation: stock prices reached levels that had no basis in reality; margin purchases were rampant; banks handed out loans lavishly and imprudently; and giddy product production resulted in a vast oversupply of goods. On Tuesday, October 29, 1929, it all came crashing down. This is the story of the Great Depression in New York City.

After an erratic week in which stocks, including blue chip stocks, mostly declined, waves of panicked investors sold off their shares, driving the market ever downward. On that one day, now known as Black Tuesday, the market lost $14 billion in value; over the ensuing week, it erased another $30 billion — eventually suffering the staggering loss of 89.2% over its peak in early September.

Bank failures and business bankruptcies followed, presaging a decade of unprecedented economic hardship. New York City came to be viewed as “the symbolic capital of the Depression, the financial capital where it had started, and the place where its effects were most keenly felt.” Many residents lost their savings, their jobs and their homes. By 1932, half the city’s factories were closed, almost one-third of New Yorkers were unemployed (vs. one-quarter of the rest of the country and over one-half in Harlem), and some 1.6 million residents were on relief. Those who remained employed and therefore ineligible for the dole were often forced to take severe pay cuts.

At the time of the crash, under Mayor Jimmy Walker, there were few centralized municipal services that could be tapped for jobs or rescue: there were no central traffic, highway or public works department; street-cleaning was a function of individual boroughs; there were five separate parks departments; unemployment insurance was non-existent and, in the beginning, the Department of Public Welfare had no funds available. New York City, like most cities, was dependent on charitable institutions and alms houses to succor the poor, the homeless and the hungry. Yet these organizations publicly admitted their inability to meet the heavy demands being made of them.

In March 1930, 35,000 out-of-work protesters marched toward City Hall as part of International Unemployment Day organized by the Communist Party. They were met with violent attack by the New York Police Department. Several years later, it was the Black and Latino population’s turn. In addition to being jobless, they had to deal with blatant discrimination, including exclusion from more than 24 of the city’s trade unions and rejection at public work sites. With tempers boiling, a furious Harlem mob vandalized white-owned stores. Some 4,000 individuals took part, inflicting over $2 million in damages, resulting in 30 hospitalizations and several deaths. While an investigation into discriminatory practices was launched, little came of it and the situation continued unchanged.

Riots in New York flared and petered out. What didn’t peter out was the sheer fight to survive – for the hungry, the need to eat, and for the homeless, the need to find shelter. Breadlines and soup kitchens were one aspect of the fight. People lined up daily in long, snaking queues outside bakeries or pantries to score a ration of day-old bread or thin soup. To hide their humiliation from neighbors, many would leave their homes dressed up as if they were going to work. Once on the line, they just stared straight ahead, refusing to interact with their downtrodden peers — in fact, refusing to admit to themselves where they were.

Thousands evicted from their homes took to living in shacks in parks or backstreets. As more and more homeless joined these camps, they grew into little shantytowns nicknamed “Hoovervilles” in condemnation of the inactivity of President Herbert Hoover to remedy the situation. The largest such settlement was located next to the Reservoir in Central Park. Ironically, many of the Hooverville men were construction tradesmen — bricklayers, stone masons, carpenters — who had helped build the luxury buildings surrounding the park and who now set to building their own shanties out of scavenged materials. Despite the skill and artistry with which these abodes were constructed, they were illegal; so both local and federal authorities regularly raided the settlements, destroying the shelters and scattering their inhabitants.

Conditions were dire and pleading letters from city officials and residents alike piled up in the Mayor’s office. Finally, in October 1930, Jimmy Walker created the Mayor’s Official Committee for Relief of the Unemployed and Needy, and things started to happen. By November there was:

  • a City Employment Bureau, which obviated the problem of job-seekers having to pay private employment firms;
  • a stop to the eviction of poor families for rent arrears;
  • a large-scale investigation by the police to determine needs in all 77 precincts;
  • a windfall of contributions to unemployment relief from police and other city employees;
  • an expansion of city lodging facilities; and
  • a special Cabinet Committee to deal with questions of food, clothing and rent.

In the first eight months of its existence, the Committee raised some $1.6 million. Direct relief funds were paid to 11,000 families, while 18,000 tons of food, including Kosher food, was given out to almost a million families. (Night patrolmen spent a good part of their shifts packing and wrapping these food parcels.) The money also paid for coal, shoes and clothing. Another city agency, the Welfare Council, disbursed over $12 million for relief and emergency work wages. These funds too came from voluntary donations. Private citizens contributed; sports teams organized exhibition matches (for example Notre Dame football vs. the New York Giants); and Broadway staged special benefit performances.

For a while spirits rose and hopes of normalcy returned. But by April 1931, it was clear that private welfare measures and one-off City actions could not keep up with the growing distress. Help was needed and it came from a now-familiar individual — Franklin Delano Roosevelt, not as president, but as Governor of New York State. Despairing of any constructive efforts by the Federal government, Roosevelt, unique among governors to accept liability for his constituents, declared: “upon the State falls the duty of protecting and sustaining those of its citizens who, through no fault of their own, find themselves… unable to maintain life.” By August 1931, foreshadowing elements of the future New Deal, a robust public works program was in effect to reduce unemployment. State income tax was increased by 50% and the Comptroller authorized the issuance of revenue bonds at both the state and local level. Some would say that New York City was in better shape than many other cities. Yet it was still on the critical list.

It wasn’t until 1932, when Walker resigned amid an investigation for graft and Herbert Hoover was voted out of office, that the way was paved for major innovations. Newly elected President FDR embodied the optimism of his catchy campaign song, “Happy Days Are Here Again.” Within a couple of years, he promulgated the historic, blockbuster New Deal, and working in close partnership with newly elected Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, transformed both the country and the City. The “New Deal” New York — the most populous American city with almost seven million residents — was the single greatest beneficiary of the New Deal’s Works Project Administration (WPA) in the entire U.S.

Under the WPA, more than a dozen federal agencies paid for the labor and materials to support hundreds of projects designed to put New Yorkers back to work. The New Deal built housing, schools, courthouses, roads, hospitals and health clinics, libraries, post offices, bridges, and highways. It was the impetus and money behind the Triborough Bridge, LaGuardia Airport, the Lincoln Tunnel, and the East River (FDR) Drive. It also gave the city an extensive system of recreational facilities, including swimming pools, playgrounds, ball fields, hiking trails, and parks.

But construction wasn’t its only recipient. FDR, Eleanor Roosevelt and Harry Hopkins (head of the WPA) recognized that funding culture and practitioners of culture was just as important. (“Hell, they’ve got to eat just like other people,” Hopkins is reported to have said). So, jobless artists, designers, craftsmen and photographers were hired to embellish public spaces with murals and sculptures, while posters publicized other WPA programs, and illustrations, photos and crafts found their way into newly opened galleries and respected museums. Playwrights, writers, actors and singers were paid to create theatrical shows — even Yiddish and German theater. And out-of-work musicians and composers of all stripes (classical, folk, jazz, light opera) were employed to give concerts indoors and out. At the same time, New Deal legislation began strengthening workers’ rights by allowing them to organize, earn a minimum wage and, as discussed below, obtain unemployment compensation and sign up for Social Security.

When Frances Perkins, a fierce advocate of social justice and economic security, was tapped as Secretary of Labor, she brought a list of proposals for FDR’s approval. Among them were unemployment insurance and what she called “old age” insurance. Both of them knew that the development of such programs would encounter many obstacles, not the least of which would be challenges to their constitutionality.

Be that as it may, in 1935, the enabling legislation passed overwhelmingly and FDR authorized the establishment of unemployment insurance and Social Security. And in 1937, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of levying taxes to fund both programs. IBM won the bid to create the largest and most complicated data processing system ever built. It even designed novel equipment for the unprecedented task of enrolling some 30 million employers and workers, and registering their contributions into the Social Security system for later retirement payouts. According to Perkins, “Nothing [other than the Great Depression] would have bumped the American people into a social security system except something so shocking, so terrifying, as that depression.”

Above and beyond the homeless, 30% of the City’s housed population lived in deteriorating, squalid tenements. There were other slums deemed “unfit for human habitation.” The National Recovery Act of 1933 authorized the clearance of slums, repair of salvageable structures and construction of low cost housing. And the country’s very first “public housing” — a previously unheard of concept — was built in New York under the newly formed New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). The first three public projects were: First Houses, between First Avenue and Avenue A, from Second to Third Streets in the East Village; Williamsburg Houses, Scholes to Maujer Streets, Leonard Street to Bushwick Avenue, Williamsburg, Brooklyn, Harlem River Houses, Seventh Avenue to Macombs Place, Harlem River Drive, and 151st to 153rd Streets in Harlem. Their public ownership represented a radical step that both created jobs and sheltered people in up-to-date homes. By 1941, nine such projects had been developed in New York City, providing 11,570 units. They are all still with us and the first three have been designated New York City landmarks.

The sheer range of educational programs implemented by the New Deal was remarkable. From kindergarten to college (for example, Hunter College, Brooklyn College, the Merchant Marine Academy in the Bronx), new buildings expanded the student population. Thousands of teachers were hired, and adjunctive programs such as preschool, work-study programs for young people, and vocational classes for adults were instituted. Community education classes were held in libraries, settlement houses, local facilities, trade union halls, park buildings, and even on the radio. There was no end to what a willing individual could learn, including driving, English, home arts, visual arts and new vocational skills. Much of the funds secured for New York City can be directly attributed to LaGuardia’s force of personality. According to Roosevelt, he would show up in Washington “and tell me a sad story. The tears run down my cheeks and tears run down his cheeks and the first thing I know he has wrangled another $50,000,000.”

For many City residents, lack of work had devolved into declining health, malnutrition, and increasing rates of infant mortality. New Deal funding produced new hospitals and neighborhood health clinics. The latter were often located in or near public housing developments and provided free medical and dental care, including immunizations, for all ages. The clinic doctors and nurses also visited homes and schools, and gave classes in healthy living. The clinics even sent housekeepers to help out where parents were ill. Access to regular health care was a first for many New Yorkers and its effects were incontestable: decreased infant mortality, a drop in serious illness and a decline in the suicides that so darkened the Depression years. It took entry into the Second World War to completely obliterate the Great Depression. Tens of thousands of men went off to battle, while the rest of the country was galvanized into full employment by the war effort. Still, the New Deal, with its plethora of alphabet soup subsidiaries, was nothing short of miraculous. It carried the country and New York City through one of the most challenging eras in our history. It transformed the relationship of government to its citizens — embodying a dynamism that has strengthened New York through the years and continues to empower it to this day

The Trumpist Supreme Court: Off the Rails of Democracy

The Trumpist Supreme Court: Off the Rails of Democracy

Norman Markowitz

Rage and confusion over the recent Supreme Court decisions is sweeping the nation. The Roe v. Wade decision (1973) establishing women’s reproductive rights has been repealed. A New York State law prohibiting the carrying of concealed guns, passed in response to escalating shootings and deaths, has been declared unconstitutional. The court has sharply reduced the regulatory powers of the Environmental Protection Agency, established in 1970. This comes after decades of scientific research showing the dangers of climate change and global warming.

What is the logic behind this? There is a standard used in philosophy which should be applied to the Court’s recent decisions. Statements, or assertions, should be judged by their “validity and reliability.” Are they true statements in terms of logic, reason, and consistency (validity)? Is the evidence (facts, data) used to support the statement true (reliability)? I will use this standard to look at the Court’s rulings.

The Court doctrine of original intent is not valid

The Constitution was a political compromise among merchant capitalists, landlords, slaveholders, creditors, and debtors on a variety of issues — slavery, the payment of debts, and the regulation of trade. It cannot be interpreted like the Jewish Torah, the Christian Gospels, or the Muslim Koran — sacred, unchanging texts. And the Supreme Court has no right to interpret legislation passed by Congress or the directives of the president, since the Constitution did not give the Court the power of judicial review.

However, that power was in effect taken by the Court in 1805 in a brilliant maneuver by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. The court has maintained the power of judicial review for over two centuries, often adjusting its interpretations to major changes in society.

The representatives who drafted and approved the Constitution, much less the former colonies/states which ratified it, all rejected the principle of universal suffrage. The leaders of the revolution associated the term “democracy” with mob rule. Property qualifications for voting in federal elections was the established rule. If one took the original intent seriously, the Court would have the power to establish property qualifications for voting, since there is no constitutional amendment abolishing property qualifications for voting, just as there are constitutional amendments abolishing slavery and giving women the right to vote.

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions are not reliable

When the Constitution was drafted and enacted, English common law defined life as existing when a fetus could be felt moving or kicking in the mother’s womb, called “quickening.” If the mother claimed that the fetus had been aborted before this “quickening,” she was held harmless. Laws banning abortion and contraception, and pamphlets and manuals about both in the mails, were enacted at the state and federal levels in the late 19th century as part of a movement led by the Reverend Anthony Comstock, organizer of the Society for the Suppression of Vice. These laws were part of a backlash against the growing movement for women’s civil rights, equality under the law, and the right to vote. The women’s rights/women’s liberation movement of the 1960s, following in the path of the civil rights/Black liberation movement, led the successful campaign to repeal these laws, which finally resulted in Roe v. Wade, a century after they began to be enacted.

The Court’s decision invalidating a New York state law prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns is also unreliable. Here the evidence is direct and incontrovertible. The Second Amendment to the Constitution states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” But in English law and in colonial theory and practice, as Joshua Zeitz in an excellent analysis argues, the amendment never meant that all citizens had the right to bear arms. This right “was inextricably connected to the citizen’s obligation to serve in a militia and to protect the community from enemies domestic and foreign.” And “well-regulated militias” meant militias constituted by legitimate authorities, not private groups like the later KKK, Nazi storm troopers, or self-proclaimed state militias.

Zeitz makes the important point that James Madison, a major author of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, had earlier drafted legislation in the Virginia legislature barring individuals from openly carrying and displaying guns, like the present New York State law that the Court has declared unconstitutional. The purpose of the amendment was clearly to prevent a government from doing what Britain did in the aftermath of the Boston Tea Party: disperse the colonial legislature and its militia and in effect declare martial law. Also, the guns in question fired single “balls,” not bullets, and had very limited range and accuracy. Today’s AR-15 rifles, for example, used in recent mass shootings, have greater fire power and accuracy than the assault rifles used during World War II and the Korean War.

The Supreme Court’s other decisions on the regulatory powers of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the right of a school employee to engage in religious action, are neither valid in their relationship to the Constitution nor reliable in regard to their factual assertions. They are a repudiation of more than a century of law and policy of the federal regulation of industry and the post–Civil War 14th Amendment defending the civil rights and liberties of citizens from their infringement and/or denial by the states.

The revival of “original intent”

The Supreme Court and the judiciary have been the most conservative section of the federal government throughout most of U.S. history. The fact that the justices are not elected and can be removed only through impeachment, resignation, or death explains this.

The courts have in the past and once more in recent decades used the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to declare unconstitutional legislation that regulates business and promotes social welfare. Beginning in the 1880s, they declared corporations “persons” to give them 14th Amendment protections from regulation and taxation by the states, and have over and over again used the 10th Amendment to support states’ rights.

The political nature of the Supreme Court from its very inception is indisputable. The Court, for example, represented the interests of the slaveholder class from the administration of George Washington (himself a slaveholder) up to the Civil War. But as the nation changed, industrial capitalism grew, and the anti-slavery movement became broader, the demands of the slaveholders and the actions of their Supreme Court became more extreme. The Dred Scott decision (1857), which in effect repealed the earlier restrictions on the expansion of slavery in the Western territories, supporting legislation advanced by pro-slavery congresses and presidents, reflected this development. As an afterthought, the slaveholder-dominated Supreme Court claimed that the authors of the Constitution had not intended any Black person, slave or free, to have the rights of an American citizen, an expression of “original intent” which both enraged and strengthened the increasingly militant anti-slavery national coalition.

With the defeat of the Confederacy, slavery was abolished through constitutional amendment in all the states, and the former Confederate states now under Union army occupation had to ratify the amendment to regain admission to the Union. With the support of President Andrew Johnson, a pro-Union former senator from Tennessee (and himself a former slaveholder), they did so while enacting labor codes that in effect declared the former slaves to be unemployed vagrants and returned them to the “custodial care” of their former owners.

In response to these acts, Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner, and other militant anti-slavery leaders of the Republican Party proposed a second constitutional amendment to establish national citizenship and protect the civil rights and civil liberties of the nearly 4 million former slaves. They did this for two reasons. They feared that President Johnson would veto the civil rights legislation they were advancing in Congress. And even if they were able to override his veto, they feared that the Supreme Court, where the now former slaveholders remained a powerful force, would declare such legislation unconstitutional.

The 14th Amendment establishing national citizenship was passed, followed by the 15th, which extended the right to vote. However, the war was a victory for the industrial capitalists and their banker allies, who within a generation betrayed both the former slaves and the workers and farmers who saw Civil War policies like the Homestead Act and the creation of land grant colleges as advancing their class interests.

The Supreme Court as the defender of unregulated monopoly/finance capital, 1877–1937

The Supreme Court and the federal judiciary in the aftermath of the Civil War fiercely defended the interests of “big business” against organized farmers, workers, state governments, and the federal government. In the 1880s, the Supreme Court in a series of decisions invalidated the civil rights acts of the Reconstruction era and the 14th Amendment’s protection of citizenship rights from state government policies. States were permitted to ignore the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which banned exclusion and discrimination in public accommodations. That protection would only be restored by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after a century of de jure segregation.

In 1896, the Plessy v. Ferguson decision gave states the right to establish segregation by law, using as a cover the principle of “separate but equal” under such laws, although it was clear to everyone that the systematic exclusion of African Americans from public schools, public employment, public transportation, and commercial establishments was crudely unequal. The courts also endorsed state laws which denied the overwhelming majority of Black people the right to vote; the convict lease system, a form of slave labor for prisoners; and state “poll taxes,” which primarily discriminated against poor whites (in most places African Americans had been already disenfranchised).

At the same time, the Court in the 1880s took the 14th Amendment’s defense of the rights of “persons” and applied it to business and corporations, declaring state laws regulating business to be unconstitutional.  At the time the 14th Amendment was proposed and enacted, everyone understood that the “persons” referred to were the 4 million former slaves, no longer under law, but not yet citizens.

But this was just the beginning. An early modest federal income tax (a surcharge on high incomes) was declared unconstitutional in the Pollock case. It negated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890) by declaring that the federal government and the states could only regulate commerce — not manufacture — under the Constitution. In an industrial society, regulation became a farce.

Decades later, a constitutional amendment gave the federal government the right to levy income taxes, and Congress passed legislation that, to a limited extent, regulated trade and restructured the banking system. However, the Court routinely declared unconstitutional state laws protecting the right of workers to organize unions, providing for the health and safety regulation of workplaces, minimum wages, and the 1916 federal law outlawing child labor.

It was not until the Great Depression of the 1930s, which saw the great upsurge of labor with the Communist Party playing a central role, that the New Deal government enacted the most important labor and social welfare legislation since the abolition of slavery and battled to compel the judiciary to accept these major reforms in the interests of the working class and the whole people.

The Supreme Court and government as the protector and defender of the general welfare, 1937–78

The struggle for major judicial reform went back to the late 19th century. It sought to de-emphasize precedence, the “dead hand” of previous decisions, and make the law respond to social changes and realities, to connect the “facts” as they existed in the present with past decisions under the law. Law professor Roscoe Pound and attorney Louis Brandeis were the champions of this approach to law, called “legal realism.” Brandeis especially popularized the doctrine in leading campaigns against corporate monopolistic price fixing and business corruption of public officials, which earned him the name “the People’s Attorney.”

He also developed a legal brief which incorporated social research (the Brandeis brief) in arguing cases. His fame in the early 20th-century Progressive movement led Woodrow Wilson to appoint him to the Supreme Court, where he joined with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes to represent a minority that supported the regulation of industry, social legislation, and the defense of First Amendment civil liberties. Regarding civil liberties, the minority supported freedom of speech, assembly, and association unless, in Holmes’s language, there was a “clear and present danger” to society, and not just a “dangerous tendency” that certain acts might lead to others, which was the conservative position.

In the 1936 elections, Roosevelt campaigned against the old-guard Court and the “economic royalists” whom they represented, reviving the language of the American revolution in his and the New Deal’s sweeping victory. Roosevelt sought to expand the court for every justice over the age of 70, which would have increased its size to 15 justices.

Conservatives fought back, wrapping the Court in the Constitution, attacking his court reorganization plan as “court packing.” In the Court fight, conservative Southern Democrats, including many who had worked behind the scenes against the New Deal like senators Tom Connally of Texas and Walter George of Georgia, along with the vice president, John Nance Garner, turned against Roosevelt. The weakened GOP let the Democrats carry the ball, but it was from this court fight that the informal conservative coalition of Southern Democrats and Republicans began to take shape.

Faced with the attack, the Court, which had four Coolidge/Hoover “Business of America is Business” conservatives, three urban liberals, and two moderate conservatives, shifted. In 1936 the Court had voted 6-3 against the New York minimum wage law. But in 1937 the Court upheld by a vote of 5 to 4 a similar Washington State minimum wage law, ruled in favor of the Wagner Act in the Jones and Laughlin Steel case, and upheld the Social Security Act and unemployment insurance. In all these rulings, Owen Roberts and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes changed their votes to side with Roosevelt.

By the end of 1937, as the old-guard conservatives began to retire, Roosevelt, defeated in the reorganization fight, began to replace them with New Dealers and by the time of the Pearl Harbor attack had forged a New Deal majority. The new Court moved away from the old doctrines of constitutional original intent associated with the corporate-dominated courts of the post–Civil War era toward a view that the Court must change with changing economic and social conditions. Most of all, the Court retreated from its support for business and its defense of the absolute right of freedom of contract. Instead, a law was to be “presumed constitutional” on questions concerning economic power and government regulation — constitutional regulation came to be seen, as one decision put it, as regulation for the “public good.” Economic freedom was no longer the preferred freedom of the court, and economic activity was no longer local and thus not regulatable.

The court also upheld in the Fair Labor Standards Act minimum wages for all citizens, whereas later it vetoed state minimum wage legislation for women, refused to apply the anti-trust laws to unions, and outlawed the sit-down strike in 1939 (NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp.), but in a decision that defended and established peaceful picketing.

At the same time, the Court under New Deal leadership began to develop a new doctrine of preferred freedoms, a doctrine that stressed the need to protect the rights of political dissenters and minorities. In late 1937, the Court declared unconstitutional state laws barring speech and assembly that had been used to convict and imprison Communist Party activists like Angelo Herndon in Georgia, later explicitly defended religious freedom in the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ refusal to swear allegiance to the flag and revived the clear and present danger criteria to protect free speech and assembly. In 1938 the Court, for the first time since the end of Reconstruction, enforced some civil rights claims when it contended that the state of Missouri, by not supplying legal education for Black students had violated the separate but equal doctrine of Plessy (Missouri had offered to pay part of their tuition). While the decision didn’t challenge segregation, it pressured Southern states to increase educational programs under segregation for African Americans.

In the Hague case, the Court declared unconstitutional a local Jersey City ordinance against picketing and demonstrations which had been used for mass arrests — subsequently, this was defined to mean peaceful picketing. In U.S. v. Carolene Products (1938), the majority ruled that the court would no longer apply “heightened scrutiny” to economic legislation; however, in a footnote, Harlan Fiske Stone added that the Court was obligated to apply a “more exacting judicial scrutiny” in cases where laws or regulations contradicted the Bill of Rights or adversely affected minorities. The famous “footnote 4” had important implications for Bill of Rights freedoms for dissenters and minorities.

Following the recession of 1937 and the business-conservative counterattack and backlash of 1938, the New Deal was politically stalemated in Congress and without a clear program. However, by this time, the labor social welfare program was consolidated, at least for the short term. Further, the great fortress of conservative power protected from the electoral process — the Supreme Court — was overthrown.

Democratic President Harry Truman’s appointees set back the Court’s support for civil liberties, especially in the 1950–51 Eugene Dennis case, where the Court upheld the convictions and imprisonment of the leadership of the CPUSA under the 1940 Smith Act. The appointments of Earl Warren as Chief Justice and William Brennan by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, however, greatly strengthened the Court’s progressive majority at a time when Cold War policies moved Congress and the president to the right.

In the Brown decision (1954), the Court declared school segregation unconstitutional. The Supreme Court also in the Yates and other decisions made illegal some of the worst aspects of state and federal anti-Communist policies, leading the FBI to establish its secret Cointelpro program. In the later Miranda and Gideon decisions the Court limited police power to interrogate and hold suspects without formally charging them and reading them their rights, including their right to legal representation or a court-appointed attorney to represent them. The Court also rejected early challenges to the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965. Although Richard Nixon’s election to the presidency and his appointments moved the Court in a more conservative direction over time, Court decisions in the early 1970s effectively abolished the death penalty in the U.S. and, in Roe v. Wade, legalized abortion.

The empire strikes back: The Court’s long march to the right, 1978–present

Even before Ronald Reagan gained the presidency, the Nixon-influenced Court began to move to the right. In 1976, the court gave states the right to reestablish the death penalty (subsequently the death penalty would be established at the federal level in a more extensive way than at the state level). In 1980, the Supreme Court upheld an amendment to the funding of Medicaid in 1976 which barred the use of Medicaid funds for abortions, a cruel blow to the rights of low-income and poor women.

Over the following four decades, a series of decisions chipped away at civil rights and civil liberties; weakened the regulation of commerce, industry, and finance; and removed restrictions on the use of money in elections. The Court’s conservative majority became more militantly reactionary, destroying earlier compromise decisions brokered by conservatives. Donald Trump, who gained the presidency in large part because of the deeply undemocratic nature of U.S. politics, failed to implement his far-right domestic policies, which both large numbers of Americans and people throughout the world saw as “neofascism.” However, his “success” in appointing three Supreme Court judges is now his “legacy,” in that they are doing what he failed to accomplish.

What we can and should do now

First, we must understand that a large majority of the people oppose these decisions, just as in 1857 and 1936 a large majority of the people opposed the Supreme Court’s pro-slavery Dred Scott decision and its decisions declaring New Deal regulatory and social legislation unconstitutional. The Republican Party mobilized opposition to the Dred Scott decision to win the 1858 congressional elections. More than 70 years later, the Democratic Party mobilized opposition to the conservative Court’s decisions to propel Roosevelt to an overwhelming victory in the 1936 national elections. The same kind of united opposition must be organized now. We must point out that the present Court has set the nation back and may continue to block progress regarding immediate issues such as inflation, health care, or the cost of energy and transportation. Were the government to attempt, for example, to establish price controls, create a national public health system, and expand public transportation, the Court would not be on the people’s side.

The trade union movement, all civil rights and women’s rights organizations, and all environmental organizations must mobilize supporters and communities throughout the nation to vote against the Republican senators and congresspeople who over decades have created this judiciary. Such an electoral victory is necessary but not in itself sufficient. Many today are calling for an expansion of the Court. Congress and the president have the power to do that, since the number 9 is not in the Constitution. We should begin to think about a larger expansion of the federal judiciary itself. Since the 1980s, the conservative Federalist Society has advanced the doctrine of original intent as a cover to restore Court rulings opposing federal regulation of business and social welfare legislation. A government committed to restoring what the Court had represented in the New Deal–Great Society era should actively appoint attorneys who support those positions.

Finally, the question of judicial review itself could be formally ended by Congress and the president. As was contended earlier, it is not a part of the Constitution, and there is no evidence that the Constitutional Convention intended it to be established. The Court has acted to strike down and take away from the people major social protections and rights. As such its power of judicial review can and should be taken away from it.

The Evolution of Disability Rights Movements: Great Britain and the United States

The Evolution of Disability Rights Movements: Great Britain and the United States

Joseph Staszak

“Know your limits, but never stop trying to break them,” said Kyle Maynard, a man born with congenital amputation, which means that his arms stopped forming at his elbows and his legs stopped forming at his knees. This however did not stop him from a motivational speaker, best selling author, entrepreneur, award-winning extreme athlete, and the first man to crawl to the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro[1]. The rights of people with disabilities have evolved rapidly over the past hundred years, specifically in the last thirty years, both within the United States and Great Britain. These two movements have similarities connecting the two, but appear to develop independently of one another.

It is important to understand two different things when discussing the history of disability rights and the discourse as a whole. The first is the two different models of disability, one being the medical model of disability and the other being the social model of disability. The medical model contends that individuals with disabilities are broken and that they need to be fixed or cured, whereas this social model contends that individuals with disabilities are not broken but instead handicapped by their environment. An example of the medical model would be certain very dangerous medical procedures such as chelation.[2] Since there is no actual “cure” for autism these medical procedures can cause a lot of damage to the individual that is receiving them. An example of the social model would be if a building does not have a ramp or elevator for an individual who uses a wheelchair. These two models have been used to define “disability” throughout U.S. disability history and separate the latter stages of the movement.

The second thing is the language that is used throughout history is very offensive and outdated and while these words are used in this paper they are not meant to be used in a harmful and demeaning way, but instead to give the reader a greater context to the way the individuals with disabilities have been treated throughout history.

Historically disability history focuses on learning about the different laws and acts, and how these ideas progress. However, not much time has been spent looking more in depth into the larger discourse of disability rights as well as how this discourse progressed and how it led to effective change. This fostered interest in if there might be any connection or similarities between the way that the disability rights movement progresses in the United States to how it developed overseas, and more specifically in a country relatively similar to the United States, Great Britain. More specifically, how did the disability rights movement with the United States evolve? How did the disability rights movement in Great Britain evolve over time? And were there any connections between these two movements, and if so what are they?

There is not a large variety of literature about the history of the disability rights movements in both the United States and Great Britain as they are relatively recent movements, only having progressed in the last fifty or so years. There is some literature regarding theories of disability, and the normalcy of disability. People, such Elizabeth Barnes[3] who writes about the social model of disability, and Lennard J Davis,[4] who writes about how normalization of individuals with disabilities within society has led to positive changes being brought about. These books, along with speeches by famous disability rights activists such as Judith Heumann and the Netflix documentary Crip Camp: A Disability Revolution, have all aided in the research process in defining the evolution of these movements and how they compare to one another.[5]

The disability rights movement in the United States has evolved much more rapidly than the subsequent movement in Great Britain, with landmark legislation such as the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (DD Act) of 1975, The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and many others coming before the major landmark decisions in the United Kingdom. The United States and Great Britain both see the beginning of their disability rights movements begin with a heavy focus on physically disabled veterans after World War two. However, the exposure of the Willowbrook Institution ushers in a new wave of disability rights within the United States, one that focuses on individuals with neurological disabilities, before the subsequent movement evolution inside Great Britain. The U.S. remains ahead of Great Britain with its evolution of disability rights for the remainder of the 20th century and into the 21st century.

This paper will begin to dive deeper into the progression of the disability rights movement within the United States and then look towards Great Britain and its evolution. It will discuss the different waves of the movement and how the discourse present in the United States during the 20th century leading up to the passage of the ADA. Next this paper will look at the way that the disability rights Movement within Great Britain develops, from mainly focusing on ex-service men with physical disabilities, to then sudden shift to focusing on individuals with more neurological and mental disabilities.

Disability rights movement within the United States

United States history is filled with many different rights movements that all seemingly overlap with one another. The Disability Rights movement is one of these, finding its beginning in the middle part of the 20th century, with a heavy focus on the veterans that had been disabled in World War 2. Laws and organizations form to help these individuals reintegrate back into society after the war and begin the normalization of individuals with physical disabilities, which leads to the eventual story of the Willowbrook institution. This story begins to shine the light on individuals with cerebral disabilities, such as autism, down syndrome, and many others. From the outcry of these individuals and more specifically their families the attention becomes on how they can be “cured” or “fixed” and brought back into society. It is not until these individuals begin to speak up on their own, that there is a real shift not only in policy but attitude and mindset within society. This continues with the discussion around independent living, which will begin the third and final era of disability rights within the United States, the self-advocacy era. This all culminates in the passing of the ADA in 1990, which marks a new beginning for individuals with disabilities in speaking up for themselves and how they can be integrated into society as a whole.

One of the key areas of overlap that the United States has in its disability rights movement with Great Britain is the early focus on veterans and ex-service men that had become physically disabled following World War two. This is where we see some of the first rhetoric of the medical model of disability, in an article published in the New York Times in 1946, Howard A. Rusk M.D. writes “Today public attention is focused on the young men of America who are returning from war disabled and handicapped. They number in the thousands.”[6] This highlights just how much of a focus this was during this time, it was a large part of the discussion happening, so much so that it was a full page article within the New York Times. Rusk makes it known how important it is to have systems in place that can help physically disabled veterans, who were the main group that was being advocated for during this time.

We see some of this help that had been put into place in the form of the Purple Heart Unit, also known as the Military Order of the Purple Heart, which is a national veterans organization. In an article about the Purple Heart Unit, the New York Times writes:

“The Military Order of the Purple Heart, nation-wide veterans’ organization, will embark on a peacetime program to speed veterans housing and to provide additional benefits for disabled servicemen, it was announced yesterday by the order’s new national commander Ray Dorris of Portland Ore…The housing program will take precedence over all other programs, Mr. Dorris said, adding that he would confer this week with Housing Expedite Wilson W. Wyatt and officials of the War Assets Administration in Washington on the granting of priorities on surplus equipment needed to complete the partially constructed housing projects.”[7]

This is one of the key organizations at the time putting a focus on helping disabled veterans. This is such a big and important undertaking that the organization is working with the U.S. government to try and get the necessary funding and supplies as quickly as possible. This is their paramount objective, surpassing all others, showing just how important the rights of the disabled veterans were during this time. After this there is a steady amount of legislation that is passed and signed to help disabled veterans, but the next evolution in the disability rights movement begins in the mid-1960s.

In 1965 Senator Robert F. Kennedy made an unannounced visit to one of the biggest institutions for individuals with neurological disabilities at the time, Willowbrook located in upstate New York. While there, Senator Kennedy observed some of the most inhumane and deplorable living conditions imaginable. After his visit to Willowbrook, Senator Kennedy testified at a committee hearing, which resulted in an investigation in the state institution. When speaking on the institution Kennedy had this to say “We hear a great deal these days about civil rights and civil liberties and equality of opportunity and justice … But there are no civil rights for young retarded adults when they are denied the protection of the State Education Law, which commands that all other children must receive an education.”[8] This was the first time that a major public figure spoke up in regards to disability rights in the United States. This would not be the last time that Willowbrook was public news, as around five years later a reporter named Geraldo Rivera ran a documentary that showed the deplorable conditions within Willowbrook. This would spark major outrage, and lead to a new nationwide conversation about the effectiveness and moral need for these large state institutions.

While it would take another five years for state institutions to begin to change with their unimaginable conditions, the interview of Bernard Carabello, this would mark the 1970s, the next evolution of the disability rights movement. The United States enters into its second wave of its Disability Rights Movement, which is the Parent wave, which sees the parents of the individuals with disabilities to be the advocates for their children, and puts the emphasis on helping and “fixing” individuals with disabilities. While this is a step in the right direction it still creates numerous problems and harmful stereotypes. The medical model of disability, which paints individuals with disabilities as “broken” and in need of being “fixed”, is still very much prevalent during this time. This period was very short as it only lasted a few years, but it is a crucial step in the evolution of the disability rights movement within the United States, as it moves the spotlight closer to the individuals with disabilities themselves which ultimately marks the final evolution of this movement.

While the independent living model was the first time that the idea of things such as civil rights would be discussed in regards to individuals with disabilities, a few years before this there was discourse around hiring individuals with disabilities into the workforce. In an article about how the year the employment market for individuals with disabilities is starting to become more normalized in society, Howard Rusk writes, “Throughout the country, community programs for the mentally retarded have been slowly demonstrating the truth of the slogan of the National Association for Retarded Children – ‘the retarded can be helped.”[9] While Robert Kennedy’s visit to Willowbrook was mainly about individuals living there and the inhumane conditions of the state institutions, this discourse is clearly more geared towards helping adults, people who are out of these state institutions, and how they can start to become included within society as a large.

This in turn would create a space for a lot of people such as self-advocates and the families of individuals with disabilities to begin talking about similar issues in regards to disabilities.  In their article Romel Mackelprand and Richard Slasgiver talk about the shift that occurred at the beginning of the 1970s, “The disability movement matures with the development of the independent living concept in the early 1970s. Initially led by people such Lex Frieden, Judy Heumann, and Ed Roberts, independent living applied the minority model as the foundation of the political process of gaining the civil rights of peoples with disabilities.”[10] These are just some of the prominent figures that come about and make names for themselves as Disability Rights activists during the early parts of the movement. The minority model, also known as the social model of disability, is something that is very important to modern disability rights activists, as it states that people with disabilities are not “disabled” by their bodies but by the “able-bodied” society that they live in. This is also referred to as the Social Model of Disability and provides a pivotal framework for discussing changes surrounding disability. This is the first large step into a new evolution of the disability rights movement, where the individuals with disabilities themselves are the ones advocating for change and what is best for them.

One of the major issues that was seen in these institutions was forced sterilization, in which individuals with disabilities were viewed by the public as not being able to contribute to society. An interesting case of this is seen outside of institutions, where parents of three kids all with disabilities are fighting to have them sterilized, however no hospital or medical facility near them would perform the procedure, since there were massive gains made by individuals in protecting others with disabilities from being forcefully sterilized. The parents took their argument to court and “thwarting them, either directly or indirectly, have been the tremendous gains made by the champions of individual freedoms and rights who have won many successes in trying to protect the mentally retarded who are capable of functioning independently in society.”[11] This is the perfect example of how the parent wave of disability and the medical model of disability which arose from the professional wave had very negative impacts on individuals with disabilities. This does however cause massive shifts that are happening during this time, as forced sterilizations, especially for those under the age of 21, were being rejected and more control and rights were being given to those with disabilities.

In the area of education, there are also discussions happening during the 1970s about making sure that students with disabilities are more included. In 1974 the New Jersey legislature began debating the idea of passing legislation that would improve the conditions of students with disabilities in schools. In an article published by the New York Times an unnamed author writes “But proponents of improved education for the retarded children contend that the special session also provides the lawmakers with an ideal chance to require local school districts to install programs for youngsters with severe mental handicaps.”[12] Here it becomes clear just how inclusive the conversation has become. In just a few short years the narrative has switched from individuals with disabilities needing to be kept aside and isolated, to know there is a push for them to become integrated into schools, and as this article states, the push is for even those with neurological disabilities as well as just physical disabilities. This highlights just how much it took for people to fight for more protections for students with disabilities, specifically within schools. 

We continue to see the push for protections for individuals with disabilities at the state level, specifically in New Jersey. In his article titled Disabled Children Get New State Aid, Martin Whaldron writes, “This new policy is only one of several that reflect the quiet revolution underway in the state to protect the rights of New Jersey’s mentally ill, handicapped and ‘developmentally impaired’ residents. Some of these policies reflect an almost complete change in attitudes.”[13] This sudden shift in attitude comes from the work of many activists such but in particular, Judith Huemann is the most prominent of them, especially as she becomes famous for her work in New York City. She became famous for her self-advocacy in being the first person in a wheelchair to obtain a teaching license in New York, something that she had to fight very hard to get.

 There are also efforts at a national level as well to help give rights to individuals with disabilities, especially the right to education. In her article for the New York Times, Judy Glass writes about the changes that are arising out of the conversations about individuals with more neurological disabilities, such as learning disabilities. She writes, “Ten or 15 years ago, the term ‘learning disabled’ as a handicap was largely unheard of… five years ago, the learning disabled children were defined more by exclusion than by objective criteria.”[14] This is another example of the rapid change that occurred in this time frame, as the movement evolves more and more individuals begin to become involved in the movement. The term disability has not crossed over into the realm of education adding another step in ensuring the rights for those with disabilities.

There were also some setbacks that accompanied the disability rights movement, one of the biggest came in April of 1981, in which the Supreme Court ruled:

“that a Federal “bill of rights” for the mentally retarded enacted six years ago, did not oblige states to provide any particular level of care or training for retarded people in state institutions… In the case involving the retarded, the appeals court had ruled that the 1200 residents of Pennhurst, a state institution, were being deprived of their right to treatment.”[15]

This was a huge deal at the time as it further restricted the rights of individuals with disabilities who were still living within these institutions. These institutions were mistreating these individuals and with these laws saying that individuals with disabilities did not need to have their caretakers properly trained, it would only further their mistreatment. It is an unfortunate step backwards in this movement, but it contributes to the continued movement to get these institutions shut down and to get individuals with disabilities out of them and living on their own.

The representation of individuals with disabilities in public spaces went a very long way in helping the Disability Rights Movement within the United States. It gave those with disabilities someone that they could see themselves in, and feel like they were a part of society as a whole. This representation really started to take shape as we head into the late 1980s and early 1990s. One prominent figure at this time was Bob Dole, the Senate Republican leader who made it known that he was an individual with a disability, which was something that had not been discussed before.  In an article from 1986, Dole is quoted as saying:

“I can’t do buttons like you do, just feel and push them in there… I’ve got to be able to see the hole and sort of push the button in. The trouble is these buttons on this shirt are just about a fraction too high, so it’s very hard to do that. So every day you get a little test; you’re tested.”[16]

Dole at the time dealt with many physical disabilities, the main one being all the damage that he has suffered to his right arm. This was one of the first times that someone this prominent and well known within the United States government began advocating for himself as an individual with a disability. This is where we begin to enter into the final stage of the evolution of the disability rights movement, where these issues are not something that is being discussed within the federal government, and changes being implemented on a national scale, whereas before changes were often made on a smaller scale, either by state or even more local.

As the disability rights movement enters into its final stages there is now an even bigger push to help get individuals with disabilities normalized and integrated into society. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed in late 1989 and was set into law in 1990. The New York Times wrote this when discussing the new act, “The act was considered by its supporters to be one of the most sweeping pieces of civil rights legislation in decades. It extended throughout private industry a prohibition against discrimination toward the disabled by government agencies and companies that receive government contracts.”[17] The ADA was a monumental piece of legislation in regards to the disability rights movement in the United States resulting in federal mandates that made every aspect of society more accessible to those with a disability. It comes after years of hard work by many people and paved the road for the future legislation that would be passed in the years to come.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) marked a true turning point in the American disability rights movement, as it is one of the first acts passed that was focused on helping individuals with disabilities be able to feel a part of larger society. Steve Holmes a writer for the New York Times, described the ADA in the following way:

“The public accommodations provisions of the law, the Americans with Disabilities Act, mean more than merely providing adequate parking spaces or ramps for the handicapped. Restaurants may have to provide Braille or large-type menus for the blind or visually impaired people,… space for customers with wheelchairs and ensure that their friends and family may sit with them.”[18]

These are some of the major changes that came about as a result of the ADA, and they highlight just how little people with disabilities were seen in society, and how powerful the ADA was in shining a light on them. We see things today such as ramps, handicap parking spaces, and other inclusive infrastructure and think of it as common and something that has always been there, but for many people it has not. This time back into the social model of disability, showing how an individual can be disabled and handicapped, because there is no ramp to help them access a building.

There were numerous people that played a large role in helping to get the act passed, many of whom were famous disability rights activists within the United States at the time, including a man named Justin Dart Jr. “Mr. Dart was best known as one of the primary forces behind the Amercians with Disabilities Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Georgre Bush with Mr. Dart as his side, in 1990.”[19] Justin Dart Jr. was one of the most influential Disability Rights activists within the United States, he was constantly arguing and advocating for the passage of this act. He became very well known among those serving during this time, simply for how much he was around and speaking with people about how important this act was.

Disability rights movement Within Great Britain

The disability rights movement within Great Britain is rooted in highlighting the conditions of the physically disabled, specifically wounded veterans. Much of the early discussion that takes place within Great Britain deals with this select group of people with disabilities. It was not until more recently that the conversation has shifted to be more inclusive of people with neurological disabilities, along with people with more visible physical disabilities.  The movement moved towards the focus on group homes, which were similar to the institutions within the United States, before leading to Great Britain’s own version of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Disability Discrimination Act in 2005.

An early example of Great Britain’s focus on veterans can be seen when the Parliament is discussing a new finance bill that would have been used to raise money in 1951, Lieutenant-Commander Braithwaite said that “it would also adversely affect disabled ex-service men.”[20] His argument was that the petrol tax that was included in the new finance bill would increase the cost of road transport, and would force more people into using public transport, which was used a lot by disabled individuals at the time. Also when discussing this bill Sir Ian Fraser said that disabled individuals should be excused from the extra petrol duty. This shows how much people were thinking about the physically disabled veterans, as a part of society as a whole, similar to the conversation in the United States.

            Disabled veterans dominated a lot of the early discussion of disability rights within Great Britain as they were the most visible individuals with disabilities that were actively trying to be included into society. When discussing the approach to the idea of the  economic situation post war, Mr. King of Southampton urged “for an increase in the basic rate for disability pensions of disability pensions for disabled ex-service men.”[21] This is a good start for the conversation about disability rights in Great Britain and provides a solid foundation for the future.

            The idea of working and labor was also something that came up in discussions when discussing how to best include them in the labor force. When discussing the idea of defense-workers, looking specifically at summer resorts during the winter time. There is a group of workers that were used to help advance the “national effort”. The argument that these disabled workers could be employed to help in other aspects of the country, was taken before the Ministry of labor, and the position of disabled men specifically was brought up by a man named Mr. E. Evans, stating that it can be difficult for them to find work at times.[22] Mr. Evans is one of the first people that begins to speak out for those with physical disabilities within Great Britain, that is not speaking solely for disabled veterans, advancing the disability rights movement further.

            The infantilization and idea that individuals with disabilities need to be helped and cared for by others, even when they may be perfectly able to take care of themselves, is something that is present. For example, the London times published a newspaper article entitled, Debate on employment of disabled and elder persons[23]. Having people with disabilities be associated with the elderly shows how they were seen by larger society. People with disabilities and specifically in this case, those with physical disabilities are seen as weak and in need of someone to be helping them at all times even though there are things that they still might be able to do by themselves. In this case a lot of them are former veterans, specifically men, so they would most likely still be in good physical condition, only needing help in the area of their handicap. This is a very early argument describing the Social Model of Disability, where the individuals themselves are perfectly fine, it is society and their environment that is handicapping them.

            At the start of the 1960s we began to see the conversation in Great Britain evolve to begin to include individuals with neurological disabilities, alongside those with physical disabilities. Similar to the pattern in the United States at this time, it appears that Great Britain thought its best course of action was to have these individuals placed into group homes. In March of 1961 there was discussion about the construction of a new home in Bognor Regis, near the southern British Coast. The issue that was brought up was about whether or not that project had been abandoned because two local private schools apparently rejected the idea as they felt that the location was too close to their location, and they did not think it would be able to be the proper size necessary.. When talking about the issue Mr. Kenneth Robinson, who was a representative in Parliament during this time had this to say “Projects of this kind are constantly being frustrated by local difficulties being raised about sitting. Is there nothing the Minister can do, perhaps in conjunction with the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in trying to influence local authorities to be a little more sympathetic towards this type of development.”[24] This shows some of the issues that the disability rights movement in Great Britain faced in its early stages, with many doubting if it was even necessary to have these group homes.

            Similar to the United States, in Great Britain these individuals with neurological disabilities are subjected to being separated from the larger part of society by being placed into these group homes. These group homes similar to the institutions in the United States seem to be mistreating the individuals with disabilities as well. Unfortunately, at this time individuals with neurological disabilities are seen as “rejects” and “outcasts”. This also led to the mistreatment of these individuals as they were seen as needing to be removed from society, including many horrible things being done to them such as Euthanasia.

One of the most prominent people in both England and the United States was C. Killick Millard, who was mainly working between 1930-1955 but was the main figure and was a very well known and respected doctor during this time. Ian Dowbiggin writes about Millaird describing him as having “dedicated much of his life to legalizing the right to die, he was likewise motivated by the conviction that an educated, rational and mentally competent person would consent to mercy-killing if suffering from a painful, terminal illness or disability.”[25] This gives insight into how individuals with disabilities were viewed as not able to be educated the same way as their non-disabled counterparts, and how having a disability was seen as something that would not make you of use to the larger part of society. This is another aspect of the disability rights movement in Great Britain that has a parallel to the United States, which is the way that both of these movements had a time where they looked to medical professionals for the answers.

One of the first major pieces of legislation to come from Great Britain in the realm of disability rights is the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act of 1970. This bill established welfare for those who were disabled or for those who suffered from chronic illness. This is an important part of the Disability Rights movement in Great Britain because while there may have been support for the bill, the speaker, who themselves identified as disabled, thought that the bill needed to be stronger. An article written in the London Times “Under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, builders had to provide access facilities where it was ‘in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable. There have been instances in the past 11 years when such facilities were not provided, mainly because nobody has enforced the law.”[26] The prolonged and delayed enforcement of laws is something that is far too common in disability law in particular, with vague and non-descript wording allowing companies and others to get away with not fully giving people with disabilities the accommodations they need. As mentioned in the London Times article it took almost eleven years for something to be done about this, and it is one of the reasons why disability rights are still an active fight.

Prolonged enforcement of laws and regulations can be tied back to an issue that was brought up almost twenty years prior to this incident, which involved giving disabled drivers a badge that would help identify them. In March of 1961, in response to the increasing parking problems of disabled drivers, a man named Mr Dobbs, who was a member of Parliament proposed “to provide a badge to be displayed by disabled drivers to help them and to assist police in using their discretion in dealing with traffic problems.”[27]It would take almost ten more years for this idea to become mainstream and implemented in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act in 1970. The idea of these badges being used to assist police is very interesting because it speaks to a debate that is happening right now in the United States about how to best aid individuals with disabilities, specifically those with more “invisible disabilities” in regards to things such as traffic stops, and their interactions with police officers. For individuals with disabilities, especially those who may have neurological disabilities, understanding social cues and following directions can often be a tough task, and unfortunately in the United States, police officers can at times give conflicting directions. This can lead to individuals with disabilities being treated harmfully by police officers and not fully understanding why.

We began to see a mindset shift in Great Britain in the late 1990s and one example of this comes from a man Lee Duffin, who although he spent most of his life working in sales and marketing, joined a charity that helped young adults with disabilities to become more self-reliant and independent. Although his main job was fundraising, he said “I had no experiences in fund-raising or the mentally handicapped, but I was so impressed by the charity’s philosophy of helping the young adults to lead a fairly independent and fulfilled life that I wanted to help.”[28] This is a massive shift from just thirty years prior where individuals with disabilities, specifically those with neurological disabilities, were seen as needing to be kept away from society and kept in group homes. This comes in the years following the United States and the idea of independent living that was introduced by disability rights activists there.

As we enter into the 21st century we see the last of the group homes or “long-stay care homes” that were prominent in the late 60s and early 70s and began to become less prominent into the late 80s and 90s. The last of these homes shut down in Great Britain in 2004 and was a part of the effort to help people with disabilities become larger members of society. John Hutton the public health minister had this to say “people in Britain with learning disabilities were among the most socially excluded in the country. Only one of them has a friend outside the immediate circle of their family or paid-for carers.”[29] This is one of the biggest shifts and evolutions in the direction of fostering independence for those with disabilities. In 2001, there were an estimated 1.4 million people living with disabilities in Britain. Around this time as well, there were schools in Britain that received investments in communication aids for students who would need them. This is similar to what happens in the United States, which is that if schools receive federal funding that they have to provide students with the accommodations that they need.

In the United States the Americans with Disabilities Act (or the ADA) in the 1990s provided people with disabilities the rights to access society and for changes to be made to help them it is not until the early 2000s that Great Britain enacts something similar. In 2004 the British government passed the Disability Discrimination Act which acts similar to the ADA. it was described by the media as:

“The most significant aspect of the new provisions is the duty of service providers to make reasonable adjustments to any physical features that are a barrier to the enjoyment of goods and services by disabled people … includes widening a doorway; providing a permanent ramp for a wheelchair user; relocating light switches, for someone who has difficulty reaching;… and providing tactile buttons in lifts’.’[30]

This directly connects to what the ADA did for Americans with disabilities and relates back to the social model, contending that in order for individuals with disabilities to be included within society there needed to be changes made to the environment as well.

Another piece of legislation that was passed in Great Britain that is similar to the ADA is the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), which was passed in 2005. This act made it illegal to discriminate against individuals with disabilities within the workplace and to make the necessary accommodations to allow these individuals to succeed in the workplace. “Employing disabled people can attract disabled customers.”[31] This is a great way to think about how it feels to include individuals with disabilities within not only the workplace but society as a whole. Seeing people that represent who you are and how you view yourself is very important in helping people feel safe in society.           

Conclusion

            In conclusion, the disability rights movements of both the United States and Great Britain have some connections with one another but it was mainly the United States setting the precedent for and leading the way. Both of these movements have their foundations in the way that society began to see and treat veterans with disabilities following World War II. The care and thought that was given to these veterans opened the door for disability rights activists in each country to begin to further the conversation on disability rights. While the United States had its focused turn to institutions by parents, Great Britain began to look at group homes. In 1990 the United States passed the Americans with Disabilities Act, which provided comprehensive changes that would grant individuals with disabilities a chance to participate in society. 15 years later Great Britain would pass the Disability Discrimination Act, which would act similarly to the ADA. Ultimately showing how, even though the two movements evolve similarly over time, it is the United States that has its evolutions before Great Britain.

The significance of this capstone paper is that it allows for the start of a discussion on the history of disability rights not only in the United States but in Great Britain as well. It is important to just study the history of one nation’s evolution as it can close you off to possible ideas and changes that have been made in other nations that can be adopted in one’s own country. Individuals with disabilities have been mistreated throughout history in many different parts of the world and it is important to begin to understand how this happens and how different nations are able to move forward and away from this awful mindset and treatment of individuals with disabilities.

This capstone paper is significant for education as it allows for students to learn about a history and a movement that has rarely been discussed before. Much of the activism that occurs during the disability rights movement occurs during the late 1970s and 1980s, a time that is just now being discussed more and more in schools, particularly in secondary education. Individuals with disabilities have been treated inhumanely and as outsiders, but if we allow for their story to become a part of our taught history, we can work towards people accepting them for who they are. The disability rights movement also has connections to other historical events, including how the disability rights activists used tactics of other civil rights groups to help fight for their cause. There is also great opportunity for current events with this topic, as this movement is still going today, as many disability rights activists fight to have individuals with disabilities seen by the rest of society.

References

Alambritis, Stephen. “The Business View.” Times, March 4, 2008, 4[S3]. The Times Digital Archive (accessed November 21, 2022). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/IF0503625387/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=b85a4ad4.

“An equal workforce, not forced.” Times, October 17, 1985, 12. The Times Digital Archive (accessed September 25, 2022). -https://link-gale com.ezproxy.tcnj.edu/apps/doc/CS201822545/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=book—-mark-TTDA&xid=f91d7aa7.

Barnes, Elizabeth. The Minority Body a Theory of Disability. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.

“Benefits defeats in Lords.” Times, May 22, 1990, 7. The Times Digital Archive (accessed October 17, 2022). https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.tcnj.edu/apps/doc/IF0501825665/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=c3331e85.

Burch, Susan, and Ian Sutherland. “Who’s Not Yet Here? American Disability History.” Radical History Review 2006, no. 94 (2006): 127–47. https://doi.org/10.1215/01636545-2006-94-127.

Cragg, Stephen. “Legislation Update.” Times, September 7, 2004, 7[S1]. The Times Digital Archive (accessed November 21, 2022). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/IF0502698209/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=ec9de613.

Cooper, Jeremy. Law, Rights, and Disability. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2003.

Davis, Lennard J. Enforcing Normalcy: Disability, Deafness, and the Body. London: Verso, 1995.

Dearlove, Desmond. “A fight for the right to work.” Times, September 10, 1992, 19[S]. The Times Digital Archive (accessed September 25, 2022). https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.tcnj.edu/apps/doc/IF0503341113/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=36a91163.

Diane Henry, Special to The New York Times. 1977. “Parents of 3 Retarded Girls Fight Hospital Refusal to Sterilize them: Parents Press Bid to Sterilize Retarded Girls.” New York Times (1923-), Oct 02, 1. https://ezproxy.tcnj.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/parents-3-retarded-girls-fight-hospital-refusal/docview/123174722/se-2.

“Diary Of Next Week’s Events.” Times, July 8, 1961, 11. The Times Digital Archive (accessed November 21, 2022). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CS184901864/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=5718e179.

Dowbiggin, Ian. “‘A Prey on Normal People’: C. Killick Millard and the Euthanasia Movement in Great Britain, 1930-55.” Journal of Contemporary History 36, no. 1 (2001): 59–85. http://www.jstor.org/stable/261131.

Evans, Richard. “Law will ensure access for disabled in new buildings.” Times, June 2, 1981, 3. The Times Digital Archive (accessed October 17, 2022). https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.tcnj.edu/apps/doc/CS50694338/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=7a585a9f.

Frean, Alexandra. “Care homes for the mentally disabled to shut.” Times, March 21, 2001, 4. The Times Digital Archive (accessed November 21, 2022). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/IF0502655359/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=caf8b513.

From Our Correspondent. “Assisting The Disabled.” Times, December 4, 1951, 5. The Times Digital Archive (accessed November 21, 2022). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CS85675396/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=8da0813e.

Heumann, Judith. Being Heumann. S.l.: WH. Allen, 2021.

Hobson, Rodney. “Working at a different pace.” Times, July 31, 1990, 17. The Times Digital Archive (accessed November 21, 2022). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/IF0503253499/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=476c1f07.

“House Of Commons.” Times, June 6, 1951, 4. The Times Digital Archive (accessed November 21, 2022). —-https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CS67456198/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=f90b3-07e.

“House Of Commons.” Times, November 7, 1951, 7. The Times Digital Archive (accessed November 21, 2022). —-https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CS117788007/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=20fbf67

Howard A Rusk, MD Formerly Chief, Convalescent Services Division, Office of, Air Surgeon. 1946. “Hope for our Disabled Millions: They can be Rehabilitated, Says a Physician, if we Apply Methods used in Restoring Handicapped Veterans. our Disabled Millions our Disabled Millions.” New York Times (1923-), Jan 27, 1946. —-https://ezproxy.tcnj.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/hope-our-—-disabled-millions/docview/107574818/se-2.

Howard A. Rusk, M.D. 1964. “Hiring the Retarded: ‘ 63 Marked Employment Turning Point for Mentally Handicapped in the U.S.” New York Times (1923-), Jan 06, 121. —-https://ezproxy.tcnj.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/hiring-ret—-arded/docview/115529793/se-2..

John Sibley. 1965. “Kennedy Charges Neglect in State Care of Retarded: KENNEDY ASSAILS CARE OF RETARDED.” New York Times (1923-), Sep 10, 1. —-https://ezproxy.tcnj.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/kennedy-charges-neglect-state-care-retarded/docview/116840893/se-2.

Jonathan Fuerbringer Special to The New York Times. 1986. “To Dole, it was an Education to Get Past Disability.” New York Times (1923-), Jun 16, 1. —-_https://ezproxy.tcnj.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/dole-was-education-get-past-disability/docview/110931546/se-2.

Judy Glass. 1980. “New Efforts to Assist ‘Learning Disabled’ Debated Across L.I.: New Efforts to Assist ‘Learning Disabled’ New Efforts to Assist ‘Learning Disabled’.” New York Times (1923-), Nov 23, 4. —-https://ezproxy.tcnj.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/new-effor—-ts-assist-learning-disabled-debated/docview/121268082/se-2.

“Legal Appointments.” Times, May 7, 1985, 29. The Times Digital Archive (accessed September 25, 2022). https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.tcnj.edu/apps/doc/CS486772903/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=boo——kmark-TTDA&xid=28b1fa67.

Linda Greenhouse, Special to The NewYork Times. 1981. “Justices Restrict A ‘Bill of Rights’ for the Retarded: High Court Calls U.S. Law Only Advisory for States Release of Retarded People ‘Findings’ in ‘Bill of Rights’ Court Restricts ‘Rights’ of Retarded Right to Refuse Medication.” New York Times (1923-), Apr 21, 2. —–https://ezproxy.tcnj.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/justices-restrict-bill-rights-retarded/docview/121615394/se-2.

Mackelprang, Romel W. and Richard O. Salsgiver. “People with Disabilities and Social Work: Historical and Contemporary Issues.” Social Work 41, no. 1 (01, 1996): 7-14. —https://ezproxy.tcnj.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/people-with–disabilities-social-work-historical/docview/215272364/se-2.

Martin Waldron. 1978. “Disabled Children Get New State Aid: Disabled Children are Getting New Help from the State.” New York Times (1923-), Mar 05, 3. —-https://ezproxy.tcnj.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/disabled-children-get-new-state-aid/docview/123790595/se-2.

Noyes, Hugh. “Disabled peers put aid plea.” Times, April 10, 1970, 1. The Times Digital Archive (accessed October 17, 2022). —- https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.tcnj.edu/apps/doc/CS17134218/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=8a9252f9.

“Parliament.” Times, August 3, 1951, 3. The Times Digital Archive (accessed November 21, 2022). Retrieved from  —https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CS50547971/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xi—d=92465—-b0b.

“Purple Heart Unit To Act On Housing: Order Back Speed-Up Of U.S. Efforts To Aid Veterans–Also To Help Disabled Men.” 1946. New York Times (1923-), Sep 08, 40. –https://ezproxy.tcnj.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/purple-heart-unit-act-on-housing/docview/107403078/se-2.

Special to The NewYork Times. 1974. “Improved Education Urged for Retarded: Disparities seen Resulting.” New York Times (1923-), Jun 23, 78. —–https://ezproxy.tcnj.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/improved-education-urged-retarded/docview/120059739/se-2.  

Steven A. Holmes. “Sweeping U.S. Law To Help Disabled Goes Into Effect: Gains Seen For Millions Statute May Force Businesses To Alter Buildings And Offer Specialized Services Sweeping U.S. Law To Help Millions Of The Disabled Goes Into Effect New Anti-Bias Legislation Could Bring Changes To Many Businesses.” Jan 27, 1992. New York Times ——https://ezproxy.tcnj.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/sweeping-u-s-law-help-disabled-goes-into-effect/docview/109037130/se-2.

Stevenson, Richard W. “Justin Dart Jr., 71, Advocate for Rights of Disabled People.” New York Times (1923-), Jun 24, 2002. —https://ezproxy.tcnj.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/justin-dart-jr-71-advocate-rights-disabled-people/docview/92295369/se-2.

“Subsidy Rate In Airport Charges.” Times, March 7, 1961, 4. The Times Digital Archive (accessed November 21, 2022). —-https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CS67723367/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=7df135cc.

Walker Alan and Peter Townsend. 1981. Disability in Britain: A Manifesto of Rights. Oxford: Martin Robertson.

[1] GDA Podcasts, GDA Podcasts, April 26, 2017.

[2] NHS, “Treatments That Are Not Recommended for Autism,” NHS choices (NHS, December 16, 2022),

[3] Elizabeth Barnes, The Minority Body: A Theory of Disability (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2018).

[4] Lennard J. Davis, Enforcing Normalcy: Disability, Deafness, and the Body (London: Verso, 1995).

[5] Crip Camp: A revolution, Netflix, 2020.

[6] Howard A Rusk, “Hope for our Disabled Millions”, New York Times, January 27th, 1946.

[7] “Purple Heart Unit To Act On Housing: Order Back Speed-Up Of U.S. Efforts To Aid Veterans–Also To Help Disabled Men.”, 1946, New York Times.

[8]John Sibley, “Kennedy Charges Neglect in State Care of Retarded. September 10, 1965. New York Times

[9] Howard A. Rusk, “Hiring the Retarded”, January 6, 1963, New York Times.

[10]Romel W. Mackeprang, and Richard O. Salsgiver, “People with disabilities and Social Work: Historical and Contemporary Issues”.1996, Social Work.

[11] Diane Henry, “Parents of 3 Retarded Girls Fight Hospital Refusal to Sterilize Them”, October 2, 1977, New York Times.

[12] “Improved Education Urged for Retarded”, June 23, 1978, New York Times.

[13] Martin Waldron, “Disabled Children Get New State Aid”, March 5, 1978, New York Times.

[14] Judy Glass, “New Efforts to Assist ‘Learning Disabled’ Debated Across L.I.” November 23, 1980, New York Times.

[15] Linda Greenhouse, “Justices Restrict A ‘Bill of Rights’ For the Retarded”, April 21, 1981, New York Times

[16] Jonathan Fuerbringer, “To Dole, It Was An Education to Get Past Disability”, June 16, 1986, New York Times.

[17]Richard, “Justin Dart Jr., 71, June 14, 2002.

[18]  Steven A. Holmes, “Sweeping U.S. Law To Help Disabled Goes Into Effect: Gains Seen For Millions Statute May Force Businesses To Alter Buildings And Offer Specialized Services Sweeping U.S. Law To Help Millions Of The DisabledI Goes Into Effect New AntI-Bias Legislation Could Bring Changes To Many Businesses.” Jan 27, 1992, New York Times.

[19] Richard W Stevenson, “Justin Dart Jr., 71, Advocate for Rights of Disabled People”, June 14, 2002.

[20] “House of Commons”, Times, June 6,1951, The Times Digital Archive.

[21] “House of Commons”, Times, November 7, 1951, The Time Digital Archive.

[22] “Parliament”, Times, August 3, 1951, The Times Digital Archive.

[23] “Diary Of Next Week’s Events”, Times, July 8, 1961, The Times Digital Archive.

[24] “Subsidy Rate In Airport Changes”, Times, March 7, 1961, The Time Digital Archive.

[25]Ian Dowbiggin, “A Prey on Normal People”, Journal of Contemporary History, (2001), 65.

[26] Richard Evans, “Law will ensure access for disabled in new buildings”, Times, June 2, 1981, The Times Digital Archive.

[27] “Launchers For Research in Space”, Times, March 14, 1961, The Times Digital Archive.

[28] Rodney Hobson, “Working at a different pace”, Times, July 31, 1990, The Times Digital Archive.

[29] Alexandra Frean, “Care homes for the mentally disabled to shut”, Times, March 21, 2001, The Times Digital Archive.

[30] Stephen Cragg,“Legislation Update”, Times, September 7th, 2004, The Times Digital Archive.

[31] Stephen Alambritis, “The Business View”, Times, March 4, 2008, The Times Digital Archive.

NCSS Response to AP African American Course Controversy

NCSS Response to the AP African American Course Controversy

Official statement of the National Council for the Social Studies:

NCSS recognizes that states and districts have the right to approve or not approve individual courses and, in so doing, have a responsibility to use a transparent evaluation process that includes educators and other experts in the field. When courses, especially those that were created and supported by some of the United States’ most esteemed scholars and organizations, appear to have been rejected without a transparent process, all educators and community members should be concerned and have the right to request more information on the process used.

Of equal concern to NCSS is that the current political climate might negatively impact the great work that is being done throughout the United States to diversify curricula, use culturally responsive resources, and build content and pedagogical knowledge so that educators might better create lessons and other opportunities to address a longstanding marginalization of Black histories in the American education system. The NCSS previously addressed concerns about “divisive concepts” laws that seek “to ban the teaching of such concepts as race, racism, white supremacy, equity, justice, and social-emotional learning, as well as to limit the teaching of content such as slavery, Black history, women’s suffrage, and civil rights.”

NCSS supports the teaching of Black histories in a manner that engages students in learning about the achievements, joy, perseverance, agency, and resilience of Black Americans. An attempt to block courses that fully portray the Black experience, such as the AP African American Studies course, places professional judgment boundaries on teachers’ freedom to teach  and denies students the right to learn rich, complex histories that allow for multiple perspectives and deep exploration of the successes and struggles in our collective history across cultures. Every student has the right to learn about Black histories and the Black experience, and every teacher has the right to teach Black histories and the Black experience without the fear of intimidation and retaliation.

NCSS continues to advocate for the inclusion of Black histories and contemporary issues across K-12 curricula and calls on all education officials to provide students with the right to learn about, and from, the experiences of Black Americans. NCSS strongly believes in the educational value of offering diverse learning experiences in schools. We believe all students deserve the opportunity to learn African American studies and should have access to courses that support their pursuit of higher education and the study of African American history and culture in all education settings and throughout life.

Why We Must Teach African American History

Why We Must Teach African American History

Marlene Munn-Joseph

Recent years have seen efforts to include African American history as part of the American cultural heritage in school curriculums nationwide. A few examples include an elective 2020 African American studies course in Texas for the 10th-12th grade, in 2018 the adoption of a curriculum entitled Developing Black Historical Consciousness in Kentucky’s Jefferson County Public Schools, and in 2005, an African American history course as a high school graduation requirement in the Philadelphia school district (Pew Trust, 2020). These efforts suggest that progress has been made in the century-long struggles of African American communities to include African American history in the mainstream narrative of American history. In this light, the controversy surrounding Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s administration’s decision to publicly censor parts of the College Board’s Advanced Placement (AP) African American Studies Curriculum and the College Board’s seemingly capitulation is puzzling. Including an AP African American studies curriculum in the College Board’s offering legitimizes the experiences and histories of African American communities. According to the College Board site, the curriculum has been in the making for over a decade. Respected scholars such as Henry Louis Gates and Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham have been part of the effort. However, the DeSantis administration’s attempt to censor aspects of the curriculum where they cite violates the provision of “principles of freedom” in newly passed laws (State Board of Education rule 6A-1.094124, and Florida laws including 1003.42, F.S., and House Bill 7.), and has little “educational value” demonstrates the cost of legitimation is an erasure of ideas and events that compete with the mainstream historical consciousness of American exceptionalism and harmony.

It is critical to recognize the importance of legitimizing African American studies as part of the American mainstream historical consciousness. E pluribus unum, out of many one, is a critical conceptual frame in American democracy rooted in two foundational ideas. (1) Citizenship and fundamental citizenship rights  are available to all regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, and gender. (2) Diverse groups can coexist as long as we respect the rights of one another.

Enacting a culturally pluralistic society requires constant negotiation on the following two questions. (1) What are our ideas about America? and (2) What does it mean to be an American. Dill and Hunter (2010) describe e pluribus unum as “the central and enduring conundrum of American democracy. How much plurality? What kind of unity? On whose terms?”

To answer the above two questions, we turn to our historical consciousness to make sense of our past and to inform our future. Our individual experiences and our interpretations of those experiences constitute our historical consciousness. The DeSantis administration’s new laws require a singular historical consciousness that does not allow for dialogue on these questions or the introduction of a Black historical consciousness about the past and present. The Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) Commissioner of Education, in a tweet, provided a one-page handout with a table listing six problematic areas that the state wanted expunged (out of 19 identified in their correspondence with the College Board over the 2022 calendar year) (Diaz, 2023). These areas explored the roots of institutional racism, contemporary African American resistance movements, and the involvement of marginalized communities. According to a FLDOE memo, these topics specifically violated Florida law because of “Instruction rule, 6A-1.094124, which requires that “instruction on required topics must be factual and objective and may not suppress or distort significant historical events” and in the same memo, FLDOE cited the material as conflicting with Florida law because it contained “discriminatory and historically fictional topics” (Meckler, 2023).

Labeling the topics of institutional racism and contemporary African American resistance movements as fictional does not allow Americans to have an informed conversation on what it means to be an American or the nature of American society past and present. The DeSantis administration is unwilling to have students engage in the historical process, engaging in intellectual debates to explore contentious interpretations of histories. They are using state power to discredit the work of credible scholars, deny the complexity of the lived experiences of African Americans in the United States, and they are trying to present a singular and inaccurate historical consciousness. The message it sends to all Americans is that the banned topics are not plausible and promote an uncritical examination of history and the DeSantis administration’s censorship undermines the ability of the youth of Florida to analyze, integrate, and form their own the historical consciousness.

Censoring these topics dismisses the necessity of Black historical consciousness. LaGarrett King (2017) argues that Black historical consciousness is essential because African American history includes critical events in its communities. For example, significant to African American history are traditions of Black liberation such as Juneteenth (among a few holidays celebrated as Emancipation holidays) and the loss of African American educators due to the Brown vs. Board of Education decision which led to the push for integrated schools by discriminatory school boards. Blatantly ignoring the histories of African American communities is intolerance.

The DeSantis administration is using the law to impose a false consensus on what they see as the “true” narrative of American history. The FLDOE’s correspondence with the College Board suggests that the AP African American studies curriculum pushed the boundaries of legitimation to far. The initial version of the African American studies pilot challenged the DeSantis administration and their supporters’ understanding of America’s historical consciousness by questioning the American collective identity and civic culture. The challenge to e pluribus unum continues. 

References

Diaz Jr. Manny [@SenMannyDiazJr](2023,Jan 20) Concerns found within College Board’s submitted AP African American Studies Course. [Image Attached] [Tweet] Twitter. twitter.com/SenMannyDiazJr/status/161656504876738560  

Dill, J.S., Hunter, J.D. (2010). Education and the Culture Wars. In: Hitlin, S., Vaisey, S. (eds) Handbook of the Sociology of Morality. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6896-8_15

King, LaGarrett. (2017). Black History is Not American History: Toward a Framework of Black Historical Consciousness. Social Education 84(6) , pp. 335–341

Meckler, Laura A. (2023, February 9). Florida details months of complaints about the AP African American studies course. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/02/09/florida-ap-african-american-studies-complaints-college-board/

Mercer, Marsha (2020, August) “Black History Instruction Gets New Emphasis in Many States” Pew Trusts. Retrieved from https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2020/08/20/black-history-instruction-gets-new-emphasis-in-many-states

The Transformation of Regional Politics in Philadelphia

The Transformation of Regional Politics in Philadelphia

Kevin McCabe

The dawn of urbanization in the U.S. arrived in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, from which came rapid innovations in transportation and construction technology. The colonial legislation put in power by the founding fathers was tested immensely by the growing population of urban life. The necessities of sustaining an exponentially large and dense city seem evident at first glance: political, economic, and social representation, a stable job income for single or multi-family homes, access to public services, and affordable housing stock. Unfortunately, as one may notice by the pattern of urban decline as early as the 1950s, accomplishing such a feat is nearly impossible with the lack of quality political representation for marginalized members of the urban community.  Philadelphia, faced with the issues of urban decline, embarked on a project of urban renewal to revamp the public and private housing sector, introduce new forms of transportation for suburban commuters, and fix the educational landscape of the city. Similarly to other cities facing urban decline, the ‘City of Brotherly Love’ has seen countless projects or urban revitalization that historians, over time, began to view differently. Public Housing, Race, and Renewal by John F. Bauman (1987) indicates that historians viewed the solution to Philadelphia’s housing segregation, job discrimination, deindustrialization, and part of its economic decline issues through government intervention in the public housing sector. Carolyn T. Adams, author of From the Outside In (2014), exemplifies the shift of focus to local and federal intervention in Third-Sector organizations, and the lack thereof, in the startup of big industrial and transportation renewal. Similarly to Bauman, Adams refers to many of the solutions and ideas being created from a local level and being affected by public preference and federal policy. Lastly, The Problem of Jobs by Guian A. McKee (2010) takes a more positive outlook on urban renewal in Philadelphia, claiming that despite providing mixed results, the actions of a new form of Liberalism, local and federal policies, and initiatives slowed the progress of deindustrialization and moderated its effects.[1] Over the last 30 years, the scholarship on Philadelphian policies toward reshaping the historical city has changed dramatically from a focus on blaming federal policy, suburbanization and deindustrialization, the failure to provide adequate public housing and proper restructuring of the city’s inner-city blocks as the cause of economic decline and racial conflict. A newer approach to these issues is to take a city-wide approach to how local politicians and project professionals maneuvered a complex level of federal aid, Third-Sector organizations, and an angry white working class to achieve successes in some areas and failures in other neighborhoods.

Public Housing, Race, and Renewal by John F. Bauman focuses on those who debated, promoted, and shaped Philadelphia’s public housing and urban development policies, and how the local and national shift of focus from public housing to rebuilding the city turned a desegregation project into a reinforcement of public housing poverty stereotypes as a federally-funded welfare program. Bauman, having written his book in 1987, comprises the oldest historical outlook of the three books being analyzed in this historiography study. Therefore, both Adams and McKee draw from elements of Bauman’s argument and other authors of his time to build a comprehensive outlook on the complexity of undertaking complete urban reform in one of the oldest and historically significant cities in the U.S. Bauman utilizes the terms professionals and communitarians to describe the progressive outlook of urban leaders during the middle of urban slum expansion in the 1920s. Adams’ and McKee’s central focus on the privatization of industry follows the pattern of slowing progressivism in mid-19th century Philadelphia. Bauman wrote of the tendencies of the federal government, and how the ideas around poverty-stricken areas led to the failure of public housing as a program for economic mobility: “…the federal government’s rigid funding formula for public housing construction, as well as its strict guidelines for tenant selection and tenant retention, begged the question of public housing’s mission. Was public housing to provide good housing for the working class, or was the program to build modern asylums where the poor could learn habits of thrift and cleanliness?”[2] A few ideas are present in Bauman’s argument that hold merit for future scholarship on Philadelphia’s inner city. Particularly, how government funding, despite having the intention of fixing blighted neighborhoods, ends up exacerbating the issue by being too strict with rules, regulations, and the location of the project. Bauman goes even further to state that the racial composition of a project was made to conform to the prevailing composition of the surrounding neighborhood.[3] Essentially, public housing was the same as black housing in inner-city Philadelphia. As public housing became more attached in name to the characteristics of the poor, the politically right-leaning citizens of Philadelphia lost hope that public housing would help people in poverty learn habits of thrift and cleanliness. One would also argue that the idea that public housing would help the poor learn good habits solely based on the architecture itself perpetuates the notion that all people in black-majority neighborhoods promote a culture of poverty. The hopes of architects and city planners were quickly dashed as public opinion on public housing became politicized- it was no longer a rehabilitation program, but a public welfare program for housing the city’s worst residents. Bauman also takes note of the war-spawned conservatism that swept the nation during WWII, a pattern of decentralized federal housing policy that would become a staple in how local Philadelphian officials would carry out construction projects in the future.[4] Federal funding would be provided for projects, but only constructed by private enterprises. This foreshadows the states’ use of nonprofits to accomplish construction projects more efficiently than traditional means of project approval depicted in From the Outside In. The bullish conservative real estate established for new housing projects, and the use of subdivision in existing housing to create an artificially lower demand for low-income and public housing meant that Washington and the city Housing Authority were: “… sacrificing the goals of good housing and defense to the particular interests of the homebuilding and real estate industries.”[5] The pattern imposed by the federal and state governments is private and public organizational appeasement, an act that helped speed up the development process of housing and urban renewal at the expense of ill-planned resident displacement and the diminishment of government authority over the real estate market and urban planning. Even when projects were underway, residency was determined by the current racial composition of the neighborhood. Bauman, noticing the injustice in urban housing planning, stated: “Crassly denying the new housing to low-income black slum residents reeked of injustice… Blacks were being forced to make more than their share of the sacrifice.”[6] Historians’ views on urban redevelopment in Philadelphia have not changed from Bauman’s to Adams’ interpretation- despite good intentions, the fears of black slum encroachment barred minorities from economic mobility by transforming a creative, community-building public housing movement into a cookie-cutter asylum for the poor. As the Housing Act of 1954 rolled around, the idea of city rebuilding became synonymous with economic revitalization.[7] Forced by the realities of the failures of massive elevator towers to fix the city’s housing issues, planners had to decide what locations would be best for a project’s success, zoning certain areas as unsalvageable (black zones), and blighted neighborhoods as buffer zones.[8] This is a form of redlining that reinforced segregated city patterns, instead of fixing the economic and social disparity between residents that are only blocks apart. Furthermore, it further ostracized inner-city black residents from society. Bauman claims that “Only a massive infusion of local, state, and federal money into housing and blight removal could make city neighborhoods ripe again for private investment.”[9] City politicians took their eyes off a lack of housing in certain areas to transform areas to be more appealing to white commuters and future residents, as only 21 percent of displaced families found satisfactory housing; in the eyes of a Philadelphian politician, urban renewal meant black removal.[10] Slum clearance continued, even though public housing became a welfare program: “… at the end of the decade, [the public housing program] remained demoralized and directionless.”[11] Federal housing policy established a framework for a decentralized program of low-income housing that favored white residents and suburban commuters to attract a larger visitor economy, at the expense of inner-city residents. Bauman shows how the government built and bureaucratically managed complexes that contrasted too starkly with American housing norms- how too much government involvement can create complexity in the rebuilding process when housing authorities have to adhere to a changing political climate.[12] Adam’s book works to recount that moving too far in the opposite direction- losing control over infrastructure oversight- was a step in the right direction to starting larger projects, that despite being rarely beneficial to inner-city residents, were economically beneficial to the Philadelphian region as a whole.

Adams’ From the Outside In contradicts Bauman’s belief that Philadelphian urban renewal was a total failure, despite the shortcomings of public housing. Bauman set up Adam’s argument, relating most of the failures in the public housing sector with a shift in ideology that indicated both left and right-leaning political participants supported government intervention and federal funding, and that the division of party lines lies along the direction of the money in the public and private sectors. To set up her perspective of a new form of regionalism, Adams first had to argue against the premise that suburbs have turned their back on central cities.[13] A common assumption made by Bauman that Adams looks to unravel is that suburbanites, as a result of suburbanization, deindustrialization, and the policies of the state and federal government ruined the city’s economy and have made no effort to revitalize it. In fact, over the last 15 years of redevelopment, which would put it squarely in between the publication dates of Bauman’s and Adams’ books, suburbanites have recognized the critical role the city plays in economic functions. De facto regionalism, through the use of Third-Sector organizations, blurs the lines between public and private sectors in American civic life. [14] City managers now turn to private investors to help finance Philadelphian’s transportation system. A new issue has arisen in urban politics- whether these nonprofits, volunteer organizations, research institutions, (etc.), should be used solely to save money and avoid the regulations set by the city and federal government. By using these organizations and providing them with federal aid, they have control over the equal distribution of services and have more authority than state legislation as to where, how, and why a project will be played out. In Bauman’s book, one sees the federal government’s intervention forcing the hand of city planners to change the location of public housing depending on local reception and federal funding. As Adams depicts, the opinion of the urban resident no longer matters, as these non-profits do not need to adhere to the public will or make press releases on the findings and undergoing of the project. While describing the thought process of local politicians at the time, Adams states: “Politicians generally prefer to distribute dollars and services more broadly. It is virtually impossible for the city council to agree to target development dollars in only a few locations because that shortchanges other areas.”[15] Essentially, the agreement behind using Third-Sector organizations is that some people will benefit, while others will suffer from economic, social, and physical displacement. Therefore, the government focuses its efforts on redeveloping one area, a way for suburbanites to slowly change the city without considering the lives of the inhabitants and their organizations’ effects. For example, the Vine Street Expressway, “…offers a classic example of infrastructure that serves the region’s interests at the expense of city dwellers who live nearby… the initial proposal for eight lanes… would have eliminated a Catholic church and school that served as crucial institutions to Chinatown.”[16] One may see a parallel between Bauman and Adams, as the issue of where public housing should be located meant that they were placed in predominantly black neighborhoods, further segregating the minorities that live in public housing and worsening the issue of cramped neighborhoods. Similarly, the issue of where to locate transportation services for commuters fell on black neighborhoods that were seen as ‘unsalvageable’, despite them being a product of a failed distribution of public services. Overall, Adams wanted to indicate how intergovernmental authorities carry out their responsibility for transportation systems that link the city to the suburbs across municipal boundaries, and the inequality present when relying on Third-Sector organizations to carry out the job of the federal and state governments.[17] Adams also alludes to the new centers of gravity within Philadelphia, and how the responsibility of building major districts and developing entirely new districts plays out in the private and public sectors. As the number of organizations grew, the power of the mayor diminished. Government and nonprofit organizations are almost equal in terms of political standing. Revitalizing Philadelphia meant two things- establishing a successful visitor and commuter economy, and reshaping the educational landscape. The City’s 1960 Comprehensive Plan addressed where certain public services should be placed, as well as transportation services and the estimated amount of jobs that should be accomplished by 1980.[18] As Third-Sectors got involved, however, the Plan fell apart and instead the ‘Building Our Strengths’ city plan was enacted, a ratification of existing racial and infrastructure trends in Philadelphia. It contains a compendium of various different projects, ideas, and locations, without offering a comprehensive goal. Third-Sector organizations were hard for even the mayor to control, as their professional positions put them at the forefront of decision-making. As one will see, there are many successes and failures produced by these Third-Sector organizations, most of the failures attributed to poor planning for future usage of the project. In terms of educational attainment, inner-city school districts serve children that are from impoverished or immigrant homes, which means property tax bases cannot produce enough revenue to support schools. A high academic need and weak local tax base meant that, in the 70s and 80s, there was a large downward spiral for urban school districts nationally, from which this pattern the Philadelphia School District reflected. As a result, the government had to intervene and take over: “The most striking change in U.S. education governance in the last forty years has been the growth of centralized state control.”[19] If a school was labeled as distressed, it could legally be taken over by the state. Suburbanites and city dwellers alike saw budgetary shortfalls that are a result of a funding formula incapable of accounting for the city’s high educational costs; restructuring the delivery of education to emphasize competition and mimic market patterns would increase consumer choice. The government was providing EMOs to the worst performing schools, which allowed private management of public schools, but after the failure of EMOs, Philadelphia backed the Charter school movement. Unlike public schools, profit-making businesses play a sizable role in the aspects of charter operations.[20] To make private schools and charter schools more popular, Philadelphia incorporated a portfolio model of pedagogy, where empowered teachers have direct oversight over their students, and parents were given more freedom of choice as to where their child attended school. Portfolio models, however, tended to, “… expand the geographic focus of local school leaders because locals find themselves soliciting support from many outsiders beyond their traditional and local political allies.”[21] Regionalism is seeping into Philadelphia’s educational system, and as Bauman and Adams both clearly indicate, the intersection of local and national politics became an issue when infrastructure was not being built with an image of the future, the ‘bigger picture’, or not being built at all. The charter operators shifted enrollments out of residential neighborhoods and into buildings in the center of the city. Although this is both better economically for the success of charter schools, as there were more students available in the area, the current pattern of location weakened the historical links between public schools and surrounding neighborhoods.[22] Adams and Bauman both highlight the importance of schools in fostering a community and in both cases, residential neighborhoods suffered because of the poor housing quality surrounding these schools. Public housing ended up being placed in areas with the worst housing, often disconnected from the school system after a more conservative voting base blocked public housing and low-income housing in the more affluent neighborhoods. Charter school locations ended up in two positions- either filled to its max capacity with non-caucasian students or filled to less than half-capacity with white students. Charter schools and public housing followed the same path of reinforcing residential segregation patterns, and as both Bauman and Adams write, the educational system is only getting worse as it is privatized; the state lost direct oversight over their students, and the government made no attempt to create a comprehensive plan to rebuild the city with its poverty-stricken residents in mind. Adams does not dislike the use of Third-Sector organizations to accomplish bigger projects faster and cheaper but takes note that city and state governments are channeling dollars into organizational fields where the recipients use those public resources to compete rather than cooperate with one another.[23] Lodging, such as displacement and the need for new residential buildings and the refurbishment of old buildings, made the process more difficult because the well-being for the future of locals’ residency depended on the layout of the city. Despite this, politicians were pushing reliance on the Third Sector anyway. A high level of public funding does not align the Third Sector with government objectives, even if Philadelphia had a comprehensive plan. Instead, public officials only put limited requirements for projects to get them approved faster. The policy around these projects favored competition between the organizations to produce greater efficiency, which then led to competition between the projects post-construction, such as with the charter school movement. Competition fosters organizational isolation- to fix this, Adams indicated a few ways the federal and state governments can navigate the current path of private and public enterprise. Adams states: “City officials should work to induce greater sectoral coherence and concern for serving Philadelphians, to see that the city gains the greatest possible benefit from its concentration of tax-exempt institutions.”[24] Bauman’s book shows how historians of the time witnessed federal funding and building requirements, as well as public opinion on the project, as an obstacle to public housing and urban renewal’s success. Similarly, Adams shows how a move in the opposite direction, a form of laissez-faire economic regionalism, also posed issues because of an emphasis on capitalistic competition that contradicted the government’s goal of urban renewal and a lower inner-city poverty rate. The influx of suburban money bolstered the economy of Philadelphia, which disproves Bauman’s scapegoating of suburbanization as the main cause of an economic decline in Philadelphia, but the oversight in fixing Philadelphia’s racially segregated housing meant that the new projects were being built over the worst areas. Philadelphian low-income neighborhoods were bulldozed and rarely were residents fairly compensated.

            McKee’s The Problem of Jobs contained elements from both Bauman’s and Adams’ work but stood out for its usage of larger, national issues put into context for the rise of Liberalism, a continuation of unemployment issues, and a lack of racial equality in Philadelphia. As opposed to the other books, McKee emphasizes the need for jobs, specifically how  left-leaning political participants’ support of government intervention in the economy persisted at the local level even as national ideologies swayed in the other direction.[25] McKee begins his book after World War II and ends in the 1970s, a timeframe that just overlaps with Bauman’s book and finishes where Adams starts. McKee presents the history of the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation (PIDC), a quasi-public organization that added about 68,000 jobs between 1959 and 1970, and the projects it had undertaken to promote racial equality and prevent further segregation in the city. The placement of McKee’s book at the end of this historiography study, despite taking place in between Bauman and Adams, is not a mistake. McKee’s book indicates the transformation of federal and local policy to reflect the involvement of Third Sector organizations: “These local policy initiatives engaged with and, in some cases, relied on the resources and incentives provided by federal programs, but they remained projects of the local state- of liberal policymakers and activists who constructed public, private, and community-based institutions that sought to address the city’s loss of industrial jobs.”[26] Bauman’s book introduces the concept of using private goals to accomplish public services- McKee takes this and identifies the various projects undertaken to accomplish the Philadelphia Plan and Model Cities program, the first of which to include non-profits to shorten construction periods and bring in more jobs at a rapid rate. McKee is also innovative in his contribution to how Philadelphia’s job-focused programs paralleled racial tracks; the projects that failed generally ignored the social component of industrial decline and racial discrimination in the Philadelphian industry. Specifically, how PIDC’s tendency to work in isolation from those most dramatically affected by economic change led to more suffrage on the part of Philadelphia’s black population.[27] Black-run projects, which both Bauman and Adams failed to allude to, were vulnerable to the real estate market and fluctuations in federal support as a result of changing market conditions. Public action by a hostile white working-class privileged a focus on cultural factors in urban renewal over the need for a long-term plan for fixing structural economic concerns in the city.[28] PIDC and the Philadelphia Plan lost momentum as Liberalism lost its momentum- the national concern for the War on Poverty offered opinionated white city residents a way to lay out their concerns for undergoing an urban renewal project in already affluent neighborhoods. The focus, they believed, should be on the city’s worst slums. Unfortunately, this meant continuing the residential divide of the city’s black population, or in the worst cases, complete displacement and removal. McKee’s analysis of the direct effect of the War on Poverty in the slums of Philadelphia draws parallels to Bauman’s foundation of placing public and low-income housing in economically advantaged neighborhoods. Simply, government intervention focused on white appeasement without the realization of the importance of black economic and social participation in Philadelphia’s inner city. While Bauman is pessimistic about the future, however, McKee focuses on the PIDC’s victory in slowing the progress of deindustrialization and moderating its effects.[29] McKee brings to the table a level of optimism unseen in Bauman’s perspective, while Adams adheres to a methodology of unbiased analysis of the city’s and Third Sector organizations’ urban renewal agenda and necessary racial progressivism. McKee and Adams acknowledge the local and federal politicians’ complete disconnection between economic decline and racial inequality. McKee, however, claims that local public policy can still have a wide effect on the rate of economic change independent of racial matters.[30] Adams believes that economic decline is synonymous with racial inequality, dictating a change in the historical perspective that inequality should be at the forefront of urban redevelopment programs. McKee also addresses racial matters continuously throughout the book, which differs from Bauman’s and Adams’ use of dedicated chapters advocating the involvement of racial matters in shaping Philadelphia’s urban renewal process. For example, McKee noted the shortfalls of the liberal agenda in embracing civil rights, and how the lack of black political representation in city-building meant the expansion of industry was inaccessible to inner-city residents: “… the interaction of job discrimination and industrial decline in Philadelphia had placed African Americans at a severed disadvantage in the local labor market…nonwhite men held a disproportionate share of low-wage, low-scale jobs… only 8.7 percent of [African Americans held] professional and technical jobs…”[31] Black residents, according to McKee, act solely out of response to economic crisis in Philadelphia, making it apparent that black political participants focused on creating jobs, without realizing that the jobs being made were hard for the average inner-city black resident to attain. McKee ends his book with the Model Cities program, a shift from a focus on the renewal of Philadelphia’s manufacturing industry to the services industry: “… the PIDC had slowed but not reversed the decline of Philadelphia’s manufacturing sector during the 1960s and that the base of the national economy had begun to shift from manufacturing to services. This led both city and… PIDC to question whether the nonprofit corporation should continue to focus exclusively on industrial development or expand its operations into services.”[32] A large part of Adams’ book lies in the development of these service institutions; McKee takes note of the availability of land for future industrial uses, and Adams picks up with the various service projects conducted on that land. McKee’s analysis of the bifurcation of local and federal policy is hopeful, at the very least, that Liberalism will overtake the agendas of status-quo residential ‘segregationists’ for a more inclusive economical base in Philadelphia.

The last 30 years have witnessed scholarship on Philadelphian inner-city politics change to include the active participation of suburbanites, the rise of Progressivism and Liberalism, and the inclusion of the black struggle for economic and social participation. At the same time, Bauman, McKee, and Adams all take note of the large number of contradictions that come into play when federal and local policy intersect. Bauman’s Public Housing, Race, and Renewal follows the issue of national political ideologies in the context of war-spawned conservatism, and how the failure of public housing led to a reliance on private sectors to provide housing for those in need. Private interests, however, do not always align with the public; housing was built but did not always reach a level of adequacy that modern homes have. Adams’ From the Outside In shows how the move towards private sector construction and subsequent failure led to a new form of regionalism based on Third Sector organizations’ involvement. To blur the lines between private and public sectors and circumnavigate the general public’s opinion on whether the project should be built in the first place, Philadelphia’s mayors utilized a growing medium of regionalism. McKee’s The Problem of Jobs takes into consideration this shift and depicts the transformation in ideology to include Liberalism, similar but not exact to Bauman’s interpretation of the definition of Progressivism in Philadelphian local politics. While Bauman remains pessimistic about the future of public housing and urban renewal, McKee exemplifies a shift in public opinion to focus on the positives of urban renewal, with some constructive criticism concerning how race should be considered in the application of the process; Adams represents a politically unbiased retelling of events, with many points as to how city politicians should carry construction projects in the future. All three books, however, fully understand that economic decline was tied to racial inequality and that the power of the state and Third Sector organizations are necessary to have a significant effect on the character of economic and racial progress.

Teaching racial inequality in the educational and infrastructural fields is important for closing the social and economic gap that has developed since the removal of the institution of slavery. When teaching in West Windsor South, I noticed that students were hyper aware of their social classes. The very topic of racial disparity was often talked about in the 12th grade Social Justice class I helped out in, and each and every student noted how important it was to be actively thinking about solutions to solve the issues our predecessors have created. The books listed in this historiography study are a good start to help students understand the gravity of the situation and the attempts previously made to solve the issue, especially when the authors’ research delves into the closest city to them, Philadelphia.

References:

Adams, Carolyn Teich. From the Outside In: Suburban Elites, Third Sector Organizations, and the Reshaping of Philadelphia. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Univ. Press, 2014.

Bauman, John F. Public Housing, Race, and Renewal. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press, 1987.

McKee, Guian A. The Problem of Jobs: Liberalism, Race, and Deindustrialization in Philadelphia. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 2018.

[1] Guian A. McKee, The Problem of Jobs: Liberalism, Race, and Deindustrialization in Philadelphia (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 2018), 67.

[2] John F. Bauman, Public Housing, Race, and Renewal (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press, 1987), 40.

[3] Bauman, Public Housing, 47.

[4] Bauman, Public Housing, 56.

[5] Bauman, Public Housing, 64.

[6] Bauman, Public Housing, 68.

[7] Bauman, Public Housing, 139.

[8] Bauman, Public Housing, 147.

[9] Bauman, Public Housing, 148.

[10] Bauman, Public Housing, 148-150.

[11] Bauman, Public Housing, 200.

[12] Bauman, Public Housing, 208.

[13] Carolyn Teich Adams, From the Outside In: Suburban Elites, Third Sector Organizations, and the Reshaping of Philadelphia (Ithaca, New York: Cornell Univ. Press, 2014), 2.

[14] Adams, From the Outside In, 9.

[15] Adams, From the Outside In, 21.

[16] Adams, From the Outside In, 29.

[17] Adams, From the Outside In, 49.

[18] Adams, From the Outside In, 81.

[19] Adams, From the Outside In, 84.

[20] Adams, From the Outside In, 87-88.

[21] Adams, From the Outside In, 93.

[22] Adams, From the Outside In, 104.

[23] Adams, From the Outside In, 173.

[24]  Adams, From the Outside In, 181

[25] Guian McKee, The Problem of Jobs: Liberalism, Race, and Deindustrialization in Philadelphia (Chicago, Illinois: TheUniversity of Chicago Press, 2018), 4.

[26] McKee, The Problem of Jobs, 12.

[27] McKee, The Problem of Jobs, 81.

[28] McKee, The Problem of Jobs, 111.

[29] McKee, The Problem of Jobs, 67.

[30] McKee, The Problem of Jobs, 76.

[31] McKee, The Problem of Jobs, 119.

[32] McKee, The Problem of Jobs, 251.

50 Years Ago, “Anti-Woke” Crusaders Came for My Grandfather

50 Years Ago, “Anti-Woke” Crusaders Came for My Grandfather

Max Jacobs

Reprinted from History News Network

On April 22nd, 2022, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed House Bill 7 (popularly called the “Stop WOKE” Act). Christopher Rufo then took to the podium. After praising the Governor and the bill, Rufo denounced Critical Race Theory (CRT) in schools on three points: CRT segregates students based on race, teaches white heterosexual males that they are fundamentally oppressive, and paints America as a place where racial minorities have no possibility of success. 

While the bogeyman of CRT is a new iteration, Rufo’s objections fit into the long history of the politics of American education. Like his predecessors, Rufo misrepresents ideas critical of conservative hegemony in order to maintain it. “I am quite intentionally,” Rufo tweeted, “redefining what ‘critical race theory’ means in the public mind, expanding it as a catchall for the new orthodoxy. People won’t read Derrick Bell, but when their kid is labeled an ‘oppressor’ in first grade, that’s now CRT.”  But if the public does read Bell, they will see the fallacious humbug Rufo has concocted. “America offers something real for black people,” Bell writes in Silent Covenants, “…the pragmatic approach that we must follow is simply to take a hard-eyed view of racism as it is, and of our subordinate role in it. We must realize with our slave forebears that the struggle for freedom is, at bottom, a manifestation of our humanity that survives and grows stronger through resistance to oppression even if we never overcome that oppression.” Rufo’s deliberate obfuscation of CRT furthers the American lost cause of white resentment. Attaching the politics of education to the politics of whiteness places Rufo’s actions within a longer historical pattern.

In 1972, Search for Freedom: America and Its People came up for review at a public hearing in Texas for statewide textbook adoption. Noted Texan conservatives Mel and Norma Gabler derided the fifth-grade social studies text for several reasons. First, they alleged, it questioned American values and patriotism. Second, it encouraged civil disobedience. Third, it championed Robin Hood economics (taxing the rich and giving to the poor). Fourth, it committed blasphemy for comparing the ideas of Thoreau, Gandhi, and King with those attributed to Jesus in the Gospels. Fifth, it glorified Andy Warhol and, worst of all, only mentioned George Washington in passing but devoted six-and-a-half pages to Marilyn Monroe. After the hearing, the Texas legislators agreed with the Gablers’ objections and effectively banned the textbook from Texas classrooms. Because of Texas’s outsized role in textbook adoption, the textbook did not make it into any other classrooms.

            William Jay Jacobs, my grandfather, wrote the book. My personal connection to this history helps me see how Rufo carries the Gablers’ legacy into the twenty-first century. Acting as guardians of the American republic, Rufo and the Gablers turn complex ideas into soundbites and use those soundbites to make claims about radical indoctrination in schools. They portray this indoctrination as so dangerous that censorship is the only possible solution. The Gablers and Rufo, in their way, share Plato’s conviction that “the young are not able to distinguish what is and what is not…for which reason, maybe, we should do our utmost that the first stories that they hear should be composed as to bring the fairest lessons of virtue to their ears.” Should any story question or contradict the conservative virtues the Gablers and Rufo hold so dear, “it becomes [their] task, then, it seems, if [they] are able, to select which and what kind of natures are suited for the guardianship of a state.”

In a modern democracy, though, which “lessons of virtue” and who “select[s] which and what kind of natures” should be taught to the young are open for public debate. The Gablers and Rufo have therefore worked to manipulate ideas, and how the public perceives those ideas, to justify both conservative curricula and their roles as legitimate guardians of the common-sense virtures of the American republic.  

After the 1972 Search for Freedom hearings, as the right questioned the left’s patriotism and labeled any dissent as anti-American, the Gablers took to the press, seeding sensational soundbites. Headlines shouted: “The Sexy Textbook!” and “More MM than GW!” Mel and Norma then headed to “The Phil Donahue Show” and “60 Minutes” with my grandfather’s textbook in hand. Proclaiming themselves as neutral textbook evaluators, they held the book up to the screen and claimed that my grandfather had swapped Marilyn Monroe for Martha Washington as mother of our country. But as my grandfather wrote in a retort, “‘Marilyn’ made for a good laugh. Yet what better contemporary symbol have we of the potential for barrenness in the American dream when, stripped of its inherent idealism, it is reduced to a mindless groping for money and fame? The Marilyn Monroe sketch raised questions for young readers about mass “spectatorism” and the commercial packaging of human vulnerabilities. It illustrated that not every story beginning with “Once upon a time” necessarily will end with the hero (or heroine) living ‘happily ever after.’”

Rather than juxtaposing the moral of my grandfather’s story with their objection, the Gablers simply skipped over my grandfather’s critical rendition of the American dream and turned it instead into made-for-TV moral panic. They used live television to warn the American public that dangerous ideas were in their textbooks. The Gablers posture—as common-sense Americans shocked by outrageous lessons—spoke to conservative Americans and encouraged them to join their effort to prevent subversive ideas from entering classrooms.

Before Rufo spoke on the podium with DeSantis, he began his crusade on Fox News with Tucker Carlson. On live television, Rufo claimed that CRT “has pervaded every institution in the federal government.” He further proclaimed, “I’ve discovered… that critical race theory has become in essence the default ideology of the federal bureaucracy and is now being weaponized against the American people.” With a captivated, frown-eyed Carlson watching, Rufo explicated findings from three “investigations” that purported to “show the kind of depth of this critical race theory occult indoctrination and the danger and destruction it can wreak.” First, he presented snippets from a seminar led by Howard Ross, who asked treasury department employees “to accept their white privilege…and accept all of the baggage that comes with this reducible essence of whiteness.” Second, Rufo described a weekly seminar on intersectionality held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which aimed “to determine whether you are an oppressor or oppressed.” Third, Rufo detailed a “three-day re-education camp,” sponsored by the Sandia National Laboratories, to “deconstruct their white male culture and actually force them to write letters of apology to women and people of color.”

Rufo ended his diatribe with a call to action: “conservatives need to wake up that this is an existential threat to the United States…I call on the president to immediately issue this executive order and stamp out this destructive divisive pseudoscientific ideology at its root.” With his hyperbolic language, his tying CRT to anything that criticized the power of white American males, and his call for conservatives to “wake up” to defeat an “existential threat,” Rufo put his telegraphed approach to work.

The Carlson interview aired on the first of September; by the 4th a memo was sent by the Trump administration stating, “…according to press reports, employees across the Executive Branch have been required to attend trainings where they are told that ‘virtually all White people contribute to racism or where they are required to say that they ‘benefit from racism’.”

Extracting CRT from the halls of academia and claiming to find its pernicious presence across all federal agencies, Rufo and Carlson brewed moral panic to transform CRT into an existential bogeyman who was coming to destroy white America.

In both cases, the Gablers and Rufo used television to gain support for their cause. They turned critical ideas of American society into a demon that must be slayed. By inflating distant employee training sessions and fifth-grade social studies textbooks into a vast anti-white, anti-American conspiracy, they encouraged viewers to see schools as a nearby battle front, they could, and must, fight on.

In an article titled “Ideological Book Banning is Rampant Nationally,” published in the Washington Post on October 16th, 1983, Alison Muscatine reported the following: “‘Our children are totally controlled,’ said Norma Gabler, displaying a social studies textbook that devotes six pages to Marilyn Monroe but that makes only three references to George Washington. ‘Can you imagine a sex symbol being given more time than the father of our country? I don’t think it’s fair that our children be subjected to this kind of information. They are being totally indoctrinated to one philosophy.’”

To try to fight the alleged indoctrination, the Gablers created the Educational Research Analysts—an explicitly Christian conservative organization–to review, revise, and censor any textbook that ran counter to their vision of what American children should be taught. In their attempt to guard the American child from subversive stories, the Gablers claimed children were being “totally indoctrinated to one philosophy.” Their censorious actions, however, did more to indoctrinate American children to one way of seeing the world than did my grandfather’s parable on Marilyn Monroe. Citing indoctrination, the Gablers justified their censorship to preserve their version of America as the only legitimate story American children should read.   

Although Rufo himself has not censored textbooks, his actions led to legislation that did. The Florida Department of Education published a press release labeled “Florida Rejects Publishers’ Attempts to Indoctrinate Students.” In 5,895 pages, the department details two reasons for rejecting 41 percent of the textbooks that were reviewed. The textbooks either followed Common Core Standards (which the Florida Department of Education rejects), or the textbooks included CRT (defined, of course, in Rufo’s expansive terms). Like the Gablers, the Florida textbook evaluators assume controversial ideas in a text will indoctrinate the children reading them. Again, the Gablers and Rufo posture as guardians standing against a radical activist agenda, not as censors. They both throw their hands up, sit, and watch as other citizens act upon their calls to censor ideas. And when others call them censorious zealots, they simply dodge the charges by claiming they themselves did not censor ideas, even though their actions clearly encouraged others to do so.

In an exposé on the Gablers, Mel details how they understand this guardianship. “‘When they eliminate good books and put garbage in, they are the censors,’ he said. ‘All we do is point it out’.” Because they only reported the textbooks to the Texas Education Agency, the Gablers did not see themselves as censors. Semantically, they may be right. Practically, however, the Gablers’ actions effectively “canceled” certain ideas. Forget merit; for the Gablers, an idea should only be taught if it fits into an understanding of “good books” that happens to coincide with their conservative worldview. The good books argument is akin to the argument Plato’s Socrates makes in the Republic. Namely, those who have the power and guard the republic are the rightful persons to decide which stories and thereby which virtues the future guardians should learn. The problem is, however, neither the Gablers nor any other single entity in a modern democratic state has the sole right to decide what the next generation ought to know.

On Twitter, Rufo evoked this exact line of reasoning. He wrote, “there are no ‘book bans’ in America. Authors have a First Amendment right to publish whatever they want, but public libraries and schools are not obligated to subsidize them. Voters get to decide which texts—and ultimately, which values—public institutions transmit to children.” Rufo is right, to a point. The voters do make those decisions but do so, presumably, by understanding good faith arguments on both sides of an issue. But Rufo’s sensationalized, bad faith reporting—which turned CRT into something it is wholly not—prevents voters, especially children, from seeing both sides of the issue and forming their own opinion. Positioning himself as defender of America, Rufo’s reporting turns progressive ideas into anti-American rhetoric to excite the conservative base to enact censorship.

Let me be clear, the difference between the Gablers and Rufo is one of degree, not kind. The Gablers aimed at textbooks while Rufo aims at a broad and diffuse set of ideas and practices that are now dubbed “wokeness.” The Gablers raised hell at textbook adoption meetings while Rufo raises hell on the internet. Both position themselves as protectors against supposedly subversive ideas. Both (along with Plato), however, fall into the same faulty assumption. Critical or not, ideas do not simply transmit to children. Children, like adults, can reason. Thus, children–not just books, not just ideas–shape how they understand the world they live in. 

In his response editorial, my grandfather leaves us with a prescient insight: “Meanwhile, it’s comforting to know that the issue of book banning continues to generate controversy. It means that at least someone, somewhere, still takes the written word seriously as a means of influencing the minds of young people.”

Social Studies Groups Worried State Trying to Downgrade Importance of History, Civics

Social Studies Groups Worried State Trying to Downgrade Importance of History, Civics

John Hildebrand

Reprinted by permission from Newsday, May 30, 2023

Social studies groups statewide are pushing back against a plan out of Albany they say would downgrade the importance of coursework in history and civics during a time when such lessons should take top priority. The critics, who include a strong contingent from Long Island, add that the state’s plan could lead to elimination of two major Regents exams. Those tests cover U.S. History and Government, and Global History and Geography. At issue is a recent announcement by the state’s Department of Education that it would drop, for the next two years, its practice of including scores from such exams in its academic ratings of high schools. Agency officials describe the move as a temporary “pause” and insist that social studies retains its status as a core academic subject, along with English, math and science.

Albany’s plan has alarmed many educators, who note that the state already has taken steps to reduce the amount of class time spent on history, geography, civics and related subjects. Social studies leaders at the state level recently stepped up their criticism, joining colleagues from the Island. Lisa Kissinger, president of the New York State Council for the Social Studies, fired off a letter to state education officials on May 22, urging them to reconsider their planned change in school ratings. A copy of the letter was obtained by Newsday. “This ‘pause’ sends a message to all New Yorkers that Social Studies education is not a priority,” Kissinger wrote. “We are concerned that ‘pausing’ the inclusion of results demonstrates a devaluation of Social Studies that could lead to the elimination of the Social Studies Regents exams and minimization of the critical importance of this core subject.”

Kissinger is a social studies administrator in the suburban Shenendehowa district near Albany, and her state organization represents hundreds of administrators, teachers and college faculty. Her letter was addressed to Lester W. Young Jr., chancellor of the Board of Regents, which oversees the education department and sets much of the state’s education policy.

State: Social studies is integral

A senior department official, Theresa Billington, responded to Kissinger’s letter the following day, insisting that her agency placed a high priority on social studies. “The department values Social Studies as an integral part of our shared civic discourse and the critical role it plays in educating and shaping the students of New York State to become active citizens and future leaders of our nation,” Billington wrote. She is an assistant state commissioner for school accountability. Billington noted that some Regents history exams were canceled during the COVID-19 pandemic and added that this would seriously limit the amount of data available for school ratings. Kissinger pointed out, on the other hand, that data would be available from a global history exam administered last year, as well as from other tests scheduled for June and for the 2023-24 school term. 

The assistant commissioner’s response did not directly address Kissinger’s concerns about the future of Regents exams. That’s one of the thorniest issues facing the education department, which recently accelerated a previously announced overhaul of graduation requirements. The overhaul could include a decision to stop using Regents exams as a diploma requirement. A state-appointed commission is scheduled to release recommendations for revised graduation rules by November — seven months earlier than originally planned.

Regents, which established the commission last September, have said that one goal is to help more students gain the knowledge and skills needed to graduate, even if they do that through pathways other than traditional exams. “This is not about lowering standards,” Young remarked at the time.

Worries that changes will be lasting

Social studies representatives have cautioned, however, that any changes in testing policy could affect studies of history and related subjects in a negative way, if not handled carefully. Under federal law, students must be tested periodically in English, math and science, but there is no such requirement for social studies.As a result, social studies testing has sometimes taken a backseat. In 2010, Regents voted unanimously to eliminate social studies tests in fifth and eighth grades, on grounds that the state was short of money for assessments.

Those tests were never restored, and supporters of the social studies said there’s a lesson in that. “Once they pause, they will never return,” said Gloria Sesso, co-president of the Long Island Council for the Social Studies. 

On May 12, the regional group sent its own protest to Betty A. Rosa, the state’s education commissioner. The letter asserted that the state’s planned change in school ratings could create a “danger to democracy” by lessening the time schools spend on social studies lessons. Billington responded to the Island group’s letter, much as she did to Kissinger’s, by insisting that her department placed great value on social studies. 

Alan Singer, a Hofstra University education professor, agreed with critics that “once paused, it is unlikely social studies performance will ever be included in the assessments, and what is not assessed is not going to be a priority.” In a recent blog, Singer noted that a state decision in 2016 to limit events covered by global history exams to those occurring after 1750 had excluded topics such as the impact of Columbus’ voyages. The blog’s title: “History is in Trouble in New York State.”

Modern Neocolonialism Via Public and Private Entities

Modern Neocolonialism Via Public and Private Entities

Brian Crociata

For over five centuries, opportunistic outside powers have been taking advantage of Latin America. During the colonial era, the natural resources and native populations of the region were abused by European countries for profit. Exploitative practices left indelible marks on the area that persist to this day, and even after achieving independence, many countries in the region continue to function under neocolonial domination. Through the direct actions of foreign governments and more subtle acts of economic manipulation, the will of the people in Latin America has been continuously suppressed by intruding parties. In this essay, I will argue that modern neocolonial influence in Latin America largely follows historical precedent. Political and economic affairs in the region are shaped by modern foreign interests in the same manner that they have been throughout history.

With the advent of lithium-ion batteries and their increased popularity in the search for clean energy sources, global interest has been shifted back towards the Latin American mining industry. The trio of Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina contain about 58 percent of all global lithium reserves, a resource which is highly valuable on the global market (Berg et. al. “South America’s Lithium Triangle” 2021). Consequently, multiple global superpowers have expressed interest in gaining partial-or total-control over South American mining operations. In the first document that I chose, “South America’s Lithium Triangle: Opportunities for the Biden Administration”, authors Ryan C. Berg and T. Andrew Sady-Kennedy suggest that the Biden administration should pursue a higher level of cooperation between the United States and the countries mentioned above. Citing environmentalist concerns, green energy, and the rapidly expanding demand for lithium, the two argue that it would be mutually beneficial for all parties to work together (Berg et. al. “ South America’s Lithium Triangle” 2021). On its own, this suggestion seems innocent enough. Alternative energy is a burgeoning market, and the modern globalized economy means that investment from foreign sources is not uncommon by any means. However, when the current political climate in these lithium-producing countries is considered, it becomes more clear that the United States’ plans for involvement are not in line with the ideals that these countries have embraced. The elected governments of Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile all express heavy left-leaning ideologies, which are largely incompatible with the concept of investment as it is understood in the article. The newly elected president of Chile, Gabriel Boric, has even suggested that he will seek to nationalize the country’s mining industry, a move that would likely cease all involvement from the United States (Restivo 2021). Berg and Sady-Kennedy briefly address these barriers, noting the “United States’ historically rocky relationship with both Argentina and Bolivia”, but they do not seem to view them as particularly significant (Berg et. al. “South America’s Lithium Triangle” 2021). To the authors, such concerns can simply be solved by organizing a summit between lithium-producing countries and potential investors (Berg et. al. “South America’s Lithium Triangle” 2021). No credence is lent to the possibility of countries being disinterested in such a summit. Such arrogance is reminiscent of that displayed by those seeking to spread European-style “progress” into Latin America during the 19th Century. As described in “Neocolonial Ideologies” by E. Bradford Burns, it was inconceivable to Europeans that anybody would disagree with their conception of the optimal society. Burns puts it as such: “…the Enlightenment philosophers concluded that if people had the opportunity to know the truth, they would select ‘civilization’ over ‘barbarism’” (Burns 1980:92). Of course all Latin American people would pursue an industrialized society, as it was objectively the civilized, superior manner of existence. Berg and Sady-Kennedy demonstrate a similar pattern of thinking. Of course Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina would meet with the United States to discuss investment, because it is objectively the best way for them to boost said investment.

This article frequently invokes the ideas of partnership and cooperation, but it subtly betrays its true intentions in one key statement. After discussing the newfound usefulness of lithium and the growing market for it, Berg and Sady-Kennedy say the following: “These trends indicate that control of the lithium industry could reap major benefits in the future…” (Berg et. al. “South America’s Lithium Triangle” 2021). Notable in this excerpt is the usage of the word “control”. Unlike partnership and cooperation, the idea of control carries a much different -and much more sinister- connotation. It implies a much more forceful involvement, one in which the will of the United States is imposed instead of negotiated. This, of course, is the most familiar modus operandi of the United States. It can be traced back almost two full centuries to the Monroe Doctrine, expressed in 1823. The Doctrine, presented to Congress by President James Monroe, granted the U.S. permission to involve itself in Latin American affairs “in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved” (Avalon Project 2008). There are shades of this approach visible in the article, as Berg and Sady-Kennedy establish that the lithium industry is very much of interest to the United States. However, the authors seem to push beyond this concept and into the realm of the Roosevelt Corollary. The Roosevelt Corollary granted the United States power to exercise more force in its application of the Monroe Doctrine, under the guise of “[desiring] to see the neighboring countries stable, orderly, and prosperous” (Frohnen 2008). It drew heavily from the idea of paternalism, which is based upon the belief that some groups of people are more capable and intelligent than others. This feigned desire to see Latin American countries succeed, as well as the paternalistic tone of the Corollary, can be seen throughout the article. The failure of Chile, Bolivia, and Argentina to “successfully [transform] the majority of [their] available resources into economically viable reserves available for commercial production” is bemoaned, and it is heavily insinuated that the United States is responsible for reversing this trend (Berg et. al. “South America’s Lithium Triangle” 2021). The exact words of the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary are much too taboo for modern-day political analysts, but clearly the sentiments expressed within them are still relevant and popular.

The United States is far from the only country perpetuating modern neocolonialism in Latin America. In its efforts to expand its social and economic influence, China has begun to get involved in the region, with much more obvious and direct intentions. Thus, for the second document in this analysis, I chose “Chinese Neocolonialism in Latin America: An Intelligence Assessment”, written by senior airman Steffanie G. Urbano and produced by the U.S. Air Force. The report enumerates a few different grievances that the United States has with China’s action, starting with exploitative lending and the weaponization of debt. Urbano describes a process known as “debt diplomacy”, in which China will issue exploitative loans to Latin American countries that do not have the ability to pay them back. The debt from these loans is then used as leverage by China, allowing them to hold other countries hostage when they cannot repay. This allows China free reign to operate in the region, with actions like seizing key infrastructure and forcibly reworking government contracts being common (Urbano 2021:185-187). China’s strategy of leveraging debt is not unheard of in Latin America; in fact, it is particularly reminiscent of the blueprint set by Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries. During this time, major European powers kept newly independent Latin countries in a state of perpetual debt, taking advantage of their young governments and economies. When these countries inevitably defaulted on their loans, loaning countries used it as an excuse to exercise military power and generally institute their own will. In Born in Blood & Fire, John Charles Chasteen lays out a particularly prominent example from Mexico in the mid-1850s: “The civil war had bankrupted the Mexican state, and Juárez suspended payment on foreign debt. France, Spain, and Britain retaliated by collectively occupying Veracruz” (Chasteen 2016:169-170). Using Veracruz as a springboard, the French military invaded the country, kicked out the current government, and installed their own puppet dictator to rule the country on their behalf. This particular brand of gunboat diplomacy is outdated in modern times, but the utilization of debt to excuse aggressive behavior is very much alive. Beyond debt diplomacy, Urbano also notes that large numbers of Chinese immigrants are settling in Latin America. She points to the fact that the Chinese-born population in the area more than doubled from 1990 to 2015, an increase which was sparked by “the migration of families to join Chinese laborers already settled in Latin America” (Urbano 2021:192). This is another familiar strategy, one that was used in the American banana republics in the early 20th century. The United Fruit Company, who effectively controlled much of Central America, created entire towns and communities of U.S. expats. Employees and their families would live in neo-suburban settings, “miniature US neighborhoods of screen-porched houses on meticulously manicured lawns”, isolated at best and actively colonizing at worst (Chasteen 2016:200-201). They spread American culture and ideas into the region, contributing little in the way of actual development and improvement. This parasitic relationship serves as the clear inspiration for China to develop their own isolated communities abroad.

Besides being deeply ironic, the contrasting tones of these two articles demonstrate the power of American exceptionalism to color our perception of the world. How can our government condemn “the detrimental impact of [Chinese-Latin American relationships] on regional stability and US leadership” when it has been just as guilty of destabilizing the region (Urbano 2021:184)? Why is it unacceptable for China to take control of key industries while American think tanks advocate for the same behavior? Do we truly believe that Latin America is only now becoming “overrun by malicious intent”, and that U.S. intervention “to keep our neighborhood friendly” is not malicious (Urbano 2021:197)? After analyzing both of these pieces, it has become clear that the United States sees itself in a different light from other countries. Ryan Berg and T. Andrew Sady-Kennedy advocate for intervention in the lithium industry because they believe that the U.S. must help Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile. They acknowledge that those countries do not want our assistance, but they seem to believe that such relationships can be changed purely by virtue of being the United States. Airman Urbano strongly condemns Chinese intervention in Latin America through the entirety of her writing, but she ends by advocating for U.S. intervention in the region. She seems to believe that the United States has more virtuous and respectable aims in the region, despite a history that suggests otherwise. Only by learning this history can we break such patterns of thinking and work towards achieving justice for the people of Latin America.

Incorporation into the classroom

            Although this essay was previously drafted for a college level course, the ideas and the process demonstrated within it could prove useful in any social studies classroom that utilizes document analysis. When working with historical documents, it is important for students to recognize that the content within the document does not exist outside of its historical context. Effective analysis in the classroom should always include a dissection not only of the content itself, but the author, the intended audience, the reasons for the document’s creation, and the broader historical environment in which it was produced. In the above essay, we can see this process being taken with the Berg and Sady-Kennedy article and the broader context of U.S. policy in Latin America. As acknowledged by the author of this essay, the literal verbiage of the article is fairly innocent and mundane, with Berg and Sady-Kennedy advocating for cooperation and partnership in the region. When the historical context of the Monroe Doctrine and interventionist policy is considered, though, the article’s messaging becomes a more concerning indicator of contemporary views about Latin America in the United States.

 For students in a secondary education setting, the skill of recognizing and defining a document’s subtext should be targeted for development. Educators can promote this skill by highlighting the aforementioned aspects (author, audience, intention, context) of documents that are used in class, thereby modeling the process for students. This can be scaffolded as well, with educators prompting students to undertake the analysis process on their own until it becomes an automatic part of dissecting a document. If students can effectively utilize this skill, teachers can incorporate a much broader range of documents into the classroom. Material does not need to be nearly as literal and targeted if students possess the ability to consider historical context. For example, a lesson on racial discrimination could incorporate writings about eugenics, redlining, discriminatory legal codes, and much more provided that students are able to recognize the racial connotations of these issues. Outside of the classroom, this skill is just as valuable. Politically active Americans will frequently encounter messaging that relies heavily on connotations and subtext to execute its true intentions. In order to function as a responsible and informed member of our democracy, an individual must be able to pick up on the messaging beneath the surface.

References

Berg, Ryan C. and Sady-Kennedy, T. Andrew. 2021. “South America’s Lithium Triangle: Opportunities for the Biden Administration.” Retrieved from https://www.csis.org/analysis/south-americas-lithium-triangle-opportunities-biden-administration <Accessed 4/22/22>  

Burns, E. Bradford. 1980. “Neocolonial Ideologies.” In The Poverty of Progress: Latin America in the 19th Century. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pp. 18-20, 29-30.

Chasteen, John. 2016. Born in Blood & Fire. New York:W.W. Norton & Company.

Monroe, James. Monroe Doctrine, December 2, 1823. In The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History, and Diplomacy. New Haven: Lillian Goldman Law Library, 2008.

Restivo, Néstor. 2021. “Cuál es el programa económico de Gabriel Boric para el nuevo Chile.” Pagina 12. December 26.

Roosevelt, Theodore. Roosevelt Corollary to Monroe Doctrine, December 6, 1904. In The American Nation: Primary Sources, edited by Bruce Frohnen. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2008.

Shakow, Miriam. 2022. “Findlay Intro & Ch 1-2 plus Roosevelt Corollary.” Class Lecture, Race & Gender in Latin America. The College of New Jersey. April 8.

Urbano, SrA Steffanie. 2021. “Chinese Neocolonialism in Latin America.” Journal of the Americas. Third Edition 2021: 183–199.