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

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. 

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 Failures of the Recovery from the Great Recession

When Barack Obama took over as President, there were fears that the United States was heading for a re-run of the Great Depression. The financial meltdown that became apparent during calendar year 2008 had sparked a dramatic recession – which has come to be known, with 20-20 hindsight, as the Great Recession. When Obama took office, the economy was hemorrhaging 700,000 jobs a month. The unemployment rate had climbed to 9 percent and was still increasing. Something had to be done.

Obama’s program passed the House and Senate in March of 2009. It was just enough to stop the bleeding and begin what turned out to be a painfully slow recovery. But because of a combination of Democratic timidity and Republican opposition, the size of the macroeconomic stimulation contained in the Recovery Act was much too small. In order to get the 60 votes needed to defeat a Republican filibuster, the Obama Administration had to pare back their proposed spending increases and tax cuts in order to satisfy the deficit hawks among the Democratic majority.

The result was a historically slow recovery which, the writers believe, was the reason the House flipped to the Republicans in 2010, the Senate flipped to the Republicans in 2014, and one of the reasons Donald Trump was elected President at the end of Obama’s two terms. This paper details the macroeconomic impact of the Obama Recovery program and compares several important macro-economic indicators from that recovery (2009-2017) to previous recoveries from recessions in the post-World War II era. The variables investigated include the ratio of investment to gross domestic product (GDP), the rate of growth of productivity, the ratio of consumption to GDP, the unemployment rate, the capacity utilization rate, the employment-to-population ratio, and the rate of growth of real GDP.

The results of the comparisons are striking. Real GDP growth was slow through 2016. Investment incentives were severely damaged by the housing bubble during the years 1995-2005, followed by the housing bubble meltdown during the years 2005-2009. Thus, during the Obama recovery, housing investment barely budged, reducing the overall level of investment. This led to a miniscule productivity growth rate. Meanwhile, consumption spending which is the key incentive for the revival of investment during business cycle upswings rose slowly as well. It also took a long time for the unemployment rate to fall to its pre-recession level.

This disappointingly sluggish recovery was the culmination of a number of long run trends that had slowed the economy during the entire period since the early 1970’s including the long-term slowdown in GDP growth per capita since the early 1980s.

During the Obama recovery, the unemployment rate declined very slowly. Obama won re-election but up and down the ballot – including in many state legislatures and the House of Representatives beginning in 2010 – Republicans cashed in on the impatience of citizens with the slow pace of recovery. The economy did not get back to “normal” until 2016 but it was too late for the Democrats. Trump was able to ride to a razor thin victory in part on the strength of disappointment by many people who had voted for Obama – both rural whites in key states like Wisconsin and Michigan who switched to Trump, as well as Black voters whose turnout fell in Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Milwaukee with devastating electoral consequences for three crucial battleground states (Krogstad and Lopez, 2017).

When President Obama took office, all eyes were focused on the short-run challenge of the Great Recession. Here’s how his Council Of Economic Advisers stated it, a year later, in the Economic Report of the President, 2010:

“In December 2007, the American economy entered what at first seemed likely to be a mild recession. … [R]eal house prices (that is, house prices adjusted for inflation) had risen to unprecedented levels, almost doubling between 1997 and 2006. The rapid run-up in prices was accompanied by a residential construction boom and the proliferation of complex mortgages and mortgage-related financial assets. The fall of national house prices starting in early 2007, and the associated declines in the values of mortgage-backed and other related assets, led to a slowdown in the growth of consumer spending, increases in mortgage defaults and home foreclosures, significant strains on financial institutions, and reduced credit availability.

By early 2008, the economy was contracting. Employment fell by an average of 137,000 jobs per month over the first eight months of 2008. Real GDP rose only anemically from the third quarter of 2007 to the second quarter of 2008.

Then in September 2008, the character of the downturn worsened dramatically. The collapse of Lehman Brothers and the near-collapse of American International Group (AIG) led to a seizing up of financial markets and plummeting consumer and business confidence. Parts of the financial system froze, and assets once assumed to be completely safe, such as money-market mutual funds, became unstable and subject to runs. Credit spreads, a common indicator of credit market stress, spiked to unprecedented levels in the fall of 2008. The value of the stock market plunged 24 percent in September and October, and another 15 percent by the end of January. [O]ver the final four months of 2008 and the first month of 2009, the economy lost, on average, a staggering 544,000 jobs per month, the highest level of job loss since the demobilization at the end of World War II. Real GDP fell at an increasingly rapid pace: an annual rate of 2.7 percent in the third quarter of 2008, 5.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008, and 6.4 percent in the first quarter of 2009” (ERP, 2010: 26-27).

Here is how President Obama himself described the crisis that greeted him when he took office:

“Last January, (2009) years of irresponsible risk-taking and debt-fueled speculation—unchecked by sound oversight—led to the near-collapse of our financial system. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs each month. Over the course of one year, $13 trillion of Americans’ household wealth had evaporated as stocks, pensions, and home values plummeted. Our gross domestic product was falling at the fastest rate in a quarter century. The flow of credit, vital to the functioning of businesses large and small, had ground to a halt. The fear among economists, from across the political spectrum, was that we could sink into a second Great Depression” (ERP, 3).

Later in the same message he noted that there were also long-term problems that his administration had to confront:

“At the same time, long before this crisis hit, middle-class families were under growing strain. For decades, Washington failed to address fundamental weaknesses in the economy: rising health care costs, growing dependence on foreign oil, an education system unable to prepare all of our children for the jobs of the future. In recent years, spending bills and tax cuts for the very wealthiest were approved without paying for any of it, leaving behind a mountain of debt. And while Wall Street gambled without regard for the consequences, Washington looked the other way.

As a result, the economy may have been working for some at the very top, but it was not working for all American families. Year after year, folks were forced to work longer hours, spend more time away from their loved ones, all while their incomes flat-lined and their sense of economic security evaporated. Growth in our country was neither sustained nor broadly shared. Instead of a prosperity powered by smart ideas and sound investments, growth was fueled in large part by a rapid rise in consumer borrowing and consumer spending” (ERP, 5-6).

The Council of Economic Advisers elaborated a bit more on these long-run problems:

“…even before the crisis, the economy faced significant long-term challenges. As a result, it was doing poorly at providing rising standards of living for the vast majority of Americans…Beginning around 1970, slower productivity growth and rising income inequality caused incomes for most families to grow only slowly. After a half-decade of higher growth in the 1990s, the real income of the typical American family actually fell between 2000 and 2006” (ERP, 28).

As to what had caused the increase in inequality and slower productivity growth over the long run, the Council members were silent. They did, however, identify a rising share of debt-financed consumption as the problem for the decade since 2000:

“The expansion of the 2000s was fueled in part by high consumption. [T]he share of GDP that takes the form of consumption has been on a generally upward trend for decades and reached unprecedented heights in the 2000s. The personal saving rate fell to exceptionally low levels, and trade deficits were large and persistent. A substantial amount of the remainder of GDP took the form of housing construction, which may have crowded out other kinds of investment. Such an expansion is not just unstable, as we have learned painfully over the past two years. It also contributes too little to increases in standards of living. Low investment in equipment and factories slows the growth of productivity and wages” (ERP, 29-30).

In order to assess whether the Obama Administration’s plan for recovery from the Great Recession was a success or failure, one must first explain how to judge success or failure. In the Economic Report of the President for 2017, Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers certainly argued that what they had done since January 2009 had been a great success. Here is how they argued:

“Over the two terms of the Obama Administration, the U.S. economy has made a remarkable recovery from the Great Recession. After peaking at 10.0 percent in October 2009, the unemployment rate has been cut by more than half to 4.6 percent as of November 2016 … Real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita recovered fully to its pre-crisis peak in the fourth quarter of 2013, … As of November 2016, the economy has added 14.8 million jobs over 74 months, the longest streak of total job growth on record. Since private-sector job growth turned positive in March 2010, U.S. businesses have added 15.6 million jobs. Real wage growth has been faster in the current business cycle than in any since the early 1970s” [ERP: 217: 21].

The forceful response of the federal government to the crisis in 2008 and 2009 helped stave off a potential second Great Depression by setting the U.S. economy on track to rebuild, reinvest, and recover. Everything the Obama Council of Economic Advisers marked in their 2017 report is correct. Their emphasis on the importance of both the fiscal stimulus of the Recovery Act, and the temporary payroll tax holiday is not misplaced. Unfortunately, because of the political constraints on big deficits and the almost universal opposition of the Congressional Republicans, the Obama Administration had to be content with a fiscal stimulus, despite being the largest in the post-World War II economy, turned out to be woefully insufficient.

What was left out of the Council of Economic Advisers’ celebration of the successes of the post 2009 recovery was a sense of how the post 2009 period – the period of recovery according to the National Bureau of Economic Research’s Business Cycle Dating Committee – compared with recoveries from previous recessions. In general, it is essential that such comparisons be made across the board so that we can judge whether a particular set of policies was successful or not. The economy did recover. By the time Obama left office in 2017, all economic indicators were significantly better than they were when he took office. If that is all the evidence that is needed, then every President from Truman to Obama, except Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush and Donald Trump, represents an economic success story.

However, if we are going to use the comparative analysis, we have to compare apples to apples. Our comparative data will cover the quarters of recovery — from the trough to the peak. We will compare the data for the recovery from the Great Recession with previous recoveries going back to the 1961-70 period. As always, we will use the quarters of recovery as identified by the NBER’s Business Cycle Dating Committee.

The next, and most significant question is: What are the standards of success? We have already indicated that the rate of growth of real GDP per capita is a crucial element of economic success. But growth has never been smooth. From the initial discovery back in 1819 that there is a “business cycle,” it has been apparent that economies organized by some variant of free-market capitalism grew by fits and starts surging forward in periods of growth, only to have them interrupted by what were called in the 19th century “crises.” Long run economic growth was powered by such surges of expansion. It is during these surges (officially called recoveries in the literature these days) that improvements in productivity occur for the most part because of high levels of private investment.

Investment and productivity growth represent the “supply side” of economic growth. But investment actually does dual duties because it is the most dynamic element in aggregate demand. When it is rising rapidly (evidenced by a high ratio of investment to GDP) it stimulates an increase in aggregate demand. When that ratio falls, it causes slowdowns and even recessions. These swings in investment have ramifications via the multiplier effect on consumption, by far the largest contributor to the “demand side” of economic growth. While investment changes introduce the major dynamic into the system, it is the growth of consumption that sustains it. Sometimes, export surges can play an important role and during wartime government spending plays a major role as well.

Meanwhile, productivity growth is the process that enables economic growth. All investments both in physical and human capital increase the capacity of the economy to produce. To the extent that the investment utilizes the newest technology, it plays a major role in increasing productivity. An increase in productivity makes it possible for wages to increase without cutting into profits, and for profits to increase without depressing wages. Thus, a higher rate of productivity growth during a period of economic recovery indicates that the economy is doing well, whereas a slowdown in productivity growth indicates the opposite. Though journalists, politicians and the public usually see GDP growth as the key to an economy’s success, from an economists’ point of view the gold standard of success is a high rate of productivity growth – because that facilitates higher economic growth and a rising standard of living.

So the rate of growth of productivity and the ratio of investment to GDP are both extremely important indicators of economic success. For investment, the standard of success is whether there is a relatively high ratio to GDP, which would show investment playing a very positive role. A relatively low ratio to GDP shows that investment is failing to provide the important dynamic element. The ratio of consumption spending to GDP shows how a growth spurt is sustained.

Our final standards of success relate to how close our economy comes to meeting its potential during a period of expansion. The usual standard of success, and the one that often has important political ramifications, is the civilian unemployment rate. Unemployed resources represent a waste of potential. In this paper, we choose to use three variables representing three different ways to measure the closeness to potential experienced during a recovery: unemployment, capacity utilization and the employment to population ratio. Though unemployment is the one most quoted in the media, there has always been an argument within the economics profession about how much unemployment is “voluntary.” Voluntary unemployment is not a waste of potential as the individual making the decision is unwilling to commit that potential to employment.

To further complicate the idea that the civilian unemployment rate measures a waste of human resources, we have the argument introduced by Milton Friedman that there is a “natural” rate of unemployment. That concept has been joined by the idea that there is a “non-accelerating-inflation rate of unemployment” (or NAIRU). At either or both of these rates, which have never been precisely identified numerically and which have changed from time to time, one could argue that the economy is not wasting resources because rates of unemployment below either the “natural” rate or the NAIRU are unsustainable.

In order to avoid arguing about how much of measured unemployment is truly involuntary, we also present the capacity utilization rate. This is a true measure of deficiency of aggregate demand because except for some minimal downtime for either routine maintenance or re-tooling, excess capacity is a clear waste of economic resources. Finally, the employment to population ratio avoids the knotty issue of how many people without jobs are truly not in the labor force. It captures the discouraged workers who never get counted in official unemployment statistics while still underestimating the under-utilization of human resources because it fails to measure involuntary part-time work. We believe all three of these statistics can give us a sense of how close to optimum utilization of resources an economy comes during a period of expansion. We also note that the impact of government spending, as evidenced by the data, was insufficient to propel a vigorous recovery given the severity of the downturn and the deep dive in the investment to GDP (I/GP) ratio.

With this plan, we can now turn to actually measuring the recovery from the Great Recession against previous recoveries starting with the 1961-70 recovery. The quarters between the troughs (1961, 1970, 1975, 1982, 1991, and 2001) and peaks (1969, 1973, 1980, 1990, 2001, and 2007) provide our data for the comparisons with the recovery from the Great Recession. In order to avoid the impact of compounding over recoveries of different lengths, we utilize averages over the course of each recovery as the basis for comparisons.

To assess the recovery from the Great Recession, we begin in the second quarter of 2009, and end when Obama left the White House in the first quarter of 2017. Even though the recovery did not end until the Covid-19 pandemic threw the economy into a very deep recession in the second quarter of 2020, our job is to describe the economy during Obama’s administration. First look at the ratio of gross investment to GDP. The reason we use gross investment rather than net investment is because even though the depreciation part of gross investment does not involve any net increase in the capital stock, the capital bought to replace that part of the capital stock that is “wearing out” will fix the newest technology and thus contribute to economic growth. In addition, the spending to replace wearing out capital has a multiplier effect just like any other spending.

Taking every recovery going back to 1961, all recoveries showed an average I/GDP ratio above 17 percent except for the 1961-70 recovery where investment as a percentage of GDP was below that level. The recovery from the Great Recession was significantly lower than the previous recoveries averaging just over 16 percent.

But that does not fully capture the seriousness of the problem. When President Obama took office, the I/GDP ratio was 12.7 at the trough of the Great Recession. Unfortunately, unlike some earlier recessions (1974 and 1982 for example), when the ratio rebounded dramatically (reaching 17% in 1976 and over 20% in 1984). It took three years between 2009 and 2012 for the I/GDP ratio to reach 15.5%. It averaged only 16.2 percent of GDP for the entire period through 2017Q1 and in fact never broke 18% until after 2017. The reason for the sluggish recovery of investment is easy to see, the fall in residential housing investment that had been the proximate cause of the Great Recession. From a ratio of 6.6 % of GDP in 2006, housing investment plummeted to 2.6 % of GDP at the depth of the Great Recession and had slowly climbed only to 3.9 % of GDP by the end of President Obama’s second term. This ratio was lower than the previous nadir of residential investment as a percentage of GDP at the end of the 2001 recession (4.8%). If housing investment had just returned to that level, overall investment would have broken 18% significantly earlier.

Because investment is the driving force of the economy’s dynamic, we should expect that the sluggish recovery of the I/GDP ratio to have a significant impact on the rate of growth of productivity, the rate of growth of the economy, and the variables that measure how close to potential (sufficiency of aggregate demand) the economy is. Sure enough, the numbers bear this out. The rate of growth of productivity was most dramatic in the 1961-70 recovery, averaging over 3 percent per quarter. After disappointing numbers in the 1970s, the rate of growth of productivity averaged 2 percent or higher per quarter over the three recoveries beginning in 1982 – averaging 2.6 percent between 2001 and the end of 2007 which was the peak before the Great Recession. Unfortunately, the disappointing numbers from the 1970s returned with a dismal 1.1 percent average in productivity growth over the entire recovery period through the first quarter of 2017. That coupled with disappointing numbers for unemployment, (7.3 percent average) capacity utilization (75.8 percent average) and especially the employment-to-population ratio (58.9 percent average) combine to explain the disappointing overall per capita GDP growth.

Except for the recovery from the dot-com bubble recession (2001-2007), every recovery going back to the 1960s had experienced per capita GDP growth averaging 2.5 percent or better. But as the economy struggled to slowly rise from the trough of the Great Recession the rate of growth of per capita GDP averaged only 1.4 percent per quarter through 2017. That is even lower than the 1.9 percent in the 2001-2007 recovery.

The unemployment rate had been trending upwards since the 1961-1970 recovery, averaging over six percent per quarter beginning with the 1971-74 recovery until the recoveries of 1991-2000 and 2001-2007 where the rates were 5.5 percent and 5.3 percent respectively. Similarly capacity utilization has been trending down since the robust 86 plus percent in the 1961-70 period. After an upward move in the 1991-2000 recovery, it resumed its downward trajectory, ending up averaging the lowest since World War II over the recovery from the Great Recession. The same trend appears in the employment-to-population ratio, which jumped up to an average of 63 percent in the 1991-2000 recovery only to average 58.9 percent in the recovery since 2009.

This is where the insufficiency of the macro-economic stimuli engaged in by the Obama administration (and we repeat, we understand how they were politically constrained, especially after “the worst” of the Great Recession had passed and the economy was clearly in recovery) reveals itself. The extraordinary nature of the deep dive that occurred in investment and the growth of GDP called for a significantly bigger stimulus to aggregate demand than in previous periods. Government spending at levels similar to previous business cycle recoveries was not enough.

The only departure from previous government stimuli during recoveries was the increase in transfer payments. Unfortunately, this only has a multiplier effect through its impact on consumption but the data shows that the ratio of consumption to GDP was less than a half a percent higher than in the previous recovery. There is no question that the federal spending stimulus would have had to be much higher than it was for the recovery to have any hope of being as good as previous ones.

We contend that despite the laser-like focus of the Obama Administration on getting the economy moving again as symbolized by the Recovery Act’s unprecedented explicit efforts to use fiscal policy to induce a robust recovery (the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the Recovery Act provided a stimulus spending level of $739 billion), it did not come close to closing an aggregate demand shortfall that was estimated conservatively at $1.2 trillion.

It is also important to add that the Federal Reserve’s expansive monetary policy seemed to have no positive impact on investment, particularly the interest sensitive housing sector, given the free fall of the housing market after the collapse of the bubble – almost a textbook example of the simple argument that the Fed cannot push on a string.

Initially, the Recovery Act did what it was supposed to. The federal budget deficit ballooned to 9 percent of GDP in 2010 and the unemployment rate began to fall. But when the Recovery Act spending began to peter out, the Republicans who had taken control of the House in 2010 forced the Obama Administration to compromise and agree to a set of spending restraints knows as a “sequester.” The result was that the federal deficit, the major impetus to the economy when investment spending lags, fell so that by 2013 it was only a bit over 4 percent of GDP.

Thus, it took all the way to 2015 for the unemployment rate to get back to what it had been before the Great Recession. This long, laborious struggle by the economy just to get back to square one, no doubt due to the fact that the I/GDP ratio never achieved the peak it had reached in the previous four recoveries.

In this extraordinary period when the economy was attempting to dig itself out of the hole created by short-run financial meltdown and the bursting of a housing bubble that left residential investment way below recent levels for the entire course of the recovery, a much higher level of government stimulus would have been necessary. Obviously, the Obama Administration and its allies in Congress cannot be totally faulted for this because after 2010, Republicans were in control of the House of Representatives and after 2014, Republicans took control of the Senate as well. The Obama Administration did make efforts to get an infrastructure bill passed a number of times but the Republicans in Congress blocked them. Despite wholesale opposition, the Obama Administration was able to increase stimuli via a temporary suspension of two percent from the Payroll Tax. They were able to do this by delaying the automatic expiration date of the George W. Bush tax cuts, scheduled to sunset after 2010, for two years which got Congressional support for the payroll tax holiday and expansion of unemployment compensation. After 2013, some of those tax cuts were made permanent while the payroll tax holiday ended. Unfortunately, the initial proposal for the Recovery Act was much too low and in order to get 60 votes in the Senate to break a Republican filibuster against it, the initial proposal was cut back slightly.

The economy is not just numbers like GDP and Investment. Ultimately, the key to economic well-being is the real income of ordinary Americans. We believe that the statistic identified as the median income of year-round full-time workers is indicative. Beginning in the third quarter of 2009, by the first quarter of 2017, the weekly real earnings of workers over 16 had risen the grand total of 2.03% for an average of about .28% a year. These were significantly lower than in previous recoveries though it is fair to say, median income growth was very slow for the entire period after 1980.

With 20-20 hindsight, the initial bill should have had a section that called for spending the same amount again if after two years, the unemployment rate had not fallen substantially. Given that previous deep sharp recessions (1974, 1981-82) experienced strong rapid recoveries, such a provision might have been sold as “insurance” against such a sluggish recovery and might have passed. But of course, hindsight is always 20-20.

The unfortunate result of the fact that the recovery from the Great Recession was much too slow and that median incomes of ordinary Americans hardly budged during the recovery was the high level of dissatisfaction within large swaths of the American people. Though there are many reasons for the surprise victory of Donald J. Trump in the 2016 election, one element that clearly contributed to it was the failed recovery from the Great Recession.

References

ERP (2010). Economic report of the President. Council of Economic Advisers.

ERP (2017). Economic report of the President. Council of Economic Advisers.

Krogstad, J.M. & Lopez, M.H.  (2017, May 12). “Black voter turnout fell in 2016, even as a record number of Americans cast ballots.” Pew Research Center.

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.

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.

Bartolomé de Las Casas: Defender of the Indians

Dan La Botz

Reprinted with permission from NewPolitics.

Figure 1: Theodore de Bry’s illustrations to Las Casas’ Brief Account of the Conquest of the Indies.

Bartolomé de las Casas was born in 1484 in Seville, to a French immigrant merchant family that had helped to found the city. One biographer believes his family were conversos, that is, Jews who had converted to Catholicism. As a child, in 1493 he happened to witness Christopher Columbus’ return from his first voyage to the Americas to Seville with seven Indians and parrots that were put on display. Queen Isabella ordered the Indians to be returned to their native land.

Bartolomé’s father, Pedro de las Casas, joined Columbus on his second voyage and brought home to Seville as a present for his son Bartolomé an Indian. In 1502 Pedro took Bartolomé with him on the expedition of Nicolás de Ovando to conquer and colonize Española (in English the island of Hispaniola, today made up of the Dominican Republic and Haiti). Bartolomé conducted slave raids on the Taino people (who were virtually annihilated by the Spaniards) and was rewarded with land and became the owner of a hacienda as well as slaves. In 1506 he returned to the University of Salamanca, where he had previously studied, and then traveled to Rome where he was ordained, becoming a priest in 1507.

When in 1510 Dominican friars led by Pedro de Córdoba arrived in Santo Domingo, they were horrified at the Spaniards’ treatment of the Indians, the massacres, the brutality of slavery, and the intense exploitation of the natives and they denounced it. Las Casas rejected the Dominicans’ criticism and defended the encomienda system by which Spaniards distributed laborers to the conquerors.

In 1513, Las Casas joined the expeditions of Diego Velázquez de Cuéllar and Pánfilo de Narváez to conquer Cuba, acting as chaplain. He witnessed horrifying murders and torturers of the indigenous people. Once again, he received a reward, this time of gold and slaves. For a year he lived as both colonist and priest. Then in 1514, while studying the Book of Ecclesiasticus, he came across a passage that called his beliefs into question. It read:

Reading this passage — and no doubt meditating on the horrors that he had both participated in and witnessed — Las Casas suddenly decided to break with his past. He gave up his haciendas, his encomienda, his slaves. He began to encourage others Spaniards to do the same, but of course they refused and they resented him.,Las Casas then traveled to Spain to take his case to King Ferdinand, and he succeeded in having one meeting with him, but then the monarch died in 1516. Many of the other higher-ups in the Spanish state and Church, such the Bishop of Burgos, Juan Rodríguez de Fonseca, who controlled the Crown’s business in the Americas, were themselves encomenderos who profited from the labor of the indigenous and they rejected Las Casas’ appeals to protect the Indians. Fearing that the entire population of the Indies, the Caribbean islands, might be annihilated, Las Casas wrote his Memorial de Remedios para las Indias (Memorandum on Remedies for the Indies) to be presented to the regents who now rules, calling for a moratorium on all Indian labor to protect the indigenous people and allow the recuperation of their populations.

Convinced by Las Casas’ argument that the Indians needed to be protected, one of the regents, Cardinal Ximenes Cisneros, put the Carmelite monks in charge of the Indies. Las Cases himself was given the official title and position of “Protector of the Indians. Under pressure from Las Casas, in 1542 King Charles V promulgated the New Laws to protect the Indians from exploitation. 

King Carlos V, concerned about conditions in the Spanish American colonies decided to organize a debate between the two principal intellectuals on opposite sides of the question. Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda, claimed that the indigenous people of the Americas were barbarians: ignorant, unlettered, and unreasoning, incapable of learning anything except the simplest tasks. The Spaniards, he argued, being superior in intelligence and morality, had the right to make war on them and conquer them. The Indians were, he said, incapable of governing themselves. He argued that they were sunk in depravity, worshiping idols and engaging in human sacrifice. He quoted the Bible and other authorities to argue that in ancient times such people had been justly exterminated or enslaved. Natural law, he averred, dictated that the Spaniards, superior in intelligence and morality, should govern them.

In response, Las Casas either refuted Sepúlveda’s arguments, such as the claim that the indigenous Americans were ignorant and incapable of governing themselves, by providing evidence of their intelligence and self-government, or he argued, as in the case of idolatry and human sacrifice, that these practices had to be seen as demonstrating their religious inclination, their attempts to worship God. Las Casas denied the Spaniards’ right to ever invade, occupy, conquer, and subject the indigenous. He argued that the Spaniards’ wars against the Indians were unjust and therefore enslavement of the Indians was illegal and wrong, since only the captives of a just war could be enslaved.

De Las Casas and Sepúlveda Debate Treatment of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas

Theologian Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda

Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas

“Among our Indians of the western and southern shores (granting that we call them barbarians and that they are barbarians) there are important kingdoms, large numbers of people who live settled lives in a society, great cities, kings, judges, laws, persons who engage in commerce, buying, selling, lending, and the other contracts of the law of nations . . . Reverend Doctor Sepúlveda has spoken wrongly and viciously against peoples like these, either out of malice or ignorance . . . and therefore, has falsely and perhaps irreparably slandered them before the entire world? From the fact that the Indians are barbarians it does not necessarily follow that they are incapable of government and have to be ruled by others, except to be taught about the Catholic faith and to be admitted to the sacraments. They are not ignorant, inhuman, or bestial. Rather, long before they heard the word Spaniard they had properly organized states, wisely ordered by excellent laws, religion and custom . . . Since, therefore, every nation by the eternal law has a ruler or prince, it is wrong for one nation to attack another under pretext of being superior in wisdom or to overthrow other kingdoms. For it acts contrary to the eternal law, as we read in Proverbs . . .  ‘This is not an act of wisdom, but of great injustice and a lying excuse for plundering others.”
  1. What term does Sepúlveda use to describe the indigenous people of the Americas?
  2. According to Sepúlveda, when are slavery and “booty” justified?
  3. What does Sepúlveda recommend for governance in the Americas?
  4. What evidence does De Las Casas offer to refute claims made by Sepúlveda?
  5. If you were in the audience during this debate, what questions would you ask them?
  6. Whose position do you agree with more? Why?

The Edible Primary Source: Food as a Medium to Teach History

Steven Jenkins

Whether it is a book, a quote, a painting or a picture, students are meant to study history through and from these meanings. While they each have validity and all have importance, some of these sources lack the relatability needed to encourage engagement in a students mind. Primary sources can be static. Stuck in the time period they were written and while their implication and effects ripple into the present they remain stuck in the time they were made, orated or created. However, what if educators used living mediums to illustrate historical processes. That is a medium that is used physically by people in the past with continual uses today. That medium, as the title suggests, is food.

            Food is somewhat of an easy to miss primary source. It is understandable of course because when comparing the constitution and a tomato, one packs an obvious greater historical punch. However, by considering primary sources as only a physical creation by a human who wrote, spoke or drew, the possibilities are limited. While the United States constitution has evolved beyond the bounds of the time it was created and has become the “living document” described in many classrooms today, so has the tomato.  So has any food. This essay will demonstrate how food is a living document to be adopted in the classroom. Food can be used in the classroom as a method of showing historical change, a method of instilling culturally responsive education into the curriculum as well as being an applicable mode of analysis to any historical period.

            Food history is first and foremost about a process. Food must be grown of course. It starts with a seed, the tending of young livestock, and reproduction for generations to provide for us. It is part of the story of humankind itself. The development of agriculture, that idea so central to understanding ancient civilizations like Mesopotamia or Egypt, has been neglected in education in post-Paleolithic age discussions. Humans have created the ability to grow their own sources of food and changed environments through irrigation, terraforming landscapes and breeding plants and animals for more desirable characteristics. Humans then harvest and process those items and create a dish using those ingredients. It is a quite profound process that still is practiced everyday whether the ingredients are sourced by the cook or not. More than that, humans have assigned meaning to our food. Humans have created cultures that have holidays that revolve around crop rotations and harvests. Humans have created dishes that are synonymous with certain cultures. People that come from the same ethnic or cultural background can share similarities beyond their geographical locations because of food. In the classroom, this is a pertinent example of the values that education wishes to attain generated through food.

            Food in education is a necessary mode to encourage multicultural thought and culturally sensitive pedagogies. Each student comes from diverse backgrounds and lived experiences. Honoring these is a great goal in education. As stated by Wiley-Blackwell about Culturally Responsive Teaching, “Culturally competent teachers are committed to learning about their students’ cultural resources, or funds of knowledge” (Wiley-Blackwell 1).  Food history can facilitate this. Having students research, explore and learn about foods or dishes that are part of their culture allow them to critically engage with the history that has made their diverse identities. They bring their knowledge and combine it with historical records, thus, bringing their culture as a source of learning for the entire class and the teacher. They get to educate their classmates and teachers about themselves and their history.

            Another issue that makes food history a great medium is its applicability. No matter the time period, individuals responded to the conditions of their time by changing their gastronomy. This can be represented in the classroom as evidence of the social changes that occur in various periods of history. For example, if a class is engaging in the topic of enslavement in America, food history can show the conditions of enslavement as well as perseverance of enslaved Africans. This can be done through okra. Okra, a crop originating in west Africa that has become synonymous with southern cooking in America, which has its roots in enslavement. Enslaved Africans taken from the continent brought with them okra seeds. Evidenced by the unfamiliarity with the crop by early European sources in Brazil, okra was seemingly foreign to them leading to the possibility that Africans resisted slavery by bringing okra seeds as contraband (Sousa & Raizad, 2020). Beyond that, okra was repeatedly described in the personal gardens of slaves and used as a form of medicine, syncretized religious practices as well as sustenance in the face of horrible malnutrition (Eisnach & Covey, 2019). In the post-civil war era, okra expanded outside of the plantations and became part of some of the first examples of enterprising formerly enslaved persons in the form of soul cooking. Some of the first sold cookbooks created by former slaves include okra in the form of gumbo and other dishes.  One of those cookbooks is titled What Mrs. Fisher knows about old southern cooking, soups, pickles, preserves, etc. This cookbook describes various methods of cooking with okra gained from Fisher’s experiences as a former slave (Fisher, 1881). Fisher had essentially used the abject horror of slavery as a means of self-enterprise, exemplifying the importance of food culture for formerly enslaved persons. Okra became part of a series of navigations of enslaved africans against the institutions of slavery. From its arrival in America okra was a matter of resistance. This is a historical case that could be added to curricula to show the nature of life in enslavement as well as the agency of enslaved persons in the Americas.

            There are plenty of other examples that could be listed out in which food can be used as a medium of examining historical periods however the importance is implementation in the classroom. The concept of food history can be used in countless ways. As described prior food is a process. A process that mirrors human growth and development. It informs the way people react to their social constraints. Those social constraints and events that form the unique cultures of each and every student in the classroom. Food history is an opportunity for culturally relevant pedagogies where students center food as a manner to present their identities. Food history is finally a manner of applicability. It is an aspect of the historical record that is forever present and forever important to the historical process for the individuals that experienced it. It is thus that teachers must examine food as a primary source in itself. A primary source that bends time to become a fountain of educational possibilities.

Eisnach, D., & Covey, H. (2019). Slave Gardens in the Antebellum South: The Resolve of a Tormented People. Southern Quarterly, 57(1), 11-23. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/slave-gardens-antebellum\-south-resolve-tormented/ docview/2553031701/se-2?accountid=10216.y

Fisher, A. & Katherine Golden Bitting Collection On Gastronomy. (1881) What Mrs. Fisher knows about old southern cooking, soups, pickles, preserves, etc. San Francisco: Women’s Co-operative Printing Office. Retrieved from the Library of Congress. Retrieved from https://www.loc.gov/item/08023680/.

Sousa, E., & Raizad, M. (2020). Contributions of African Crops to American Culture and Beyond: The Slave Trade and Other Journeys of Resilient Peoples and Crops. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4. Retrieved from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2020.586340/full

Wiley-Blackwell. (2022) Multimodal Literacies: Fertile Ground for Equity, Inclusion, and Connection. Reading Teacher, 75(5), 603–609.

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

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.”

Holocaust Museum & Center for Tolerance and Education – Rockland Community College

You can find the Holocaust Museum and Center for Tolerance and Education at Rockland Community College through this link.

Legislation (A.472C /S.121B) will help ensure that New York schools are properly educating students on the Holocaust. The legislation directs the New York State Education Department to determine whether school districts across the state have met education requirements on instruction of the Holocaust, which have been required by law since 1994.It will also require NYSED to identify how non-compliant schools will close gaps in knowledge of the Holocaust in schools.

The Holocaust Museum & Center for Tolerance and Education is proud to offer a multitude of programs for Elementary School, Middle School and High School audiences as well as Professional Development for Faculty. We teach on topics ranging from the Holocaust to Genocide Studies, to Tolerance and Diversity. We customize our programs to suit the needs of your students, staff, and faculty. Our Education Department works with you to produce events and resources that will impact your school for years to come. We will help your school achieve the mandates by our New York Governor on Holocaust Education.

Led by our Director of Education, teacher training seminars provide introductory guidance and resources on best practices for teaching the Holocaust and Genocide (Grades 6-12) and the importance of Tolerance and Diversity (Grades K-5). We also offer more in-depth seminars for teachers who wish to explore new approaches and materials to support Holocaust and Genocide education for their students.

Our Anti-Bias & Sensitivity Training helps faculty and staff combat hate and intolerance personally, professionally, and publically. Our Director of Education and Historian in Residence offers customizable seminars that draw upon the history of the Holocaust to teach the lessons of tolerance, individual responsibility, and moral courage in the workplace as well as out in our communities. Please contact our Director of Education and Historian in Residence Linda Suss today to discuss how we can support the important work you do educating our community’s young people.

Antisemitism and racism are two facets of the disease of hatred. All forms of oppression that target individuals based on their identity share an equally distressing aim of creating a hierarchy ranking of the value of human life. We at HMCTE know that this is a categorically false and damaging way to understand the world. In our eyes, all people share the same inherent dignity, worthiness, and rights – no matter who they are or where they come from. If we only examine one facet of hatred, be it antisemitism, racism, sexism, ablism, ageism, or any other type of discrimination, we are ignoring the intersectionality or overlapping forces of hatred. Where one type of discrimination exists, others will come to thrive, too. That’s why we know that it is our duty to stand up for all people and to work together to create a more just and inclusive society for everyone.

Our theme for the 2022-23 school year was “Combating Hate and Propaganda.” Together we will help young people understand the historical context of building cultures of hate through propaganda and misinformation campaigns. We will explore this topic through the history of the Holocaust and other genocides and we will apply critical thinking to how we consume media today. Programs on Moral Courage are available, as well as other topics currently under development. In order to accommodate your school’s preference on programming and dates, we are already booking for the coming school year. Whether you are interested in a tour of our permanent exhibit, the Rockland County African American history exhibit, or other educational programs, we encourage you to reach out now to ensure a meaningful visit with your students next year.

Host our traveling exhibit on Resilience during the Holocaust at your school. Students will have the opportunity to engage with a little discussed perspective of this history: one of individual choices, struggle, and hope. Through the exhibit and accompanying activities, Resilience connects the history of the Holocaust to each of us on a personal level and inspires students to consider how they, too, can become resilient and show moral courage in the face of injustice.

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

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.

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.

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.”

Chaim Goldberg: Sharing History

The smooth long edges and rough corners of a crisp white piece of paper are something most people do not value. Paper is a common good that is not given much thought when it is crinkled in a ball and thrown across the room. However, this is not how Chaim Goldberg viewed these simple white things — he knew they could be used to educate the world. Throughout his early artistic career, as early as four years old, he did whatever it took to obtain his medium: plain white paper. While sharing his story in a 1995 interview, Goldberg beamed with pride, knowing he had done all he could to further his career from such a young age. Goldberg was born in 1917 in Kazimierz Dolny, a small, predominantly Jewish town in Poland commonly referred to as a shtetl. In the shtetl, Goldberg spent time during his youth working small jobs in order to obtain an income to buy paper.[1]The paper purchased for sketching evolved to watercolor paper, canvases for oil painting, and materials for sculpture.

Early on in Goldberg’s career he met Saul Silberstein, a wealthy man with a great interest in the arts.[2]According to Goldberg, Silberstein left an everlasting mark on his artistic career and life.[3]Silberstein was impressed by Goldberg’s artistic ability the first time he visited Goldberg’s home, which led him to spend both time and money on elevating Goldberg’s talents.[4]He invited people from a variety of schools to view Goldberg’s art. This helped to catapult Goldberg’s career as he was able to bring his paintings to Warsaw, Poland. While visiting Warsaw he met with contacts of Silberstein who were predominantly doctors and lawyers.[5]They were impressed with Goldberg’s artistic ability, and generously paid for his tuition to art school for five years.[6]An important step in each artist’s career is finding their niche. In order to find his own niche, Goldberg spent his early life creating art through a variety of mediums and subjects. He learned that he needed to refine his subject area and have a common thread throughout his art.[7]While attending art school in Paris, Goldberg met Marc Chagall. It was his relationship with Chagall that solidified Goldberg’s artistic subject area. Chagall felt that there was a need for art that shared the connection of Jewish life, shtetls, and tradition. Goldberg’s art showed Chagall that he was the perfect artist to do so.[8]Chagall showed his support of Goldberg’s art by purchasing his full art portfolio which depicted these images; this collection of art was “the only samples of Goldberg’s early work to survive World War II.”9 The confidence and motivation that Chagall gave Goldberg to create art about Jewish life was a pivotal point in Goldberg’s career.

Goldberg went on to expand his portfolio by sharing the horrors of the Holocaust through his art. Goldberg is one of many artists whose art shares the lives of Jewish people leading up to and during the Holocaust. These artists, poets, and writers shared their art in order to provide an insight into their experience, with the ultimate goal of preventing such an event from occurring again. Scholars have examined many artists’ work that is related to the time directly before and during the Holocaust. These scholars have found that this area of art shows both history and tradition. Goldberg’s art successfully preserves history by depicting the traditions and history of the events of the Holocaust, Jewish Polish shtetls, and the Orthodox Ashkenazi Jews living within them. Goldberg’s art gives a representation of Jewish life before the Holocaust and gives a fuller picture of Jewish life that goes beyond trauma. By examining Goldberg’s art, people can begin to understand the lives of those impacted by the Holocaust.

Goldberg, as well as many other famous artists, was able to use his own accounts and the information he gathered from people to create Holocaust art that shared his experiences with the world. This provided a visual for those who did not experience it firsthand or did not have the artistic talents to express their experiences. The Nazi’s plan and goal for the Holocaust was to “complete [and enforce a] plan for the extermination of the European Jewry.”[9]Hitler and the Nazi Party believed that “Jews’ dangerous qualities were rooted in biology… [and] the inevitable outgrowth of a biological uniqueness that made them less human.”[10]The Nazis, led by Hitler, were instructed to accomplish the goal of exterminating the Jews, and others that they did not classify as part of the superior Aryan race, by facilitating mass murder in concentration camps. Holocaust artists have shared the experience of many Jewish people and others who the Nazis were trying to exterminate.12 It was important for these experiences to be shared via art so that they would be remembered forever.

The History of the Holocaust has been preserved in many ways including poetry, writing, sculptures, and paintings. Art historians have found that through Holocaust art, one can learn about, “the experiences of the exiles… [and] we can learn that there are other ways of feeling, other ways of understanding history, and other ways of using the creative ability for expressive purpose.”13 Art provides insight and a visual snapshot of someone’s life experiences. The Holocaust has been the subject area of many artists, who like writers and poets, use their art to share their life experiences. Holocaust art has an interesting dynamic – some of the pieces aim to use G-d and religion to uplift the horrific events depicted in the art, while others share the events more literally and show the tragedy of the Holocaust.

Art historians have accredited Tibor Jankay with being an influential Holocaust painter; he created an art collection that depicts the atrocities of the time period. Jankay was well-known for relishing in the positives. For this reason, Jankay’s Holocaust art is renowned for its ability to depict the horrors of what occurred during the Holocaust, while also sharing the beauty that surrounded these horrors.[11]Jankay’s Holocaust art was centered around his experiences: his

Cattle Car (figure 1) pencil sketch is an account of the time he spent in a cattle car on the way to Auschwitz.[12]The goal of this piece is to give the viewer an up-close perspective of the uncomfortable and crowded cattle car. The viewer’s understanding of what happened is exacerbated by the faces of horror of those in the cattle car.[13]Jankay’s art uses symbolism for expression.[14]Scholars have found that the symbols that Jankay used throughout his Holocaust art emphasize the connection between Jewish people and G-d. One of the symbols that represent this connection is, “the angel hovering above the ghetto representing nurturing protection.”[15]Jankay’s symbolism of G-d shows the emotions he felt during the Holocaust. However, he is not the only one who had these emotions throughout the Holocaust, which is why his work resonates with many Holocaust survivors. His work serves as a visual representation that survivors can relate to.

The preservation of history and tradition has been done in different ways; similar to art, writing allows the writer to share their experiences through their work. Elie Wiesel is well known for sharing his experiences from the Holocaust in writing. In fact, he is described as being “perhaps the world’s best-known witness to the atrocities of the Holocaust.”[16]Wiesel’s writing is known for depicting and sharing his personal experience in two concentration camps: Auschwitz and Buchenwald. He wrote the well-known Holocaust testimony, La Nuit, which depicts the experience that he and his father had in Auschwitz. Additionally, “Wiesel went on to achieve high visibility as a writer and human rights campaigner, winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986.”[17]Wiesel is one of the many writers whose focus on the Holocaust has allowed others to form an understanding of the events, as their work depicts the true tragedy and horrific experiences that millions of people went through. There are also many other written formats that people have used to share their experiences in the Holocaust including poetry and diaries. By sharing their accounts in written format, they are preserved and allow for people to continue to learn and understand what occurred during the Holocaust many years later.[18]No matter how the experiences of those in the Holocaust have been preserved, it is important that it has been documented for future generations to learn from.

Holocaust artists bridge a gap between direct experiences and compiling accounts of other victims. Artists such as Josef Harmen used his “paintings to constitute [his] memory and grieve for the loss of [his] family.”[19]This allowed for the mourning and honoring of loved ones, and for their lives to be shared with the world; therefore these paintings help to educate those who did not experience the Holocaust first-hand. Additionally, this form of art shares the Ashkenazi Jewish culture, which defines many Holocaust survivors and memorializes those who were persecuted, tortured, and murdered at the hands of the Nazi Party.[20]The creation of Holocaust art helps people to understand the tragic events of the Holocaust. Harmen used his art to express his experiences as a refugee, allowing others to understand them. Art that shares the “century marked by war, genocide, and dehumanization” provides the world with personal accounts of the tragedies that will last forever.[21]A unique characteristic of Holocaust art is its ability to depict the disruption and torture of an entire group of people.[22]Furthermore, Holocaust artists and their preservation of history “cannot be separated from [the past and their] identification with family, community, tradition and ritual.”[23]There is a strong overlap between Holocaust art and the art that represents the lives and culture of Jewish people leading up to the Holocaust.

Goldberg’s art shows the contrast between the simplicity of life while living in a shtetl and the tragedy of the Holocaust. Goldberg created a collection of Holocaust art that represents the events that occurred and the torture that the Jewish people experienced. Additionally, it represents the hope that people carried with them throughout the Holocaust with G-d’s guidance. Goldberg’s Holocaust collection started chronologically with people who were forced out of their shtetl homes. In his collection, there were pieces of art that represented the emotions of leaving loved ones.[24]Goldberg’s wood sculpture, Farewell (figure 2), depicts a family hugging goodbye at the start of the Holocaust. It embodies the unknown that people faced throughout the Holocaust, specifically when leaving their loved ones; this is shown through the tight embrace of the three figures.[25]Additionally, as many of Goldberg’s pieces incorporate Jewish traditions, the men in the sculpture are wearing yarmulkes, which are head coverings that Orthodox Jewish men wear as a reminder of their connection to G-d.[26]The Farewell sculpture helps to capture the fear that the Jewish people faced as they were forced from their homes; this helps to preserve these emotions for future generations to learn from.

To the Unknown (figure 3) is another piece of Goldberg’s Holocaust collection that represents the start of the Holocaust. This piece depicts people fleeing their homes to an unknown location to escape Nazi invaded Poland.[27]This painting shows just some of the thousands of people who were forced to leave their shtetls. It is notable that in the hurried rush of people fleeing, they were forced to throw some of their belongings into wagons, as shown in the painting. This piece represents the experience of Goldberg’s in-laws in this time period — they brought belongings with them as they fled Warsaw which they used to bribe the border patrol in order to flee Nazi invaded Poland.[28]This painting allows viewers to have an understanding of the beginning of the Holocaust, the effort it took to flee, as well as the disruption of lives, and the uncertainty that followed. Goldberg’s art continued to depict the experiences of Orthodox Ashkenazi Jews as they were forced to leave their homes.

During the Holocaust, the Nazis forced Jewish people from Poland, Russia, and Germany into ghettos, which were created to contain these people in a specific area. Goldberg’s painting, View in the Warsaw Ghetto 1939 (figure 4), shows what it was like on the streets of these ghettos by depicting children, men, and women. [29] The ghetto was a segregated portion of the city, separated by brick walls and surrounded by Nazi and Polish police.33 Through his art, Goldberg was able to depict the lives of the over 400,000 people who were imprisoned in this ghetto, including Goldberg and his family.[30]He created art that depicted the Warsaw Ghetto from his memory, decades after his time there. Goldberg was able to preserve their experiences and express the history that would stem from the Holocaust through View in the Warsaw Ghetto 1939. By creating imagery that shares what the Warsaw Ghetto was like, Goldberg was able to provide the world with a visual representation of this place and was able to give people a greater understanding of the Holocaust.

Goldberg created paintings that specifically focused on the Nazi’s actions prior to the extermination of people in concentration camps. Under the Gun (figure 5) is a sketch that shows a long, dense line of people being led into a building that is understood to be a gas chamber.[31]The reason this painting was titled Under the Gun was because Goldberg illustrated a Nazi soldier standing tall and holding a gun, which mimics the power they held over those in concentration camps.[32]Goldberg’s painting, Gas Chamber (figure 6) shows the horrors that people experienced in the deadly gas chambers.[33]Goldberg drew the people crouched down and weeping, which showed the horrors that they faced leading up to their imminent death.[34]Some people were shown pleading for their lives while being held at gunpoint, which represented their desperation. Although Goldberg was never in a concentration camp himself, he painted them based on what he had heard from others.[35]Goldberg painted Gas Chambers in 1942 while he was a refugee in Siberia. Specifically, as “the news of the mass exterminations began to trickle in by way of radio and newspaper as early as 1941… the artist, shaken to his core by the news, plunged into making a visual of the horrific news he had heard.”[36] Goldberg created his work to express the experience of Jews during the Holocaust, whether someone else’s or his own. In the case of Gas Chambers, he shared the experiences of those who no longer could.

Some of Goldberg’s most iconic pieces that represent the Holocaust are sculptures that show Jewish people escaping the Nazi control and concentration camps. Triumph I (figure 7), part of a collection of Holocaust sculptures, depicts the freedom from the Nazi’s control through the guidance of G-d and the appreciation that Jewish people had for G-d throughout the Holocaust.[37]Triumph I shows multiple figures emerging from the barbed wire of the concentration camps and climbing up towards G-d. Here, G-d is represented here with a Magen David, Star of David, a symbol that is used to represent Jewish identity and symbolize G-d’s protection of the Jews. This sculpture represents the liberation of the Jewish people from Nazi control, an important turning point in this time period. Goldberg’s Holocaust art is a mix of both literal examples of what occurred in the Holocaust, as well as symbolism that provided hope.

Goldberg served in the Polish army during the Holocaust; during this time he was captured by the Nazi Party and held as a prisoner of war. It was there he decided to continue creating art that shared people’s lives before the war. However, directly after the Holocaust, Goldberg spent his time creating art that depicted his experiences and that of others. After he finished, he ultimately returned to his main artistic passion of creating art to share the lives of those who lived in Polish shtetls. This led Goldberg to the major focus of his career, the shtetl he grew up in, Kazimierz Dolny.

The original subject and setting of Goldberg’s artwork became his lifelong passion. He shared his home, Kazimierz Dolny, and childhood with the world through his art. Much of Goldberg’s inspiration for his art before the Holocaust came from those who visited Kazimierz Dolny, many of which stayed in his family’s clapboard house.[38]These people became his “story” and the base for his “characters.” As he grew up, he continued to create “characters” centered around those who were an integral part of life in Kazimierz Dolny.[39]Unfortunately, virtually all of his work from before the war was destroyed. This includes art from his collection, the art he sold, and the work he was commissioned for. Before the Holocaust, Goldberg traveled to Warsaw to create commissioned art for well-known and wealthy residents. Fortunately, “approximately fifty drawings and watercolors survived due to the fact that they were purchased by Chagall… in

1933.”[40]While this art was saved from being destroyed, it is not readily available to the public. However, Goldberg made it his life’s passion to continue making art that shared his beloved hometown with the world. He successfully shared that there was more to know about Eastern European Jews from the early to mid-nineteenth century than just the Holocaust.

Goldberg was not the only artist to represent shtetl life in their art. Yad Vashem, the World Holocaust Remembrance Museum in Israel, curated a collection of art from Polish shtetls dating back to pre-Holocaust Europe. The curators of this collection explain the importance of understanding what it was like to live in a Jewish shtetl. Jewish culture and tradition are strongly tied to shtetls. This is important for understanding Jewish art as many influential Jewish artists were born and grew up in shtetls, and used their art to share their experiences.[41]The curators at Yad Vashem focused their collection on lesser-known artists which highlights the wide variety of people that centered their work around shtetls.46 The work shared in the collection is focused on many different aspects of shtetl life including “the market, professions, women of the shtetl, and Jewish learning… through the eyes of these Jewish artists.”[42]These aspects of shtetl life are key components in Goldberg’s art, which allow him to share Kazimierz Dolny with the world in great detail. This helps to give viewers a complete understanding of what it would have been like to live there. His art preserved a visual history of Kazimierz Dolny, which allowed for the history of those who lived there to be commemorated.

When Goldberg created shtetl art, he included a variety of characters that depict the people of the shtetl. The goal of his art was to share “Kazimierz Dolny shtetl and gather all his characters to live eternally through his art.”[43]Goldberg highlights the variety of professions within a shtetl through his art. Goldberg was surrounded by people with different professions from a young age and based some of his art on his parents’ professions – his father was a cobbler, and his mother was a seamstress. Goldberg titles a group of his works Parents II (figure 8), which was made up of a variety of pieces including etchings, linocuts, engravings, and oil paintings. In these works of art, the viewer sees Goldberg’s parents working.[44]The watercolor painting My Parents (figure 9) is similar to the collection of pieces titled Parents II as it illustrates each of Goldberg’s parents intently focusing on their work, his father repairing a pair of shoes and his mother sewing a garment.[45]This painting was set in Goldberg’s childhood home; in the background is a piece of art hanging on the wall which is actually another one of Goldberg’s pieces. Oftentimes, Goldberg would add small hidden elements to his work, adding himself or his own paintings within different pieces. By showing his parents’ professions, he was able to share his childhood experiences with the world and preserve the experiences of the people in Kazimierz Donly forever. Typically only one person in each shtetl was responsible for holding a specific job, which is commonly seen in Goldberg’s work. Goldberg’s sketch Blacksmith (figure 10) shows the blacksmith at work in the shtetl and specifically highlights the difficulty of the job and its strain on his life through his hunched position.[46]In the background, the shtetl of Kazimierz Dolny is in view. The blacksmith is an integral component of the shtetl, which is why Goldberg decided to include him in his shtetl art. The blacksmith was one of the many people Goldberg took inspiration from as he successfully illuminated the experiences of those living within the shtetl.

Goldberg created the painting, Teacher (figure 11), to represent his childhood education. The Teacher depicts a Rabbi and a student studying from a prayer book.[47]This is reminiscent of Goldberg’s childhood as Goldberg, like most children in the shtetl, attended a school that was taught by a Rabbi. Further, it was Goldberg’s Rabbi that later hired him to create mezuzah covers, small artistic cases which hold a parchment scroll containing blessings for a house. This Rabbi had enough confidence in Goldberg’s artistic ability to hire him, which afforded Goldberg the opportunity to buy art supplies.[48]Because Goldberg was able to buy art supplies, he was able to hone his artistic abilities and continue his passion for preserving Jewish shtetl life. The goal of Goldberg’s art was to immerse the viewer in Kazimierz Dolny so they could understand what it was like to be an Orthodox Jew living in a shtetl during this time period.[49]

Goldberg was known for depicting several of the same “characters” and symbols within his art including the shtetl’s water carrier. The Water Carrier (figure 12) shows a man balancing a stick with two pails of water on his shoulders while moving through the shtetl.[50]He is depicted like this in many of Goldberg’s works. The background of the Water Carrier mimics paintings that focus specifically on the houses in Kazimierz Dolny. Goldberg’s paintings built off one another to create a full representation of his shtetl from the early twentieth century. This is also seen with Shtetl Houses (figure 13), an engraving that shows houses built into a hill.[51]These are the same hills seen in Water Carrier.[52]The water carrier is also a central character in The Shtetl (figure 14), which is showcased in the permanent collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.[53]This piece depicts the same hill of houses that are shown in Goldberg’s other works. This creates an image of what Kazimierz Dolny looked like from the outside.[54]The goal of Goldberg’s art was to share “Kazimierz Dolny shtetl and gather all his characters to live eternally through his art.”[55]The Shtetl depicts many figures from the town including his parents, the water carrier, and himself, shown painting on an easel. This painting preserves people in Kazimierz Dolny who observed the traditions of Orthodox Ashkenazi Jews. The Shtetl serves as a culmination of all the events and people within Kazimierz Dolny. Through his art, Goldberg created a visual representation of Kazimierz Dolny to be preserved for the world to see.

The population of Kazimierz Dolny was largely comprised of Jewish people, thus they are the primary subject of Goldberg’s art. Judaism is filled with many customs and traditions that were closely followed by the Jewish community in Kazimierz Dolny. These traditions are the connecting thread within all of Goldberg’s art; whether it was the depiction of traditional head coverings for men, events, holidays, or a style of dance. Goldberg has two parallel art pieces, Seven Hasidic Dancers (figure 15) and Hora (figure 16). In these paintings, the viewer can see the Jewish Orthodox tradition of men and women dancing separately. The reason for this tradition is because it “helps to preserve and safeguard a limited and therefore special connection between the genders.”[56]Seven Hasidic Dancers is an ink painting of seven men dancing in a circle connected to one another.[57]The style of dance these men are performing is the Hora. The Hora is a traditional Jewish celebratory dance that is danced on special occasions. Goldberg created a related painting called Hora which shows seven women participating in the same celebratory dance.[58]Viewers of these two paintings are able to look back in time and “witness” the religious practices of the Jewish community in Kazimierz Dolny. Goldberg’s art showed the strong values and traditions of the Jewish people he grew up around. As an artist, Goldberg wanted people who viewed his art to feel as though they were visiting and experiencing the shtetl.

Weddings are a common subject of Goldberg’s art and Jewish practices. Throughout his pieces, there are a variety of religious Jewish symbols that are a common part of weddings. Chuppahs, or canopies, are an integral part of religious Jewish wedding ceremonies. The couple stands under the Chuppah with the Rabbi who is officiating the wedding. It is traditional for the Chuppah to be made out of a man’s prayer shawl, as seen in each of Goldberg’s paintings that feature a wedding. This is shown in The Wedding (figure 17).[59]Goldberg wanted to properly depict Jewish weddings in his art, so he made sure to include many of the Jewish wedding traditions. Many of these paintings have additional aspects that are important to the Jewish religion. Goldberg’s painting, The Wedding (figure 18) from 1962 shows a couple after the ceremony with many members of the town rejoicing and celebrating, which is typical of a Jewish wedding. One of the central aspects of the painting is two boys holding a large loaf of challah, a traditional bread eaten by Jewish people in times of celebration.[60]The cutting of challah is an important component of Jewish weddings; an important person to the couple rips the challah while reciting a blessing. In his art, Goldberg provides his viewers with an understanding of key traditions that occur throughout a Jewish wedding.

As a religious Jewish boy, Goldberg kept the laws of Shabbat and illustrated his experiences throughout his art. Shabbat is an important weekly practice of Jewish life where the Jewish people honor the seventh day of creation with a day of rest. Lighting two Shabbat candles at the beginning of the day of rest is an important ritual performed by Jewish women, as it is used as a way to bring the Sabbath into a home. Goldberg has represented the lighting of candles in many different paintings. His painting, Shabbat Candles (figure 19), depicts a woman setting up the Shabbat candles for her family to light at sundown.[61]In order to properly light Shabbat candles, the woman says a blessing and sweeps her hands over the light, and then brings her hands to her eyes.[62]In the painting Before Dawn (figure 20), the main figure is a woman lighting Shabbat candles. Throughout the background of the painting are other houses with Shabbat candles glowing in the window; this depicts the important tradition of lighting Shabbat candles in each home.[63]The woman is shown sweeping her hands over the light; this helps to teach viewers about the Shabbat traditions of Orthodox Jews. Additionally, it is traditional for Orthodox Jews to attend religious services at a temple on Shabbat. While both men and women attended, it was more common for only the men to go. This is depicted in the painting Before Dawn where the men of the shtetl are seen walking to the temple along a cobblestone path of Kazimierz Dolny.[64]Goldberg’s Shabbat-related paintings allow the viewer to see the traditions related to the weekly day of rest, including lighting the two candles and walking to the temple. This helps to educate the viewers on the importance of traditions within the Jewish religion.

Jewish holidays and the importance of tradition

Holidays are a large part of the Jewish religion and thus Goldberg has made them an important aspect of his art. Many of his pieces illustrate the important traditions of each holiday. In order to understand the depth that he went through in sharing his religion with the world, it is important to examine Goldberg’s holiday art chronologically according to the Jewish calendar. Rosh Hashanah is the New Year in the Jewish religion and is celebrated with great reverence and joy. Goldberg has shared many important traditions of Rosh Hashanah through his art. During Rosh Hashanah, there is an important tradition called Tashlich, which is depicted in his painting Tashlich (figure 21). Tashlich, a tradition where people go to the water to empty their pockets, is performed on either the first or second day of Rosh Hashanah.[65]This practice is symbolic of the discarding of one’s sins from their life. By depicting this aspect of Rosh Hashanah, Goldberg is capturing the traditions of Orthodox Jews during the Jewish New Year.

Another important aspect of Rosh Hashanah that Goldberg depicts in his artwork is the blowing of the shofar, a ram’s horn.[66]In order to show the proper use of the shofar, Goldberg created The Shofar (figure 22) which occurs in a temple, a house of worship.[67]The shofar is blown by the Rabbi during the prayer services on Rosh Hashanah to serve as a wake-up call and a fresh start to the new year. Only Orthodox men are illustrated, as men and women were not allowed to daven, or pray, together.[68]This is because when davening there should be no distractions between a person and their connection to G-d. The Shofar takes place in the lower level of the sanctuary where the men prayed. The blowing of the Shofar shows how the traditions of Orthodox Jews have been depicted throughout Goldberg’s art.

Yom Kippur, a day of repentance, is arguably the most important Jewish holiday, thus it is an important aspect of Goldberg’s art. A specific tradition of Yom Kippur is Kaparot which takes place the night before and is centered around transferring one’s sins to a rooster.74 Rooster Blessing (figure 23), depicts “the village inhabitants standing in line at the Shochet, or kosher butcher, with their holiday poultry.”75 Each village member in the painting is carrying their own chicken to participate in this tradition.76 Yom Kippur (figure 24) shares the next step of Kaparot; a person swings a rooster over their head while reciting a prayer that symbolically transfers their sins to the rooster. This painting shows a religious man holding a rooster by its legs while moving it around his head as he takes part in the Orthodox Jewish tradition of Kaparot. The rooster looks angry and thus has symbolically taken on the sins of the man.77 This is the traditional start of Yom Kippur and the removal and penance of one’s sins, which is an important aspect of observing Yom Kippur as an Orthodox Jew. Goldberg felt that it was important to share the traditions of Yom Kippur in his art as it is the holiest day in the Jewish calendar.

In order to preserve the traditions of the holiday of Sukkot, Goldberg created multiple paintings of this holiday. Sukkot occurs five days after Yom Kippur and is symbolic of the forty-year period in which the Jews escaped slavery in Egypt and spent time in the desert on the way to Israel.[69]An important part of this holiday is the shaking of the lulav, a collection of four different leaves, and the etrog, a citrus fruit.[70]They are held together each day of Sukkot and shaken while reciting a prayer. Goldberg represents the important tradition of shaking these two objects in the painting, Sukkot (figure 25). In the painting, a religious man is holding the two items while looking up to G-d and praying.[71]A similar image is also included in Succoth (figure 26), where behind the religious man shaking the lulav and etrog, are the people of the town davening in the temple. Additionally, there are prayer books that are used in order to ensure that prayers are recited properly.[72]These paintings together allow the viewer to understand important aspects of Sukkot and build a broader understanding of the Jewish religion.

Goldberg valued sharing his religion in his art. In order to do this, he focused strongly on holidays, including Simchat Torah. Simchat Torah is celebrated on the last day of Sukkot. This holiday honors the Jewish people’s love of the Torah, a scroll containing the first five books of the Hebrew scriptures.[73]The festivities for this holiday include men dancing while holding Torahs. For this reason, Goldberg’s paintings depict Simchat Torah with traditional festive dancing. Simchat Torah (figure 27) is a pen and ink piece of art that shows an open Torah being held above a man’s head while he is dancing around.[74]It is customary in Orthodox Jewish tradition that only men hold and read from the Torah and thus, that is how Goldberg depicted the celebration in this painting. In the background of the piece, other Torahs are being held throughout the crowd which is another tradition of the holiday.84 Goldberg’s 1962 oil on canvas painting, Simchat Torah (figure 28), shows the community clapping in celebration.[75]Because of the importance of this holiday, women are present in the temple; however, in order to abide by Orthodox Jewish tradition, the men and women cannot be together in the temple and thus the women are shown in the second-story windows. It also shows the ark, where the Torahs are housed, in the front of the synagogue. During the festivities of Simchat Torah, the Torahs are all taken out of the ark and carried around the temple in seven circles called hakafot.86 Goldberg felt that it was important to show all aspects of the Jewish religion and to always value joyous times and occasions in his art, Simchat Torah being one of them.87

Goldberg shares the family aspect of the holiday of Chanukah in several of his paintings. Chanukah is an eight-day holiday that honors the Jewish people’s success in fighting the Maccabees. Unlike many other holidays, Chanukah is not centered around community festivities, but rather celebrations in the home. A menorah is lit on each of the eight nights of Chanukah in each family’s home. Goldberg shares this tradition in Channuka (figure 29), a wash and ink painting, by showing a family gathered around a credenza with a menorah placed on top. Each day of Chanukah an additional candle is lit.[76]The menorah is an important part of Chanukah because during the time of the Second Temple of Jerusalem, the menorah was lit each night, however, the temple was then destroyed.[77]There was one single jar of oil that remained and it miraculously lasted eight days, which is now commemorated with the eight-day holiday of Chanukah.90 Goldberg honored the miracle of Chanukah with the creation of another Chanukah painting in 1971 also titled Channuka (figure 30). This image once again represents a family coming together to honor the holiday with the lighting of the menorah and the reciting of prayers.[78]Above the family lighting the menorah is a variety of colors and shapes; within this, a menorah and a jug of oil are seen once again, which highlights its importance to the holiday of Chanukah.[79]Celebration with family is an important part of Judaism and is at the core of the Jewish religion; this is the reason that Goldberg centered his paintings around the traditions of Chanukah.

         Goldberg focused on Purim in his art, which is a holiday that celebrates the Jewish people’s freedom from Persia. An important part of Purim is the reading of the Megillah, the Book of Esther, which contains the story of Purim. Haman was the man who led the torture of the Jewish people while in Persia, so it is tradition to make noise when he is mentioned during the reading of the Megillah.[80]People will make noise with their feet, hands, and most commonly, with a gragger, or noise maker. Graggers are a key component of Goldberg’s Purim art. Purim Parade (figure 31) shows the joyous celebration of Purim. A man is riding on a horse with a large gragger, sharing in the celebration of the freedom of the Jewish people.[81]Additionally, throughout the rest of the painting, there are people holding graggers.[82]In the distance of the piece, one can see Goldberg’s “parents stand[ing] on the left, as his youngest brother Israel waves the gragger.”[83]Another of Goldberg’s pieces portraying Purim, Chaim’s Large Gregor (figure 32), depicts a large gragger in the center of the shtetl. In this watercolor, Goldberg and another man are at the center of the painting using the larger gragger.[84]This painting continues Goldberg’s common thread of placing his family and or himself in his art. There are also members of the town standing in the background enjoying the celebration of Purim, as is customary in Jewish tradition.[85]Goldberg’s Purim art shares the Jewish tradition of making noise to drown out Haman’s name, as well as the celebratory aspect of the holiday. Furthermore, the traditions depicted in these pieces continue Goldberg’s goal of sharing Orthodox Judaism with the world.[86]

The last chronological Jewish holiday that Goldberg focused on was Passover, an eight-day holiday. One of the most well-known aspects of the holiday is that chametz, or leavened bread, is not eaten and rather matzah, unleavened bread, is consumed. Passover requires very specific preparation, and Goldberg centered some of his Passover art around this.[87]In Burning the Chumetz (figure 33) Goldberg depicts “the boys [and the] shtetl’s Rabbi burning small bundles of Chametz ” which is not kosher for the Passover holiday.[88]An important aspect of Passover is the removal of all Chametz from the homes of Orthodox Jews. Another important step in the preparation for Passover is the making of matzah, which is shown in Matzah Making (figure 34). This oil painting represents the women of Kazimierz Dolny helping the baker of the shtetl make matzah.[89]Further, Goldberg shares his childhood experience as he is in the forefront of the painting helping the baker create the dough used to make matzah.103 These two paintings represent the work that it took to prepare for Passover and the important traditions of burning the chametz and making the matzah. These are important aspects of Passover for Orthodox Jews that Goldberg brought to life in his paintings.

In addition to the preparation for Passover, Goldberg’s art also shared the traditional practice of holding a seder, the ceremony for Passover, in one’s home. This is seen in both Family Seder (figure 35) and After the Seder (figure 36). Family Seder shows a family gathered around a table sharing a meal while holding glasses of wine.[90]Wine is a customary aspect of the Passover Seder because, throughout the steps of the service, each person is prompted to drink four glasses of wine. Passover is another holiday that is centered around gatherings in family homes, which explains the setting of both of these paintings. After the Seder shares the joyous celebration of the family at the conclusion of the holiday meal; specifically, it shares Goldberg’s sisters dancing.[91]Goldberg shared that his “sisters would simply get up and dance in their house-nighties, just like” in After the Seder.[92]Goldberg believed it was important to share the happiness of celebrating holidays in a shtetl.[93]In his holiday art, Goldberg captures Orthodox Jewish traditions for the viewer to learn from. Goldberg’s art resonates with Jews who lived in shtetls because of how he depicts the traditions of each Jewish holiday.

Through Goldberg’s art, the viewer is able to gain an understanding of the many important traditions of Jewish holidays. Throughout his career, Goldberg continued to create art centered around holidays as he felt that it was an essential aspect to understanding the lives of those who lived in a shtetl.[94]The history of those who lived in shtetls, specifically during the early twentieth century, is not to be lost in the trauma that was experienced throughout the Holocaust. This is not to take away from the experiences of those in the Holocaust, but rather to highlight the lives and religious practices of Jews prior to the tragedy. This was at the forefront of Goldberg’s artistic works as he created his shtetl art to share his beloved community of Kazimierz Dolny with the world.[95]Thus, he was able to preserve his early life and childhood in the art that outlived him.

Goldberg’s art was successful in the preservation of early twentieth-century Jewish shtetls and allows viewers to understand what it was like to live in Kazimierz Dolny. Goldberg was able to preserve his own family history, the history of Kazimierz Dolny, and the history of Orthodox Ashkenazi Jews before and after the Holocaust. Goldberg’s ability to preserve the history of his shtetl is in line with other shtetl artists. It is through the collections of these artists that modern historians are able to build a picture of what life was like during pre-Holocaust Europe. Goldberg centered his art mainly around shtetl life which proved that there was more to the Jewish European experience than the Holocaust. As seen with other Holocaust artists and writers such as Tibor Jansky and Elie Wiesel, Goldberg’s art preserves the events, and thus the history, of the Holocaust and the time period in which they were alive. Goldberg’s art has lived on beyond his death and will continue to serve as a representation of those who lived in the shtetls of early twentieth-century Poland.

        Art cultivates a climate of creativity for all students to access when it becomes a part of general education classes. Art is a frequently unused tool within history secondary education classrooms, however, it should not be. By exploring art as a component of history classes, we can explore the often untold elements of history. This is true with Chaim Goldberg’s artwork. As an artist who frequently depicted Jewish shtetl life and the Holocaust, his art allows access to personal accounts and experiences of European Jewish people in the early to mid-twentieth century. Art allows for history to be told in another format; in the classroom, we are able to explore someone’s life. In this case, it is Goldberg’s life we are able to learn about through the exploration of his art. Like writers, art in many circumstances builds off of itself; this is true with Goldberg. When exploring his art collection, the viewer is able to see how he threads details through many paintings. This is seen with many of the repetitive fixtures and people in his shtetl artwork, which leads the viewer to understand that these people are not only important fixtures in Goldberg’s life, but in all shtetl life. An example of an important fixture in general shtetl life is the water carrier, who is depicted throughout many of Goldberg’s paintings. Furthermore, Goldberg’s parents, who were a cobbler and a seamstress, were depicted throughout many of his pieces. This is done to show that these jobs were important elements in Goldberg’s life, and also the lives of those raised in a shtetl. By exploring this idea in the classroom, we are able to cultivate an understanding of shtetl life in a way we could not do by just using readings.

By exploring art, we are able to view a snapshot of someone’s life and develop an understanding of what the different elements of people’s life actually look like. This is seen when exploring the traditional Jewish elements that Goldberg depicted in his art. He depicts Kaparot which is a traditional Jewish custom of transforming one’s sins to a chicken or rooster and killing said animal as part of the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur. By viewing traditions like this we are able to pull back the curtain and help students to understand and explore these traditions more deeply. This allows students to develop a better understanding of others and helps to prevent an environment of misunderstanding and othering which can occur when exploring sacred traditions, especially those that are viewed negatively in today’s society.

Goldberg created his art to share his experiences and his life with the world. By incorporating art like Goldberg’s into the classroom, we are not only helping to fulfill the dreams of artists like Goldberg, but we are also making history more accessible and understandable.

Often as educators, especially history educators, we try to figure out how to share history with our students in a way that allows them to picture and develop an understanding of day-to-day life. Art allows for this and brings history to our modern-day students. It provides students with a window into the past in order to guide and build their understanding. Not all artwork is a direct image that helps us picture a historical event; however, it is often the images that do not depict a direct explanation of what the world looked like that helps to describe the emotions of the people during that time. This is seen with some of Goldberg’s Holocaust artwork which shows people fighting to escape and shows the Jewish religion as something to fight for and work towards. Without art in our history classrooms, we are simply telling students about the past, rather than providing them with images to help them imagine what the world actually looked like. Once art is presented to students they can then further analyze and understand history. If it were not for artists like Goldberg, as well as many others would have a hard time understanding the history of Jewish Europeans living in shtetls, traditional Jewish rituals, and the atrocities of the Holocaust.

David, Colin. “Elie Wiesel: Witnessing, Telling and Knowing.” Traces of War: Interpreting Ethics and Trauma in Twentieth-Century French Writing. Liverpool University Press, 2018. 193–217.

Gerlach, Christian. “The Wannsee Conference, the Fate of German Jews, and Hitler’s Decision in Principle to Exterminate All European Jews.” The Journal of Modern History 70, no. 4 (1998): 759–812.

Goldberg, Chaim. After the Seder. 1990. Watercolor and Ink. Chaim Goldberg I Remember the Shtetl.

Goldberg, Chaim. Before Dawn. 1993. Oil on Canvas. Chaim Goldberg I Remember the Shtetl.

Goldberg, Chaim. Blacksmith. Sketch. CHG-Rosco.

Goldberg, Chaim. Burning the Chumetz. 1969. Oil on Linen. Full Circle: A Journey of 12 Creative Periods & Themes.

Goldberg, Chaim. Chaim’s Large Gregor. 1970. Watercolor and Ink. Chaim Goldberg I Remember the Shtetl.

Goldberg, Chaim. Channuka. 1954. Wash and Ink. Chaim Goldberg I Remember the Shtetl.

Goldberg, Chaim. Channuka. 1971. Watercolor and Ink. Chaim Goldberg I Remember the Shtetl.

Goldberg, Chaim. Family Seder. 1971. Watercolor and ink. Chaim Goldberg I Remember the Shtetl.

Goldberg, Chaim. Farwell. Mesquite Wood. CHG-Rosco.

Goldberg, Chaim. Gas Chambers. Bronze. CHG-Rosco.

Goldberg, Chaim. Hora. Sketch. CHG-Rosco.

Goldberg, Chaim. Matzah Making. 1990. Oil on Linen. Full Circle: A Journey of 12 Creative Periods & Themes.

Goldberg, Chaim. My Parents. 1970. Watercolor and Ink. Chaim Goldberg I Remember the

Shtetl.

Goldberg, Chaim. Parents II. Ink. UHG-Rosco.

Goldberg, Chaim. Purim Parade. 1993. Oil on Linen. Full Circle: A Journey of 12 Creative Periods & Themes.

Goldberg, Chaim. Rooster Blessings. 1967. Oil on Linen. Full Circle: A Journey of 12 Creative Periods & Themes.

Goldberg, Chaim. Seven Hasidic Dancers. Sketch. CHG-Rosco.

Goldberg, Chaim. Shabbat Candles. 1969. Watercolor and Ink. Chaim Goldberg I Remember the Shtetl.

Goldberg, Chaim. The Shofar. 1971. Watercolor and Ink. Chaim Goldberg I Remember the Shtetl.

Goldberg, Chaim. Shtetl. Line Engraving. CHG-Rosco.

Goldberg, Chaim. Shtetl Houses. Sketch. CHG-Rosco.

Goldberg, Chaim. Simchat Torah. 1962. Oil on Canvas. Chaim Goldberg I Remember the Shtetl.

Goldberg, Chaim. Simchat Torah. 1969. Pen and Ink. Chaim Goldberg I Remember the Shtetl.

Goldberg, Chaim. Succoth. 1971. Watercolor and Ink. Full Circle: A Journey of 12 Creative Periods & Themes.

Goldberg, Chaim. Sukkot. 1966. Watercolor and Ink. Chaim Goldberg I Remember the

Shtetl.

Goldberg, Chaim. Tashlich. 1998. Watercolor and Ink. Chaim Goldberg I Remember the Shtetl.

Goldberg, Chaim. Teacher. Watercolor. Artsy.

Goldberg, Chaim. To the Unknown. Wash and Ink. CHG-Rosco.

Goldberg, Chaim. Triumph 1. Sculpture. CHG-Rosco.

Goldberg, Chaim. Under the Gun. Ink. UHG-Rosco.

Goldberg, Chaim. USC Shoah Foundation Institute Testimony. By United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, May 16, 1995.

Goldberg, Chaim. View in the Warsaw Ghetto 1939. Pen and Ink. CGH-Rosco.

Goldberg, Chaim. The Water Carrier. Ink. UHG-Rosco.

Goldberg, Chaim. The Wedding. 1962. Oil on Canvas. Chaim Goldberg I Remember the Shtetl.

Goldberg, Chaim. The Wedding. 1997. Watercolor and Ink. Chaim Goldberg I Remember the

Shtetl.

Goldberg, Chaim. Yom Kipper. 1990. Oil on Linen. Full Circle: A Journey of 12 Creative Periods & Themes.

Goldberg, Shalom. Chaim Goldberg From the Old Shtetl of Kazimierz Dolny to the Complex Life in the Biggest City in the USA.” UHG-Rosco. (March 20, 2017). http://www.chg-rosco.com/chaim-goldbergs-biography/.

Goldberg, Shalom. Chaim Goldberg Full Circle: A Journey of 12 Creative Periods & Themes. Boca Raton: SHIR Art Publications, 1996.

Goldberg, Shalom. Chaim Goldberg I Remember the Shtetl. Kraków: Rosco Polska, 2016.

Jankay, Tibor. Cattle Car. Pencil. Tibor Jankay 1899-1994.

“The Kaparot Ceremony.” Chabad. Accessed April 29, 2022. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/989585/jewish/Kaparot.htm.

“The Kippah (Yarmulke).” Chabad. Accessed April 27, 2022. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3913641/jewish/The-Kippah-Yarmulke.htm.

Lassner, Phyllis. “The Art of Lamentation: Josef Herman’s Humanist Expressionism.” Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies 37, no. 3 (Winter 2019): 171-202.

Lightstone, Mordechai. “11 Reasons We Blow the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah.” Accessed April 29, 2022. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2311995/jewish/11-Reasons-Why-We-Blo w-the-Shofar-on-Rosh-Hashanah.htm.

McMillian, Dan. How Could This Happen: Explaining the Holocaust. New York: Basic Books, 2014.

“Modern and Contemporary Art.” The Met. Accessed April 27, 2022. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/480896.

Posner, Menachem. “What is Sukkot.” Chabad. Accessed April 29, 2022.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/4784/jewish/What-Is-Sukkot.htm.

“Representation of the Shtetl in Jewish Art: Between Reality and Fantasy.” Yad Vashem. Accessed April 27, 2022. https://www.yadvashem.org/articles/general/shtetl-in-jewish-art.html.

Schneerson, Menachem M. “Why Separate Men and Women in the Synagogue.” The Rebbe.

Accessed March 27, 1961. https://www.chabad.org/therebbe/letters/default_cdo/aid/1440261/jewish/Why-SeparateMen-and-Women-in-the-Synagogue.htm.

“Shemini Atzeret / Simchat Torah.” Chabad. Accessed April 29, 2022. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/4689/jewish/Shemini-Atzeret-Simchat-To rah.htm.

Shurpin, Yehuda. “The Origins of the Gragger: Why We Boo Haman.” Chabad. Accessed April 27, 2022. https://www.chabad.org/holidays/purim/article_cdo/aid/4321929/jewish/The-Origins-of-t he-Gragger-Why-We-Boo-Haman.htm.   

Victor, Richard Allan. The Holocaust and the Covenant in Art: Chaim Goldberg, Tibor Jankay, and Mauricio Lasansky. Michigan: UMI Microform, 1998.

“Warsaw Ghetto.” The Weiner Holocaust Library. Accessed March 29, 2022.

https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/the-camps/the-warsaw-ghetto-a-case-study/.

Weisberg, Chana. “Why are Men and Women separated at Hasidic Weddings.” Chabad.

Accessed March 27, 2022.


[1] Chaim Goldberg, interview by, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, USC Shoah Foundation Institute Testimony, May 16, 1995, 6:24.

[2] Goldberg, USC, 6:52.

[3] Goldberg, USC, 7:20.

[4] Richard Allan Victor, The Holocaust and the Covenant in Art: Chaim Goldberg, Tibor Jankay, and Mauricio Lasansky, (Michigan: UMI Microform, 1998), 7.

[5] Goldberg, USC, 7:45.

[6] Goldberg, USC, 8:50.

[7] Goldberg, USC, 30:22.

[8] Goldberg, USC, 1:22:40. 9 Victor., 17.

[9] Christian Gerlach, “The Wannsee Conference, the Fate of German Jews, and Hitler’s Decision in Principle to Exterminate All European Jews,” The Journal of Modern History 70, no. 4 (1998): 759.

[10] Dan McMillian, How Could This Happen: Explaining the Holocaust, (New York: Basic Books, 2014), 3. 12 Phyllis Lassner, “The Art of Lamentation: Josef Herman’s Humanist Expressionism,” Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies 37, no.3 (Winter 2019), 171-172. 13 Lassner., 172.

[11] Victor., 23.

[12] Tibor Jankay, Cattle Car, Pencil, Tibor Jankay 1899-1994.

[13] Victor., 24.

[14] Victor., 25.

[15] Victor., 24.

[16] Colin David, “Elie Wiesel: Witnessing, Telling and Knowing,” Traces of War: Interpreting Ethics and Trauma in Twentieth-Century French Writing, (Liverpool: University Press, 2018), 193.

[17] David., 194.

[18] Victor., 35.

[19] Lassner., 172.

[20] Lassner., 172.

[21] Lassner., 173.

[22] Lassner., 173.

[23] Lassner., 174.

[24] Chaim Goldberg, Farewell, mesquite wood, CHG-Rosco.

[25] Goldberg, Farewell.

[26] “The Kippah (Yarmulke).” Chabad, accessed April 27, 2022, https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3913641/jewish/The-Kippah-Yarmulke.htm.

[27] Chaim Goldberg, To the Unknown, wash and ink, CHG-Rosco.

[28] Goldberg, USC, 140:25.

[29] Chaim Goldberg, View in the Warsaw Ghetto 1939, Pen and Ink. CGH-Rosco. 33 “Warsaw Ghetto,” The Weiner Holocaust Library, accessed March 29, 2022, https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/the-camps/the-warsaw-ghetto-a-case-study/.

  “Warsaw Ghetto.”

[30] “Warsaw Ghetto.”

[31] Chaim Goldberg, Under the Gun, ink, UHG-Rosco.

[32] Chaim Goldberg, Under the Gun.

[33] Chaim Goldberg, Gas Chambers, bronze, CHG-Rosco.

[34] Chaim Goldberg, Gas Chambers.

[35] Cynthia Moskowitz Brody, Bittersweet Legacy Creative Response to the Holocaust (Maryland: University Press of America, 2001), 58.

[36] Shalom Goldberg, “Chaim Goldberg From the Old Shtetl of Kazimierz Dolny to the Complex Life in the Biggest City in the USA,” UHG-Rosco, March 20, 2017, http://www.chg-rosco.com/chaim-goldbergs-biography/.

[37] Chaim Goldberg, Triumph 1, sculpture, CHG-Rosco.

[38] Shalom Goldberg, Chaim Goldberg Full Circle: A Journey of 12 Creative Periods & Themes, (Boca Raton: SHIR Art Publications, 1996), 7.

[39] Goldberg, USC, 2:04:50.

[40] Goldberg, Full Circle., 7.

[41] “Representation of the Shtetl in Jewish Art: Between Reality and Fantasy,” Yad Vashem, accessed April 27, 2022, https://www.yadvashem.org/articles/general/shtetl-in-jewish-art.html. 46 “Representation of the Shtetl in Jewish Art.”

[42] “Representation of the Shtetl in Jewish Art.”

[43] Goldberg, Goldberg From the Old Shtetl of Kazimierz Dolny, 3.

[44] Chaim Goldberg, Parents II, engraving, UHG-Rosco.

[45] Chaim, My Parents, 1970, watercolor and ink, Chaim Goldberg I Remember the Shtetl.

[46] Chaim Goldberg, Blacksmith, sketch, CHG-Rosco.

[47] Chaim Goldberg, Teacher, watercolor, Artsy.

[48] Goldberg, USC, 15:53.

[49] Goldberg, USC, 1:37:19.

[50] Chaim Goldberg, The Water Carrier, ink, UHG-Rosco.

[51] Chaim Goldberg, Shtetl Houses, sketch, CHG-Rosco.

[52] Chaim Goldberg, Shtetl Houses, sketch, CHG-Rosco.

[53] “Modern and Contemporary Art,” The Met, accessed April 27, 2022, https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/480896.

[54] Chaim Goldberg, The Shtetl, line engraving, CHG-Rosco.

[55] Goldberg From the Old Shtetl of Kazimierz Dolny, 3.

[56] Chana Weisberg, “Why are Men and Women separated at Hasidic Weddings.” Chabad, accessed March 27 2022, https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/504534/jewish/Why-are-men-and-women-separated-at-Chassidic-we ddings.htm.

[57] Chaim Goldberg, Seven Hasidic Dancers, sketch, CHG-Rosco.

[58] Chaim Goldberg, Hora, sketch, CHG-Rosco.

[59] Chaim Goldberg, The Wedding, 1997, watercolor and ink, Chaim Goldberg I Remember the Shtetl.

[60] Chaim Goldberg, The Wedding, 1962, oil on canvas, Chaim Goldberg I Remember the Shtetl.

[61] Chaim Goldberg, Shabbat Candles, 1969, watercolor and ink, Chaim Goldberg I Remember the Shtetl.

[62] Chaim Goldberg, Before Dawn, 1993, oil on canvas, Chaim Goldberg I Remember the Shtetl.

[63] Goldberg, Before Dawn.

[64] Before Dawn.

[65] Chaim Goldberg, Tashlich. 1998, watercolor and ink, Chaim Goldberg I Remember the Shtetl.

[66] Lightstone, “11 Reasons We Blow the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah.”

[67] Mordechai Lightstone, “11 Reasons We Blow the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah,” accessed April 29, 2022, https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2311995/jewish/11-Reasons-Why-We-Blow-the-Shofar-on-Rosh-Has hanah.htm.

[68] Menachem M. Schneerson, “Why Separate Men and Women in the Synagogue,” The Rebbe, accessed March 27, 1961,

[69] Menachem Posner, “What is Sukkot,” Chabad, accessed April 29, 2022, https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/4784/jewish/What-Is-Sukkot.htm.

[70] Posner, “What is Sukkot.”

[71] Chaim Goldberg, Sukkot, 1966, watercolor and ink, Chaim Goldberg I Remember the Shtetl.

[72] Chaim Goldberg, Succoth, 1971, watercolor and ink, Full Circle: A Journey of 12 Creative Periods & Themes.

[73] “Shemini Atzeret / Simchat Torah,” Chabad, accessed April 29, 2022, https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/4689/jewish/Shemini-Atzeret-Simchat-Torah.htm.

[74] Chaim Goldberg, Simchat Torah, 1969, pen and ink, Chaim Goldberg I Remember the Shtetl. 84 Chaim Goldberg, Simchat Torah.

[75] Chaim Goldberg, Simchat Torah, 1962, oil on canvas, Chaim Goldberg I Remember the Shtetl. 86 “Shemini Atzeret / Simchat Torah.” 87 Goldberg, USC, 2:13:10.

[76] Chaim Goldberg, Channuka, 1954, wash and ink, Chaim Goldberg I Remember the Shtetl.

[77] “What Is Hanukkah.” Chabad, accessed March 27, 2022,

https://www.chabad.org/holidays/chanukah/article_cdo/aid/102911/jewish/What-Is-Hanukkah.htm 90 “What is Hanukkah.”

[78] Chaim Goldberg, Channuka, 1971, watercolor and ink, Chaim Goldberg I Remember the Shtetl.

[79] Chaim Goldberg, Channuka, 1971.

[80] Yehuda Shurpin, “The Origins of the Gragger: Why We Boo Haman,” Chabad, accessed March 27, 2022, https://www.chabad.org/holidays/purim/article_cdo/aid/4321929/jewish/The-Origins-of-the-Gragger-Why-We-BooHaman.htm.

[81] Goldberg, Full Circle., 39.

[82] Chaim Goldberg, Purim Parade, 1993, oil on linen, Full Circle: A Journey of 12 Creative Periods & Themes.

[83] Chaim Goldberg, Purim Parade, 1993.

[84] Chaim Goldberg, Chaim’s Large Gregor, 1970, watercolor and ink, Chaim Goldberg I Remember the Shtetl.

[85] Chaim Goldberg, Chaim’s Large Gregor.

[86] Goldberg, USC, 35:50.

[87] Chaim Goldberg, Burning the Chumetz, 1969, oil on linen, Full Circle: A Journey of 12 Creative Periods & Themes.

[88] Goldberg, Full Circle., 41.

[89] Chaim Goldberg, Matzah Making, 1990 oil on linen, Full Circle: A Journey of 12 Creative Periods & Themes. 103   Full Circle., 39.

[90] Chaim Goldberg, Family Seder, 1971, watercolor and ink, Chaim Goldberg I Remember the Shtetl.

[91] Goldberg, Chaim, After the Seder, 1990, watercolor and ink. Chaim Goldberg I Remember the Shtetl.

[92] Goldberg, Full Circle., 42.

[93] Goldberg, USC, 10:22.

[94] USC, 50:30.

[95] Chaim Goldberg From the Old Shtetl of Kazimierz Dolny, 22.