The Cost of Conformity: The Lavender Scare & Cold War Masculinity
By Jacquelyn Budai
In 1951 a book by Jack Lait and Lee Mortimer titled “Washington Confidential” was released. This book observed Washington D.C. at the time, and closely perceived the city from a unique lens. Lait and Mortimer referred to many different types of “problems”, but in Chapter 15 “The Garden of Pansies” a specific group of people who reside in Washington D.C. are then described as “fairies” and “mannish women.”[1] This book paints a picture of how society perceived people who were gay in the early fifties, specifically in the nation’s capital. Lait and Mortimer wrote, “There is no geographic section where [these] degenerates generally live. That is part of the general picture, everything, everywhere, in Washington.”[2] They were seen as people who infiltrated the city and were not to be trusted. Another word for an infiltrator is a spy, a word that Joseph McCarthy used all too well in his speeches about communists in the United States, ones that sparked the Second Red Scare in the late 1940s.
The Second Red Scare was propelled by conservative republican Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, who argued that he knew of 205 card holding communists working in the State Department during a speech in Wheeling, West Virginia.[3] A social panic began, as there were already fears of communists infiltrating within the government prior to this speech. Following this, John Peurifoy, the Deputy Undersecretary of State for Administration in 1950, argued that there were not any communist employees within the State Department, but instead 91 known homosexuals who worked in the department.[4] While the public’s main focus remained on communists and the Cold War, gays and lesbians were equally targeted as some feared they posed security risks in an era of panic. This was the start of the Lavender Scare, a phrase first coined by author and historian David K. Johnson.
Through accumulation and analysis of research from primary sources and historians, multiple questions about the Lavender Scare can be asked. The first is how did government intervention through the Lavender Scare both create fear from the public and also stem from public response? This not only creates concerns of how the government, specifically Congressional Subcommittees, decided to act on the information of gays and lesbians who worked within the government but how the public was informed on this information and the actions that were taken. In simpler terms the government and public were in a rotation of push and pull, which created and sustained an atmosphere of fear during the Lavender Scare. The second question that came to mind was, in what ways did the changing views of masculinity at the start of the Cold War contribute to the firing of thousands of gay men and women in the late 1940s and early 1950s, which is now known as the Lavender Scare? The exaggerated focus on ideas of Cold War masculinity in the late 1940s and 1950s reflected the concerns of America in the early phases of the Cold War, especially when looked at through the Lavender Scare. Finally, it should also be noted that the Lavender Scare directly led to the start of the Gay Rights Movement seen starting during the scare, and can be followed into the present day.
Government intervention & fear
The Lavender Scare is a direct reflection of the government’s fears at the start of the Cold War, similar to the Second Red Scare that occurred at this time. While investigations of gays and lesbians differed from the ways that potential communists were investigated, the government used its resources to find and investigate gays and lesbians who worked in government positions. The public’s fears of the time influenced these investigations by the government, but as years of investigations went on the government also emphasized the fears of the public. It essentially created a push and pull effect, where the government felt pressured by outside forces and the public was forced to respond to what the government found.
The Senate is where much discourse in the government occurred about gays and lesbians who worked in Federal Government. A Congressional Report from March 31, 1950 showcased the homophobic atmosphere surrounding the Senate. Republican Senator Bridges from New Hampshire said, “The President of the United States knows that the only thing I want to sabotage is the enemies of the United States. Who are they? They are the appeasers; they are the subversives; they are the incompetents; they are the homosexuals, who threaten the security of this country and the peace of the world.”[5] Senator Bridges’ rhetoric in this congressional report shows the fear that is aimed to be pushed out to the public as he paints gays and lesbians as enemies, but also the democrats as well referring to them as appeasers. Senator Miller from Nebraska added to this report, “You must know what a homosexual is. It is amazing that in the Capital City of Washington we are plagued with such a large group of those individuals. Washington attracts many lovely folks. The sex crimes in the city are many.”[6] The connotations here paint homosexuals as perverts, like they were years before, but now with the threat of national security. This Congressional Report shows how the 1950s was where homophobic ideology was able to dominate government concerns.
Fear of gays and lesbians who held positions in the government was executed further by local newspapers. One of the most notable newspapers to inform and alert the public was the Washington Evening Star, as it provided updates on the estimated amount of people who were gay and held a job in government. In April of 1950, the newspaper reported that “charges have been aired that there are about 5,000 perverts in this city, many in Federal Employment.”[7] This is the initial public news report about what has been discussed within the government about the concerns of gays and lesbians. The explanations in the news report radiates the fear that the government officials at the time had experienced, onto the public. At the end of May 1950, the same newspaper published a lengthy report about gays and lesbians involved in government employment. It is crucial to note the Congressional Subcommittee of Senators Wheely and Hill, who were the first to investigate government agencies to rid them of gays and lesbians. This specific news report notes their argument for a full investigation of homosexuals employed by the federal government, as they pend Senate approval, and the suspected numbers in all sectors of government, which included the military.[8] This report reflected the way that both the government and public felt like gays and lesbians infiltrated the government, in such a way that needed quick and direct intervention to prevent any threats.
Masculinity during the Lavender Scare
While the Lavender Scare itself reflects the fear of gays and lesbians in government and society due to the potential security risk they posed, it also deeply reflected the concerns of masculinity in politics during the time period. Joeseph McCarthy was a man who had a strong sense of the ideal masculinity. His masculinity was something new and different, as he aimed to portray himself “as a fighter, gambler and womanizer” which intrigued many people both in government and the public in general.[9] He set a standard on how to respond to threats, in this case communism and homosexuality, through the way he carried himself as a man. Supervisor of the Foreign Service Files, Helen Balog notes during the McCarthy Hearings that many people refer to McCarthy as “a big, bad wolf” and “a dragon of some kind.”[10] Her description of him emphasizes his dominant disposition in government. Additionally, masculinity is an important factor in how gays were received in society as well, especially since they were stereotyped as having qualities and traits that were not typically associated with their gender. The focus on gender during the Lavender Scare is essential to recognize as it aligns completely with the political ideologies that were presented against communism and homosexuality during this time.
During the McCarthy Era, gender was deeply intertwined with and attributed to politics. The discourse that connected to the fight against communism, and homosexuality in government, was woven into the way that politicians carried themselves. Historian K.A. Cuordileone said, “The power of hard/soft opposition in political discourse lay here, in the gendered symbolic baggage that gave such imagery meaning and resonance.”[11] The public began to associate hardness and excessively masculine traits with a hardness against communism and other security threats, which were gays and lesbians. The public also associated softness, often attributed to liberal politicians, with an unwillingness to take down potential enemies, and a possible contribution or affiliation to the threat itself.[12] This created a split within government, as politicians used this as a strategy against one another as they continued their fight against threats of national security. This new political atmosphere also pushed politicians to strive for a hardness against these threats, so that they aligned with the fight to ease the publics fears.
While the way someone presented their masculinity in government was commonly used as a political strategic tool, homophobia was as well, no matter how hard or soft the politician was. McCarthy, commonly described as being a hard politician with uncontrolled masculine traits, had his own run in with suspicions of his sexuality.[13] Hank Greenspun, a reporter, had published numerous reports that labeled McCarthy as a homosexual, and suspicion about McCarthy’s sexuality began to run throughout both the public and the government.[14] As McCarthy’s masculinity was debated, Cold War liberals who experienced the sting of softness on their political careers, jumped in on the allegations against McCarthy, to essentially ruin McCarthy’s career through the emphasis that he was not to “be trusted to defend his nation’s interest.”[15] In their efforts to destroy McCarthy through his sexuality, liberal politicians were able to show their stance on the matter of sexuality, which was that it did pose a threat to national security and was able to be hidden even behind the mask of strong masculinity.
While these politics charged by the notions of gender are important to consider, it is also crucial to weigh the impact on gays and lesbians themselves, who were the direct targets of politicians at the time, and how they were perceived by society. Stereotypes were commonly used to determine whether or not someone was gay. David K. Johnson stated, “Gay men were more likely to be targeted due to lesbians having less access to public space leading to them not being arrested as much as men. It was more typical for women to be close to other women, whereas there were more lines drawn within relationships with men.”[16] This not only reflects the government’s concerns of gays in federal employment, but the attributes of gender in the same sense. The connections between the fear of softness, and the fear of gays and lesbians infiltration in government positions is one that connects and reflects how both gender and sexuality drove the political landscape during the early years of the Cold War.
The Effects and the movements
The Lavender Scare and the focus on virile masculinity created a ripple effect that is still felt in the society of the United States today. The forced removal of thousands from their careers altered lives, as the government’s interference touched each person who was a part of the gay community. The removal process of gays and lesbians from their federal jobs was done in a quiet manner, so that many of the people removed from their jobs would remain outcasted from society. When suspicion arose, suspected gays and lesbians would be investigated and questioned about their sexuality, afterwards being asked to resign.[17] It was common that coworkers of government employees would simply disappear, one day at work and the next gone with no explanation.[18] After resignation, many people also fled to other parts of the world where there might have been more acceptance.[19] John E. Matson, a special agent in the State Department’s Division of Security, said, “This particular man is Thomas Hicock. Unfortunately, this man a week later committed suicide, so he is out of the picture. He had been in the Foreign Service for over eighteen years.”[20] While this is one example of what happened after someone was forced from their job, there is much that is still unknown and hidden within history.
Since these removals deeply altered the way of life for gays and lesbians that worked for the government, many acted against the discrimination. The Mattachine Society that was formed in Los Angeles was created by Henry Hay, a gay man and communist, in 1950. The group would become known as one of the first instances where response and retaliation arose against the discriminatory actions of the government. The FBI had a strong focus on the group and their magazines, Mattachine Review and One, which were published to spread their message of equality for gays and lesbians. The FBI looked for subversives throughout the group, but concluded that “the aim of the organization was to educate legislators and educators with respect to homosexuality.”[21] However, this is early in the investigation of the Mattachine Society of Los Angeles, and two more parts to the investigation proceeded this one which showed the desperateness to find something within the group that posed as a threat.
The group’s foundation of communism deeply influenced their agenda for advocacy and equality for gays and lesbians, which created some problems within the organization. Historian James Kirchick said, “Within a few years of its formation, however, the Society decided to distance itself from Hay and others with politically dicey affiliations.”[22] One of the groups to come out of this split was The Mattachine Society of Washington, created by Frank Kameny, an astronomer who worked in government and was fired from his job in 1957. Kameny differed from many others who were asked about their sexuality while at their government job, and fought against his forced removal through court cases that went all the way to the Supreme Court. There he argued that he and 15 million other Americans were treated as “second-class citizens.”[23] The Mattachine Society of Washington D.C. formed after his petition to the Supreme Court was denied. However, Kameny did not let this stop his advocacy, and he continued to lobby government officials and encouraged judicial cases in his fight for equality.[24] Kameny continued to remain at the forefront of the gay rights movement, and never stopped his fight for the change needed to grant equality to gays and lesbians around the country.
At a glance, the impact of these groups does not seem to promote that much change, as discrimination against gays and lesbians continued. The groups that formed from the Lavender Scare created a voice that was not heard often. Additionally, the counterculture that appeared in the sixties featured activism that was never seen before and “challenged American society at its core” which allowed for more people to join the fight against discrimination in all senses. [25] While different groups had dissimilar ideas about how to advocate, each one nevertheless worked toward a common goal of gay and lesbian acceptance in society.
Conclusion
While the Lavender Scare involved the forced removal of thousands from careers in the federal government, it created a political landscape that has been often overlooked in history. As discrimination developed over the years, the government allowed fear to permeate both the political landscape and the public lens especially at the start of the 1950s when the Cold War began. This created a push and pull effect from both sides, where action of removal was the only apparent solution. As gays and lesbians posed a security risk, and were attributed with stereotypical notions of gender, the political landscape began to hyperfocus on both sexuality and gender, mainly in terms of masculinity. The idea of masculinity had a strong influence on both the government and public, which therefore led to a control on the legislative decisions that were made during the Lavender Scare.
The groups that formed from the government’s maltreatment were created out of a response from the prejudiced actions of the government. The Mattachine Societies that began to appear across the country reflected the ambition and need for change. People advocated through speeches, directly to the government or through magazine publications where they were able to draw more people into their cause. They advocated for change, and for an ability to be themselves in society. These groups that arose in a time where fear ran rampant through communities set the stage and provided a framework for the groups to come in the later years. Through the resilience and solidarity of each of these groups, change was able to happen.
The Lavender Scare is still a recently discovered aspect of history, and is one that is often overlooked. The forced removal of thousands of gay men and women from their careers is one that is left relatively unknown, as the second Red Scare dominates this era of history. But the years that followed the harsh 1950s created more and more opportunities for gay men and women. Still, it is only recently that people who are queer have had the opportunities to fully reenter into society, as same-sex marriage was legalized less than 10 years ago by the Supreme Court. However, there are still many people who do not receive the same treatment due to their sexuality or the way the present themselves in society. It is important to understand how deeply rooted homophobia is in the United States society, as it has been since the early twentieth century. By ignoring the hidden history of the LGBTQIA+ community, one is ignoring the current problems at hand. If resolution and reparations are to be made to those who were discriminated against, one has to look back on the past, reflect, and take action.
References
Primary sources:
Lait, Jack, and Lee Mortimer. Washington Confidential. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1951.
McCarthy, Joseph. “Speech in Wheeling, West Virginia.” February, 1950. Accessed through University of Oregon.
Mattachine Society: Part 01 of 03. FBI Records: The Vault. July 14, 1953. Accessed November 6, 2024. 15.
Secondary sources:
Cuordileone, K.A. ““Politics in an Age of Anxiety”: Cold War Political Culture and the Crisis in American Masculinity, 1949-1960”. The Journal of American History 87, no. 2 (2000): 515-545. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2568762.
Eaklor, Vicki F. Queer America: A People’s GLBT History of the United States. New York: The New Press, 2008.
Friedman, Andrea. “The Smearing of Joe McCarthy: The Lavender Scare, Gossip, and Cold War Politics.” American Quarterly 57, no. 4 (2005): 1105–29. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40068331
Johnson, David K. The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.
Kirchick, James. Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington. Henry Holt and Co., 2022.
Shibusawa, Naoko. “The Lavender Scare and Empire: Rethinking Cold War Antigay Politics.” Diplomatic History. 36, no. 4 (2012): 723-752.
[3] Joseph McCarthy, “Speech in Wheeling, West Virginia,” February, 1950, Accessed through University of Oregon.
[4] David. K. Johnson, The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), p. 1.
[9] Andrea Freidman, “The Smearing of Joe McCarthy: The Lavender Scare, Gossip, and Cold War Politics,” American Quarterly 57, no. 4 (2005): 1108, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40068331.
[11] K.A Cuordileone, ““Politics in an Age of Anxiety”: Cold War Political Culture and the Crisis in American Masculinity, 1949-1960,” The Journal of American History 87, no. 2 (2000): 516, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2568762.
[13] Andrea Freidman, “The Smearing of Joe McCarthy: The Lavender Scare, Gossip, and Cold War Politics,” American Quarterly 57, no. 4 (2005): 1112, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40068331.
[16] David K. Johnson, The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004, 155.
[17] David K Johnson, The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004, 2.
[21] Mattachine Society: Part 01 of 03, FBI Records: The Vault, July 14, 1953, Accessed November 6, 2024, 15.
[22] James Kirchick, Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington, Henry Holt and Co., 2022, 155.
[23] David K. Johnson, The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004, 181.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt: The OG Influencer— No Twitter Just Fireside Chats
By Rhiannon Al-Saadi
Turning on the radio
A nation on the brink of despair. One man’s voice crackled through the radio. 54 million listeners. Two-thirds of America.[1] Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s fireside chats did not just deliver news, but also wove a thread of hope and unity that transformed the very fabric of political communication. In an age dominated by tweets and soundbites, Roosevelt’s intimate conversations set a powerful precedent for how presidents connected with their citizens. His informal and conversational style turned these broadcasts into what would be famously known as his “fireside chats.” Through his fireside chats Roosevelt was able to connect with people right in their homes, creating a personal feeling. This unprecedented use of technology changed the way Americans looked at the presidency. This revolution in communication highlighted several key themes: the technologically advanced nature of radio, the personal connection and accessibility it afforded, the emergence of celebrity culture, and the lasting lessons it offers for future leaders. Together, these elements illustrated how Roosevelt’s fireside chats informed as well as inspired a nation in need. An examination of Roosevelt’s innovative use of radio reveals a profound and lasting impact on presidential communication, setting a precedent that future leaders, such as John F. Kennedy and Donald Trump, would follow. This analysis highlights a clear pattern of technological advancements in communication strategies, illustrating how each president adapted to evolving media landscapes to engage effectively with the American public.
President Roosevelt was first inaugurated on March 3rd, 1933. During this time, the nation grappled with the Great Depression’s harsh realities. Just eight days after his inauguration, Roosevelt delivered his first national radio address, which became a groundbreaking moment in American history. Around this point the radio emerged. In the 1920s everyone wanted a radio in their home; it was the new thing. By the 1930s, it was in every other home. The 1930 census “showed that 40.3% of all families owned a radio set.” This percentage was even higher “in urban areas, with ownership at 50.0%.” Although radio ownership became increasingly common across much of the United States, it remained less widespread in the South, where economic and geographic factors slowed its growth compared to other regions.[2] A lot can change over the course of a decade. Not long later in the 1940s— “despite the economic crisis— [the] radio became commonplace: 86 percent of homes had sets.”[3] Even though the radio’s popularity coincided with a time of great social and economic upheaval, families still gathered around it. During Roosevelt’s presidency, the radio transformed from a luxury item into a normal part of daily life, deeply embedded in American households and communities. The radio served as a primary means of communication, entertainment, and connection to the world beyond their community. For Roosevelt, this technological shift provided an unprecedented opportunity to speak directly to the American people. According to communication expert Christopher Sterling, Hooper Radio reported “nearly 54 million people (of roughly 82 million adult Americans) tuned in to the broadcast.”[4] Although only half the population owned a radio set, two-thirds were listening in at times. This may seem puzzling at first— today this can be seen by everyone watching a YouTube video but only some actually hit subscribe. For the radio, this was possible because it went beyond just a household item. The radio was a shared, communal resource, something previous technologies lacked. Those without a radio in their homes could easily tune in at a friend’s house, a diner, or even in a car. This made radio listening a shared experience that transcended the boundaries of individual ownership, and in many ways, it brought communities closer together. Roosevelt recognized the power of this medium and began using it to connect directly with the American people during their darkest hours.
Amid the chaos of the Great Depression, the fireside chats were not just a communication tool, but a lifeline for people facing mass unemployment, bank failures, and dramatic deflation. Ranging from 1929 to 1939, the Great Depression marked one of the most severe economic downturns in American history. Nearly a quarter of the workforce was unemployed, families struggled to survive as their savings vanished and businesses collapsed. The stock market crash of 1929 had triggered a financial panic, soon after the banking crisis only worsened that disaster. By the time Roosevelt took office in 1933, more than nine thousand banks had failed, wiping out the savings of millions of Americans.[5] Due to this, public trust in the government and the financial system was at an all-time low, and many Americans were desperate for reassurance and a sense of direction. This put a lot of pressure on Roosevelt, but still he confidently promised to tackle the nation’s economic challenges. Historian Geoffrey Storm notes that “the letters he received from New Yorkers illuminate Depression-era conditions and indicate an early instance of the intimate bond established between Roosevelt and his listeners.”[6] This bond, cultivated through the fireside chats, allowed Roosevelt to directly engage with the anxieties of the American public, offering both guidance and comfort during the nation’s time of uncertainty.
Most historians agree that Roosevelt’s fireside chats significantly impacted political communication. It is how historians approach it where these things differ. The main two approaches reflect the influence from a media history or political history angle. On one hand, historians like Bruce Lenthal, Harold Holzer, and Geoffrey Storm highlight how Roosevelt’s fireside chats influenced media approaches, resulting in more direct and accessible communication with the American people.[7] Lenthal’s work specifically does a deep dive into the radio, analyzing the technological and cultural impact of it. Lenthal argues that the radio is to credit for the rise of modern mass culture. He and Storm examine the technological innovations in relation to the cultural impact of the fireside chats. The two of them are quite interested in the history of the radio, making their contributions slightly narrow. Storm adds substantial information on what the technology of the fireside chats meant for society, such as how it helped reach a wider audience across different regions. Holzer has less of a focus on the radio and more of a focus on the technology relevant at certain times. This is because he looks at the history of media throughout the presidencies, not just at Roosevelt’s radio. Like the other approaches, Holzer looks at technologies’ impact on modern media strategies and its role in engaging the public, though for multiple different presidents. Together these historians draw attention to Roosevelt’s media strategy as they find the fireside chats impact relates to its technologically advanced nature.
On the other hand, there is the political history focus. Political historians look at the impact of Roosevelt’s use of radio on his administration, particularly how it shaped public opinion and solidified his leadership during the crisis. They focus on the fireside chats in terms of fostering national unity and engagement. William Edward Leuchtenburg, Richard W. Steele, and Tom Lewis primarily focus on the public sentiment, rather than the technology.[8] Leuchtenburg emphasizes how Roosevelt’s New Deal policies reshaped American society, with mention of people’s reaction to his fireside chats. Looking at social and political history, Leuchtenburg makes captivating insights on how Roosevelt’s use of radio transformed presidential communication, allowing him to connect directly with Americans in their homes, build trust, and shape public opinion during the Great Depression. Steele’s article “The Pulse of the People: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Gauging of American Public Opinion,” emphasizes Roosevelt’s strategic methods for gauging public sentiment, highlighting how the president used informal feedback and media interactions to respond to American concerns. By examining Roosevelt’s strategy, Steele is firmly rooted in political history. He continues this focus in his article “The Great Debate: Roosevelt, the Media, and the Coming of the War, 1940–1941.” In this, Steele argues that Roosevelt strategically used the media to gain support for his plans of intervention. Lewis takes these two ideas, from Leuchtenburg and Steele, and combines them when he explores the direct impact of the fireside chats on building a personal connection. Lewis argues the emergence of celebrity culture within the context of radio highlights how Roosevelt utilized the medium to cultivate a public persona. Lewis incorporates a considerable amount of cultural history by looking at the cultural impact of Roosevelt’s political identity. Still, the core focus is on how these efforts were used for political gain, making it political history. These historians generally analyze the broader dynamics of Roosevelt’s fireside chats to public opinion, to do this they take a more legacy related approach to understanding Roosevelt’s impact.
Building on these insights, this analysis will explore how Roosevelt’s fireside chats were successful for both technological and political history reasons. The current historical discussion is limited in its view of the fireside chats. Roosevelt’s use of the radio transformed presidential communication for both technological reasons and the personal connections the fireside chats formed. However, while historians focus on these aspects in isolation, few have fully explored how Roosevelt’s fireside chats laid the groundwork for future presidents. Today, the echoes of Roosevelt’s fireside chats can still be heard in the way presidents communicate with the American people. The groundbreaking fireside chats strengthened Roosevelt’s relationships, created his public persona, and made future presidents embrace the precedent. Roosevelts’ influence cannot be attributed to just one historical category. The combined reasons make a tangible strategy that continued after Roosevelt. The fireside chats represented a game changing development in political communication, due to their technological innovation making them direct and personal. One did not need to be a politician to understand the policies being discussed. At the same time, Roosevelt’s use of radio contributed to the rise of celebrity culture, positioning him as a prominent public figure whose personality resonated with Americans and made him a recognizable and influential leader. Comparisons with future presidents, including but not limited to, John F. Kennedy, who emulated Roosevelt’s personal connection through strong stage presence, and Donald Trump, who harnessed the elements with social media, illustrate how advancements in technology have continually influenced presidential communication strategies. Roosevelt was not setting out to make this precedent, but in trying to help his country recover, he revolutionized the presidency. This raises an important question; how did Roosevelt use the radio to revolutionize the way future presidents communicate with the American people? This analysis will argue that the legacy of the fireside chats is still present today. Where much of the current discussion stops is at Roosevelt’s direct impact, and this fails to address the next question; what have later presidents done to follow in Roosevelt’s footsteps? Ultimately, this analysis aims to contribute to current historiography by highlighting how Roosevelt’s fireside chats not only reshaped the nature of political communication but also established a framework for future leaders to connect with the public in increasingly personal and engaging ways, reflecting the evolving relationship between technology and political communication.
The tech behind the talk
The once revolutionary technology, the radio, transformed how Americans experienced both political news and general culture. The most transformative aspect of the radio was the direct communication it provided. Lenthal, author of Radio’s America, notes the radio as cutting edge technology in the 1930s. For the first time, Americans were able to listen to live broadcasts, giving them unmediated access to national events and shaping their understanding of politics and culture. Lenthal further explains that for people listening “the government that had seemed so far away […], suddenly felt meaningful in his own house.”[9] This is to say previous interactions with the presidency were physically distant and felt that way too. Leuchtenburg said in his book, The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy, “most Americans in the previous 160 years had never even seen a President” the news was their only choice.[10] A newspaper represents someone else’s account of events. It is written after the fact, whether that be hours or days later. And then it is read even further from the original date, when a person finally sees it and has time for it. The more and more this goes on, the news begins to feel like a game of Telephone— what once was, now becomes a distant version of the original.[11] None of that could be said for Roosevelt’s fireside chats. He spoke directly to the American people, explaining why his ideas, such as the New Deal, were going to help them. They heard the president speak. From his mouth to their ears, with the exact words he said it to them specifically. To experience the president speaking directly to you, with no delay and no middle man, marked a profound shift in how Americans engaged with their leader. This forever altered the way future presidents would communicate with the American people.
Not only did the radio allow direct unmediated communication with the president, but it also extended the accessibility of information across the nation. By eliminating the barriers of traditional news outlets, the radio made it possible to reach millions of citizens. Previous barriers holding back news accessibility were typically monetary. In the early 1900s, most people got their news through newspapers or newsreels.[12] This means people had to buy each issue or a movie ticket to stay informed. The radio brought political messages into people’s homes, workplaces, and public spaces. This unprecedented ability to broadcast news to such a wide audience at once, fundamentally altered the dynamics of political communication, which enabled Roosevelt to connect with the American public in ways never before imagined. Doing so reshaped the relationship between the government and the citizens. As Steele notes in “The Great Debate: Roosevelt, the Media, and the Coming of the War,” “Roosevelt’s presidential addresses, particularly his fireside chats, were as popular among newsreel viewers as they were among the nation’s radio audiences.”[13] Since radio dominated mass communication during Roosevelt’s presidency, he used it to address millions of Americans, extending his reach greatly. However, it is important to highlight the significance of newsreels, they were brief films screened in movie theaters that showcased significant events. Most would assume that newsreels would be more popular as it was on a screen, something still present today. But while newsreels were widely popular, radio offered an additional layer of accessibility, allowing Americans to tune in directly from their homes without the need for a movie ticket.
While the radio expanded accessibility, it also fostered a collective experience, as millions of Americans listened together in real-time, creating a shared moment of national engagement. Unlike any other medium before it, the radio allowed millions of people to engage with the same event or broadcast simultaneously, creating a sense of collective participation. Not owning a radio did not equal not listening to one.[14] Roosevelt capitalized on this unique characteristic, using his fireside chats not just as a platform for delivering his policies, but as an opportunity to connect the American people. Across the country, people from different families and different towns would come together and have listening parties for Roosevelt’s broadcasts. According to Lenthal, “simply listening to the radio was often a shared experience: Americans in the 1930s typically listened with groups of family or friends.”[15] Figure 1, a 1938 photo, showed how Roosevelt’s real-time address to the nation created an immediate connection with listeners. Even if they were listening cramped up in a small room with nowhere to sit, people would still come together to listen to the radio.[16] The American people were brought together by the shared cultural experience of hearing their president speak directly to them. This type of collective experience was unprecedented at the time— today, we might experience similar collective moments through viral memes with millions of views, but in Roosevelt’s era, the radio was the groundbreaking technology that made such a connection possible.
With a discussion of the technological innovation behind the fireside chats, a key point often missing is the simple aspect that this communication came directly from the President of the United States of America. This was not a slick big business’s PR stunt, nor a cheerful ad for a local store. This was the President, the country’s leader, using this advanced technology to directly engage with the American people. Leutchenbrug confirms that Roosevelt was “the first chief executive to take full advantage of the capacity of radio to project a president’s idea.”[17] What set Roosevelt apart from other figures using the radio stemmed from his unique ability to turn the technological medium into a means of political leadership. Roosevelt used the radio not only to inform but to cultivate a relationship with the people, making them feel personally connected to their government. His broadcasts were more than just announcements. The fireside chats served as a way to project leadership, confidence, and authority during one of the country’s most difficult periods. Roosevelt understood the power of this new communication tool to foster trust, shape public perception, and solidify his influence as the nation’s leader. The impact of his fireside chats reached far beyond the immediate information he conveyed— it transformed the way Americans viewed their president, setting a new standard for political communication that future presidents would adopt and adapt.
Bringing the president home
Roosevelt broke down the boundaries between the president and the people by forcing himself into American living rooms, giving millions of Americans the sensation that they were having a conversation with the president. Americans tuned in to listen to the president in the comfort of their own homes, creating the sensation that Roosevelt himself stood in the room with them, speaking to each individual as if he was any other friend in their own home. This powerful illustration is captured in Figure 2, a 1940 photograph, “The Fireside Chats: Roosevelt’s Radio Talks.” The photo has a father and daughter intently tuning in to one of these broadcasts, symbolizing the intimate, family-centered atmosphere Roosevelt cultivated through his radio addresses.[18]
The photograph conveys more than words ever could, as listening to Roosevelt speak in one’s own home highlights the personal connection it made the American people feel. Historian Geoffrey Storm put it perfectly when he says that listening to the fireside chats was “a highly personal, immediate experience that reduced the limitations of geographical separation to forge new, wider notions of community.”[19] Roosevelt intended for his fireside chats to sound personal, as though he were addressing each listener individually, rather than delivering a formal, distant speech. At the time, the radio served as a revolutionary technology capable of bringing the president’s voice as though he were right there in the room with them. Prior to radio, people in different sections of the country frequently did not hear directly from the president because of geographic distance.[20] It was so personalized that Lewis notes that “some people placed Roosevelt’s picture beside their radios, so they might see him as he spoke.”[21] This highlights the intimate relationship listeners developed with Roosevelt, viewing him as a personal figure rather than just a distant politician. To have a picture of the president in one’s home means it was a source of comfort, familiarity, and reassurance. Bridging the physical gap between himself and the American people, Roosevelt’s fireside chats helped to strengthen the relationship and make him feel less like an inaccessible politician and more like a trusted presence in every home.
In addition to creating a personal connection, Roosevelt’s fireside chats were characterized by his use of simple, clear language that spoke directly to the concerns and experiences of ordinary Americans. Roosevelt made that motivation clear too. During his very first fireside chat, on March 12 1933, titled “Fireside Chat on the Banking Crisis,” he emphasized that his actions were “for the benefit of the average citizen.”[22] Instead of using complex political or economic terminology, Roosevelt broke down the issues at hand into terms that anyone could understand, regardless of their background or education. He carefully explained the banking crisis and the steps the government was taking to address it in straightforward language, ensuring that people felt informed and reassured— given the circumstances, that reassurance was certainly needed. He referenced this again seven years later in another fireside chat, having said “I tried to convey to the great mass of American people what the banking crisis meant to them in their daily lives.”[23] Furthermore, not only did Roosevelt talk without political jargon, like a real person, but he as well had an “informal delivery” that contributed to accessibility.[24] Roosevelt’s approachable tone made listeners feel comfortable sending letters to him in response to his fireside chats. For example, F.B. Graham, a woman who wrote to Roosevelt after listening to one of his fireside chats, described them as “neighborly” and noted that “in simple words [he] explained the great things he had done, so that all us unfamiliar” would understand.[25] This letter, written by a listener who was not a political expert but a regular American citizen, demonstrates the easy comprehension of the fireside chats. Roosevelt’s use of simple language, paired with his informal yet authoritative delivery, allowed him to communicate effectively with people across the nation. From this understanding, Roosevelt built a unique relationship with the American people, increasing his popularity. By addressing ordinary citizens in a language they could easily understand, he made complex policy discussions feel personal and approachable, rather than distant and formal.
By speaking in simple, relatable terms, Roosevelt made political issues more understandable, which opened up the political process, encouraging greater public participation and involvement in government decisions. Roosevelt’s decision to speak informally went beyond just making his message clearer to the public. The fireside chats were a deliberate effort to make politics more approachable and relatable for ordinary Americans. The fireside chats were void of political lingo that those “unfamiliar with the technicalities” would be confused by.[26] At the time, political discourse remained largely secluded to the educated elite or political insiders. Roosevelt’s straightforward language invited a wider range of citizens— regardless of their social or educational background— into the conversation. Something essential during this time was that the banking crisis ruined thousands of normal American lives. By opting for simplicity he made it possible for the people being affected to understand the issues at hand. This gave them a sense of participation in the national dialogue and empowered them to engage more deeply with the decisions that shaped their desperate circumstances. By ensuring that Americans from various parts of society understood the topics being discussed, his fireside chats helped close the divide between the public and the government. As historian Leuchtenburg notes, Roosevelt “greatly broadened the political agenda and encouraged outsiders to enter the civic arena” not only through his fireside chats but also by his openness to new ideas and people previously excluded from Washington.[27] By making politics less intimidating, Roosevelt encouraged people to believe that they could engage with and even influence government decisions. Roosevelt himself said this too in his first fireside chat, he made his audience known when he said he was having this broadcast for “the comparatively few who understand the mechanics of banking but more particularly with the overwhelming majority who use banks for the making of deposits in the drawing of checks.”[28] Roosevelt wanted all American listeners to know they were meant to hear this. The fireside chats were not for the banking specialist or politicians, it was to talk to real people with real concerns, who might not fully understand the technicalities of the circumstances. Roosevelt’s fireside chats ultimately contributed to a more informed and involved population by changing their relationship between the people and the government.
The fireside celebrity
When the radio emerged as a powerful medium, it influenced not only how the American people got their news, but it also marked the birth of a political celebrity. Roosevelt was the first person to mix politics into the entertainment industry, elevating him to household-name status alongside the iconic movie stars of the 1920s and famous athletes. The radio played a crucial role in the development of celebrity culture. Before the rise of the radio, Americans were mostly confined to local communities, with limited access to people or happenings outside of their immediate surroundings.[29] While the film industry had already begun to expand cultural boundaries, the radio offered a different kind of connection. The radio brought national conversations directly into American homes, it was centered on live, real-world content. As for magazine culture, it was alive, but it did not reach people like the radio did.[30] The development of the radio created an expansion of the “bounds of geography.”[31] For example, people in the Midwest could suddenly walk into their living room and hear about the lives of people in the cities. Given that America is not a walkable country, this is essential towards celebrity culture. There cannot be a celebrity culture when regional divides are limiting access. With the radio, every American can listen to events happening nowhere near them, whether it be New York, Hollywood, or overseas. The cities were no longer the sole holders of information—suddenly, anyone anywhere could be an informed citizen. This new level of awareness not only transformed how Americans consumed news but additionally allowed public figures to reach national audiences in ways previously unimaginable. Where once individuals were confined to local newspapers, magazines, or word-of-mouth to hear about the lives of famous people, the radio created an instantaneous, nationwide conversation. It allowed personalities to transcend their regional bases, gaining widespread recognition across the country. This made it possible for figures such as movie stars, musicians, and politicians to become national household names, a phenomenon that would eventually blossom into what is known today as celebrity culture.
Roosevelt’s widespread media presence cemented his celebrity status, as reflected by the flood of letters he received from ordinary Americans, eager to communicate with their president. The feelings invoked by Roosevelt’s fireside chats made people wish they could talk to him. If the president is already sitting in one’s living room, it only makes sense to continue the conversation by writing to him. Similar to celebrities today, Roosevelt received a lot of fan mail. Roosevelt’s carefully managed persona was embraced by the American people, causing a constant “flow of letters to the White House.”[32] Whether it be a simple hello, a political inquiry, or a message of congratulations— Roosevelt received it all. His desk, often piled high with letters from ordinary citizens, served as a constant reminder of the public persona he fostered with millions of Americans. Each letter was a reflection of their hopes, struggles, and trust in his leadership. According to investigative reporter Stephen Smith, Herbert Hoover, Roosevelt’s predecessor, could not relate. Whereas Hoover received around eight hundred letters a day. Roosevelt received eight thousand.[33] Roosevelt’s ability to connect with the public was not only a product of his own charisma, but also of his family legacy. Harold Holzer, author of President v.s. the Press says that Roosevelt’s cousin, Theodore Roosevelt, had set the foundation for the Roosevelt family’s public image, teaching Roosevelt the power of leveraging personal charm and a strong public presence.[34] The power of this can be seen in Figure 3, a photograph that depicts Roosevelt with a mountain of letters on his desk. This parallels modern YouTubers’ unboxing fan mail videos.[35] Like YouTubers today, sitting in front of a camera surrounded by fan mail, more than they could ever realistically read, Roosevelt was in the same situation a little less than a hundred years ago. Roosevelt’s overwhelming fan mail was a clear sign that his connection with the public went far beyond politics, creating a new type of political figure whose reach and influence rivaled that of modern-day celebrities.
Roosevelt’s influence knew no borders. His communication had a far reaching impact, with listeners all over the globe tuned in. One notable example is a fourteen year old kid from Cuba, named Fidel Castro, who wrote to Roosevelt addressing him as “my good friend Roosevelt.”[36] This personal address demonstrated how Roosevelt’s use of the radio not only connected him with Americans, but also extended his reach to international audiences. His unique ability to make Americans and foreign citizens alike feel personally connected to him made him a “celebrity” in the modern sense of the word. This shift from national leader to global icon marked a new era in political communication, blurring the line between celebrity and politician. The timing was crucial given the context of the Great Depression. During a global crisis, Roosevelt was able to extend his influence and status further than the national borders, establishing him as not merely the leader of the United States of America, but as a figure of widespread fame.
Beyond the spotlight, Roosevelt’s charismatic personality was a calculated approach to public opinion that transformed him into more than just a political leader. Roosevelt became a symbol of trust and stability. The fireside chats provided Roosevelt a unique opportunity to be a politician with a celebrity like relationship. Taking full advantage of the opportunity, Roosevelt carefully scripted his public persona. Steele says in his article “The Pulse of the People,” that this is because Roosevelt “never thought that good government spoke for itself” and actively sought to shape public sentiment, recognizing that public attitudes could significantly impact his administration’s success.[37] Lewis points to how Roosevelt harnessed radio to build his image in a time of crisis, arguing that “Roosevelt used radio to unite a fearful nation and to expand his popular appeal.”[38] Many assume Roosevelt’s high popularity came from “the product of some special intuitive sense,” but Steele argues it was in fact “deliberately constructed and carefully maintained.”[39] By closely monitoring the press and engaging with citizens’ concerns, Roosevelt not only showcased his confidence and responsiveness but also fostered a sense of connection and trust among the public. This proactive engagement helped cultivate a loyal following and reinforced the idea that effective leadership involves understanding and addressing the needs of the American people.[40] Roosevelt’s careful management of public sentiment was not only about maintaining trust— it had also been about restoring and building confidence, particularly during times of uncertainty. During Roosevelt’s second fireside chat, he said it himself: “I made clear to the country various facts that might otherwise have been misunderstood and in general provided a means of understanding which did much to restore confidence.”[41] Therefore, Roosevelt’s celebrity-like status played a crucial role in shaping the nation’s perception of him as a trustworthy and dependable leader during times of crisis.
Long before social media, Roosevelt started the idea of a political celebrity through the power of the radio, using his voice to shape not just public opinion but an entirely new kind of public figure. Roosevelt’s public persona extended far beyond his position in office, with his influence shaping not only political landscapes but also the cultural and social fabric of the nation. This status stemmed from his remarkable ability to connect with the public in a way that felt deeply personal. Roosevelt’s strategic fireside chats fostered a sense of leadership that elevated him to a person of unprecedented recognition and influence. The 1920s movie stars were recognizable and of course everyone knew who Babe Ruth was, but none of them had influence over the country like President Roosevelt did.
Taking Note From Roosevelt
Roosevelt’s fireside chats had a lasting impact that extended far beyond his presidency. The fireside chats influenced future presidents to follow in Roosevelt’s footsteps, by embracing the technology of the time. After Roosevelt died in office on April 12th 1945, his vice president Harry Truman, succeeded him. He continued Roosevelt’s use of the radio, even announcing Japan’s surrender in WWII over the radio.[42] By continuing Roosevelt’s use of the radio, Truman ensured that the nation remained connected during a time of great change and uncertainty, honoring Roosevelt’s legacy and demonstrating the lasting influence of the fireside chats. Over time the development of technology’s effect on the presidency has only deepened. As technology continues to evolve, its influence on presidential communication only grows, shaping how future leaders will connect with the public and furthering Roosevelt’s impact.
Technological advancements are like fads, they leave just as fast as they enter. Only seven years later and the radio was old news. The television, growing in popularity, quickly became the new staple in every home. In 1952, the Eisenhower campaign became the first to have televised ads. This happened through his series “Eisenhower Answers America,” where just like Roosevelt, Eisenhower directly addressed America. The timing of this was essential given that Lewis says “by 1953, when there were more than 17 million television sets in the United States.”[43] The television proved to be especially useful for addressing controversy, as it allowed candidates to directly engage with the public in a personal and immediate way. A notable example of this is when Eisenhower’s VP, Richard Nixon gave a televised speech famously titled, “Checkers.” Political historian, John Malsberger, notes this speech as having “produced an outpouring of popular support for Nixon and erased doubts about his candidacy.”[44] The televised speech was able to humanize the nominees and clear the air regarding financial concerns the nation had. Roosevelt did the same regularly, in one particular fireside chat, Roosevelt had to clear the air about his Recovery Program. During this broadcast he explained his actions and gave “a word of encouragement,” to help address some of the issues people were having.[45] Roosevelt and Eisenhower understood the power of direct communication through emerging technologies, using radio and television to not only address controversy but also build trust and connect with the American people during times of uncertainty.
John F. Kennedy took advantage of the television like never seen before. Kennedy’s remarkable charisma and public appeal was a defining feature of his presidency, making it possible for him to connect with Americans in a way that few other leaders had before. Kennedy, like Roosevelt, understood the ability of technological advancements to create a personal connection with the public. Whereas Roosevelt established the use of radio to reach the masses, Kennedy capitalized on the growing influence of television to do the same, using it not just to inform, but to inspire. Kennedy’s personal narrative— his youthful energy, his family legacy, and his polished public persona— played a key role in this media strategy. Holzer notes that Kennedy “brought not only movie star looks to the political table but also a substantial if slightly padded résumé. Like TR [Theodore Roosevelt] a genuine war hero and published writer, he was also, like FDR, the scion of multigenerational political royalty and, like both Roosevelts, a graduate of prestigious Harvard.”[46] This carefully crafted image of Kennedy as both a man of action and intellect helped reinforce the connection he fostered through the media. This point about Kennedy can be directly related to Roosevelt’s aim with his fireside chats. As previously stated, Roosevelt “never thought that good government spoke for itself” and actively sought to shape public sentiment.[47] Beyond his televised speeches, Kennedy’s ability to engage directly with the media was evident from his first day in office. During his inaugural press conference, the young president responded to thirty-seven separate press questions, surpassing Roosevelt’s record and demonstrating his command over complex issues. As Holzer further observes, this moment “placed his grasp of complex matters on full display.”[48] By utilizing television and press interactions in such a direct and accessible way, Kennedy continued the legacy set by Roosevelt, demonstrating how future presidents would adapt to changing media landscapes to connect with the American people.
Both Roosevelt and Kennedy effectively bypassed traditional print media to connect directly with the American public— Roosevelt through radio broadcasts and Kennedy through the television. As Holzer notes, “if FDR possessed the perfect voice for radio, JFK boasted the perfect appearance for TV.” Roosevelt’s strong oratory skills and commanding voice made his radio broadcasts particularly effective. On the other hand, Kennedy’s “irresistible” appearance and charismatic stage presence made him a natural fit for the visual medium of television, where his image played a crucial role in engaging viewers.[49] While Roosevelt’s radio broadcasts relied on the power of voice and verbal persuasion, Kennedy’s television appearances capitalized on the visual appeal and personal connection that the medium offered. Following Roosevelt’s example, Kennedy recognized the power of using a new medium to engage with the American people and continue the tradition of presidents speaking directly to their citizens. Kennedy did this by playing on his natural charisma and good looks.
The significance of Kennedy cannot be understood without discussing the first ever televised debate. During this 1960 debate, Democratic nominee Senator Kennedy wiped Republican nominee Vice President Nixon out of the park. This is not something historians or the everyday American would disagree with. Anyone can watch the recording to see Kennedy’s strong stage presence and ability to answer the questions at hand. Nixon on the other hand appeared weak with a very evident cold. His suit was too big, he had sweat dripping down his face, and he looked like death. Many attribute Nixon’s failed televised debate to his loss to Kennedy. Historian Mark White says it is important to note that “Americans who watched it on television thought Kennedy had triumphed,” but those who only listened in on the radio saw the debate as “evenly matched.”[50] People who were able to physically see Kennedy’s golden tan and charisma, were confident in his win. While those who only heard the debate saw the two as equal because there was no visual support giving Kennedy a leg up. The visual impact of the television gave Kennedy an edge. The debates themselves were a series of discussions that stretched over several weeks, each providing both candidates with the chance to present their views. Going into the election, Nixon had significant advantages. As Vice President, he brought extensive experience in foreign affairs and was older than Kennedy, which contributed to his greater experience in office. However, despite these strengths, the youngest person ever to run for president and the first Catholic to do so, Kennedy, ultimately won. Just as Roosevelt’s fireside chats helped solidify his image as a strong leader, Kennedy’s confident appearance during the debate contributed to his image as the more capable candidate. Nixon, despite his experience, struggled with the medium. In both cases, the media became a pivotal force in influencing public opinion and helped determine the outcome of the election.
Failing to use technology as efficiently as Roosevelt is part of the double edged sword. Nixon won supporters back during his “Checkers” speech, but he was not able to do that following the Watergate scandal. The media’s constant coverage of this stain on Nixon’s record kept the scandal in the public eye and only amplified public skepticism. This made it nearly impossible for Nixon to regain America’s confidence. Unlike his earlier political battles, Nixon could not craft a favorable narrative or regain control of the message. Nixon’s struggles to harness the power of emerging media differed from Roosevelt’s skillful use of radio which helped maintain his public image. Ultimately, Roosevelt’s strategy set a precedent that Nixon was unable to follow.
Around twenty years later, Ronald Reagan, also known as “The Great Communicator,” won the presidency. Holzer says Reagan “found himself in precisely the right place at exactly the right time to ride the crest of a media revolution,” much like Roosevelt had done during his time in office.[51] Comparably to Roosevelt, Reagan regularly addressed the American people. He did this through “broadcasting weekly Saturday-morning addresses,” to the nation.[52] Reagan’s weekly talks quickly became a fixture in the lives of many Americans, much like Roosevelt’s fireside chats had. Just as families once gathered around the radio to listen to Roosevelt, Americans tuned in to hear Reagan speak in a direct, relatable way. Reagan’s ability to connect with the public caused him to be given the nickname, “The Great Communicator.” This came from his ability to speak casually, friendly, and clearly to the country. Similar to Roosevelt’s fireside chats which resonated with Americans for the same reason. Additionally, Reagan’s Hollywood acting background allowed him to utilize the media in a way not previously done. Reagan was able to swoop in from Jimmy Carter’s negative media portrayal and win the 1980 election. Carter was a Washington outsider— a peanut farmer from Georgia— up against a man who had experience in front of cameras. Reagan’s effective use of media and his ability to connect with the public reflected the lasting influence of Roosevelt’s legacy.
Even though the internet was emerging during George H.W. Bush’s time in office, with the birth of the World Wide Web and the introduction of email to the White House, he did not fully embrace the potential of the internet. Bush had a bad relationship with the media in multiple forms, including both the internet and the traditional press. Holzer believes that the press was always looking to “embarrass” Bush. This contrasts sharply with Roosevelt, whose effective use of new technology fostered a direct and positive connection with the American people. This left Bush’s suppressor, Bill Clinton, with the opportunity to sweep in “as an appealing Southern Governor,” with an actually good relationship with the media.[53] It was under the Clinton administration that the White House got its own official website, even though it could have been made much earlier during the Bush administration. Having a website meant that news was more accessible due to its far reach, much like Roosevelt’s fireside chats, which connected with a broad audience. When looking at Figure 4, a screenshot from the original White House website, it is clear that the layout was simple and easy to navigate.[54] This allowed the everyday American to see what was going on in the nation, just as Roosevelt’s broadcasts provided clear, direct information to the public. Clinton’s embrace of the internet and his strong rapport with the media allowed him to successfully engage the American public in ways Bush could not, solidifying his place as his successor. Clinton was able to do this because he, much like Roosevelt, recognized the power of the media.
The power of television is undeniable, just look at the fact that the American people saw George W. Bush’s initial reaction to 9/11 because a camera happened to be on him when he was informed. The footage was released after the fact, but it still goes to show the power of technology. In the last two decades a new technology has taken over the presidency: social media, the current trend in a long line to come. Social media has redefined the way politicians interact with the public, shifting away from the one-way communication style of television and radio. Instead of simply broadcasting messages, social media allows for two-way conversations between politicians and voters. This shift has made politicians more accessible and relatable, as they can now directly respond to questions, share personal moments, and engage in real-time discussions with the public. Modern presidential campaigns depend on it. Holzer credits President Obama’s team as the first in history to use Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to teach his policies. By using social media, Obama “expanded and personalized his messaging by using the most modern available technologies to reach the widest possible audiences.”[55] This mirrors Roosevelt’s fireside chats which expanded and personalized information access. While Roosevelt’s chats were one-way communications, Obama’s use of social media allowed for two-way conversations, making his messaging even more personalized and interactive. The reach Obama’s Twitter had was unmatched, Holzer says that by the end of Obama’s presidency he “attracted more than 104 million followers— more than anyone in the country at the time, even runner-up singing sensation Katy Perry.”[56] Roosevelt’s fireside chats laid the groundwork for future presidents to connect more directly with the public, and Obama’s use of social media built upon that legacy, and took it one step further by transforming presidential communication into a more interactive and personalized experience.
Similarly, there is another president who took advantage of the changing media landscape and used social media to connect with the American people. That president would be Donald Trump. Trump made communicating with the American people even more direct and even more personal by using his Twitter account as his own personal diary instead of a professional platform. This completely bypasses traditional media narratives. It is important to note that this was the case even prior to his presidency. Before Holzer evaluates Trump’s use of technology, he draws attention to the fact that “Donald Trump commenced deploying Twitter to promote his television series, flaunt his hotels and residential properties, and, most of all, tout himself. It was the perfect merger of technology and personality, medium and messenger.”[57] The Twitter addiction did not falter after Trump’s inauguration. Throughout his campaign, presidency, and impeachment, Trump never stopped tweeting. In a May 2020 The Collegian opinion piece, it was noted that although “Twitter is his preferred form of communication with the country,” Trump frequently claims social media is censoring conservatives.[58] This newspaper reinforces the idea that the American people saw how Trump preferred social media over traditional news outlets. Much like Roosevelt’s use of the radio evading traditional media, Trump did the same, with the added complexity of personal narrative and controversy, reflecting how technology has continued to shape presidential communication.
In today’s media landscape, the power of direct communication has reached such a point that public figures like Trump can choose to bypass traditional media events altogether, such as refusing to attend the White House Correspondents’ Association gala or even a presidential debate. After one bad roast, Trump decided “he would never attend a White House Correspondents’ Association gala again.” He had the power and confidence to refuse an important public relations event because he could speak to the American people whenever he wanted through Twitter. Holzer says Trump had this ability because “by then, his Twitter feed was attracting far more viewers than the correspondents’ affair anyway.”[59] Trump did not need to do any press that gave him even the slightest bit of trouble, he has direct communication at any time he pleases. This shift in power dynamics is evident not only in his refusal to attend traditional events but also in his ability to opt out of presidential debates. Presidential debates were traditionally viewed as essential for candidates to directly engage with the public, it was the candidates time to tell the American people why their policies would help them. Roosevelt did this through his fireside chats, just as Trump did this through his Twitter. Now this country is at a point where candidates have the confidence to rely on their own platform. Trump’s ability to threaten or refuse participation marks a dramatic shift in how political communication is approached. Trump had a platform that allowed him to control the narrative without ever needing to face traditional media or public scrutiny, making debates and other traditional PR events seem optional, rather than necessary. Roosevelt’s legacy was built upon and furthered by Trump’s use of Twitter, transforming presidential communication in ways Roosevelt never could have imagined.
Turning off the radio
The fireside chats were more than a communication tool. They were a guidebook for future presidents on how to use emerging technology to relate, inform, and inspire the American people. Roosevelt made politics feel intimate, as both a friend and a celebrity figure. Roosevelt’s fireside chats set a precedent for future presidents to engage with citizens on a personal level, bypassing traditional media filters. Since then, presidents have adopted this communication style, which combines current technology, attachment, and accessibility. Each generation of leaders have had to repeat Roosevelt’s history of adapting to the constantly evolving media landscapes to effectively engage with the American people. New technologies will continue to alter the ways presidents communicate, but one thing will remain constant: the need to embrace effective and current communication. Future presidents must draw lessons from the past as technology develops further, striking a balance between the influence of new media and respectable leadership. In an era when political figures communicate through tweets, Roosevelt’s intimate fireside chats remind us of the profound power of personal connection in politics. Roosevelt transformed a nation through the simple act of speaking directly to his people.
References
Primary sources
Barnes, Jack. “Social Media Companies Ban ‘Dangerous’ Accounts Ahead of 2020 Election After Criticism.” The Collegian Vol. 116, No. 19 (May 2020): 2.
Castro, Fidel. “Letter to Roosevelt.” Cuba, November 1940.
“Family Listening to Radio.” National Archives. 1938.
Graham, F. B. “Letter to Roosevelt.” Iowa, n.d.
“President Franklin D. Roosevelt reads congratulatory telegrams on Nov. 4, 1936, after re-election victory over Alfred Landon.” New York Daily News Archive. November, 1936.
Roosevelt, Franklin Delano. “Fireside Chat on the Banking Crisis.” Radio Broadcast. March, 1933.
Roosevelt, Franklin Delano. “Fireside Chat (Recovery Program).” Radio Broadcast. July, 1933.
Roosevelt, Franklin Delano. “Fireside Chat.” Radio Broadcast. December, 1940.
Roosevelt, Franklin Delano. “Second Fireside Chat.” Radio Broadcast. May 1933.
“The Fireside Chats: Roosevelt’s Radio Talks – Photo 3.” Library of Congress. 1940.
“The first White House website homepage.” National Archives and Records Administration. 1994.
Secondary sources
Holzer, Harold. President v.s. the Press. New York: Dutton, 2020.
Kluskens, Claire. ““Census Fun Fact #3 – Do You Own a Radio Set?” History Hub (October 2020).
Lenthal, Bruce. Radio’s America: The Great Depression and the Rise of Modern Mass Culture. Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 2007.
Leuchtenburg, William Edward. The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.
Lewis, Tom. “‘A Godlike Presence’: The Impact of Radio on the 1920s and 1930s.” OAH Magazine of History Vol 6, No. 4 (1992): 26–33.
Malsberger, John W. “Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and the Fund Crisis of 1952.” The Historian Vol 23, No. 3 (2011): 526-547.
Smith, Sam. “Letters to Franklin Delano Roosevelt” APM Reports (November 2014).
Steele, Richard W. “The Great Debate: Roosevelt, the Media, and the Coming of the War, 1940–1941” Journal of American History Vol 71, No. 1 (June 1984): 69–92.
Steele, Richard W. “The Pulse of the People. Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Gauging of American Public Opinion” Journal of Contemporary History Vol. 9, No. 4 (October 1974) 195-216.
Sterling, Christopher H. ““The Fireside Chats”—President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1944)” National Registry (2002).
Storm, Geoffrey. “FDR and WGY: The Origins of the Fireside Chats.” New York History Vol 88, No 2 (2007): 176–97.
White, Mark. “Apparent Perfection: The Image of John F. Kennedy” History Vol 98, No. 2 (April 2013): 226-246.
[1] Christopher H. Sterling, ““The Fireside Chats”—President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1944)” National Registry (2002): 2.
[2] Claire Kluskens, “Census Fun Fact #3 – Do You Own a Radio Set?” History Hub (October 2020).
[3] Bruce Lenthall, Radio’s America: The Great Depression and the Rise of Modern Mass Culture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 56.
[7] Lenthal; Harold Holzer, President v.s. the Press (New York: Dutton, 2020).; Storm.
[8] William Edward Leuchtenburg, The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997).; Richard W. Steele, “The Great Debate: Roosevelt, the Media, and the Coming of the War, 1940–1941” Journal of American History, Vol 71 Issue 1, (June 1984) 69–92.; Richard W. Steele, “The Pulse of the People. Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Gauging of American Public Opinion” Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 9 Number 4 (October 1974) 195-216.; Tom Lewis, “‘A Godlike Presence’: The Impact of Radio on the 1920s and 1930s.” OAH Magazine of History, Vol 6 Number 4 (1992): 26–33.
[11]Telephone: a children’s game where players form a circle, and the first person whispers a message to the next. Each person passes on what they heard, but by the time the message reaches the last person, it’s often distorted.
[57] Holzer, 409. Flog: promote or talk about something repetitively or at excessive length.
[58] Jack Barnes, “Social Media Companies Ban ‘Dangerous’ Accounts Ahead of 2020 Election After Criticism,” The Collegian, Vol 116 No. 19 (May 2020): 2.
Challenges of Teaching African American History in Secondary Schools
There are Four Perspectives in this article
Teaching the APâ African American Studies CourseBy Imani Hinson
Students Hunger for Cultural KnowledgeBy Romelo Green
Emphasizing Cultural Relevancy & Providing Different Cultural PerspectiveBy Nefe Abamwa
Focus on Mass Struggle, Not Just the Black Elite By Adam Stevens
Imani Hinson, Romelo Green, Nefe Abamwa, and Adam Stevens
Imani Hinson, Romelo Green, Nefe Abamwa, and Adam Stevens presented on a panel at the 2025 conference of the American Historical Association. Hinson is a social studies teacher in the Howard County Maryland School District who formerly taught in Brooklyn and an item writer for the College Board AP African American Studies program. Green and Abamwa teach at Bellport High School in Suffolk County, New York and Stevens teaches at Brooklyn Technical High School. The session was chaired by April Francis-Taylor of Hofstra University and also included papers by Alan Singer of Hofstra University and Justin Williams of Uniondale High School.
Teaching the APâ African American Studies Course
By Imani Hinson
“History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again.” – Maya Angelou
Each year I start my students off with a week of lessons to understand why we study history in the first place and to get students specifically to understand why varied viewpoints are so important. This year I had my students reflect on a quote from Maya Angelou and asked them why they thought some political leaders across the United States did not think African American history was important and why they thought this history was considered controversial.
My students responded with the understanding that by learning history we can hope to not repeat it but also that learning this history does not aim to make individuals feel bad for the deeds done but rather understand the historical situations in which our country was founded and the continued history that is shaping the way our country is moving forward today. Despite the pain and suffering lived by many in this country, especially African Americans, it is important to uncover truths about our shared history. The APâ African American Studies curriculum provides students with a chance to do just that; tackle tough questions, tough realities, glean an understanding of the world that they live in today, and it gives them a chance to acknowledge a history that many of them have not learned before.
The APâ curriculum has a fantastic starting place with the African Kingdoms of Mali, Songhai, the Hausa States, and more. Students are able to do a deep dive into the history of Africa that many of them had never been taught about before. A question I get often from my students is “Ms. Hinson why are we not taught this in World History or any other history class?” The truth is that a lot of this history was unknown or kept secret for many years. In my classroom, we delve into the nuances of this history so that students understand how it differs from the traditional documents and writings they usually learn about in Eurocentric history classes. I introduce them to griots and students learn that different cultures pass down history in different ways. Much of the early history we know from African civilizations was passed down orally making it much harder for historians to uncover truths about these societies. My students learned that Christianity was in Africa before European arrival when they study about places such as Lalibela. They learn about trade starting in the 8th century along the East Coast of Africa that connect places with the Mediterranean region and Central and East Asia. Students uncover truths about the Great Zimbabwe and amazing structures, built not by Greeks or aliens, but by the local Zimbabwean people who garnered their wealth from the Indian Ocean trade routes. Timbuktu is not a fictional place, but a nation where trade, advanced institutions of knowledge, and wealth resided.
Before being exposed to this curriculum, my students were taught that Africa was backward, a continent ripe for exploitation. They saw Africa, not as the birthplace of humanity with rich cultures, but rather a place that Europeans conquered and a continent that continues to have issues to this day.
Challenging misleading notions continues as students learn about the African diaspora. Before being exposed to this curriculum, they believed African Americans had no culture and were only brought to the Americas for harsh work and enslavement because of the color of their skin. I overheard an exchange in my classroom in which one student of color was poking fun at another. A West African student asked another Black student, “Hey, where are you from?” The student responded, “Oh well, I am just Black.” The West African student laughed and said “Oh, I’m so sorry y’all don’t have any culture.” That was an eye-opening exchange. I joined the conversation and asked, “What do you mean by that?” The student explained that they never heard of any African American culture and that Black people did not know where they came from. The conversation continued:
“Well why do you think that African Americans don’t know where they come from?”
“Well, I am not sure I guess slavery.”
“Correct, but do you know about all that Black people had to do to overcome of the obstacles of enslavement? Do you know the years of oppression that then followed enslavement that African Americans continued to make strides towards crafting a new identity?”
“The music you listen to is African American culture, some of the pieces of clothing or slang that you use are African American culture. The food that you eat, a lot of is African American culture.”
“Wow I never thought about that.”
“You should take the APâ African American studies course so you can learn more about Black culture!”
The sad reality is that so many of our students think this way. They believe that Black people are a people without history and this misleading notion really stems from the fact that we have not done a good job as a society to unpack these misconceptions. In some states they still teach that slavery was a benevolent work system where the enslaved learned important skills, sugarcoating the reality of what enslavement was. Why don’t students learn that there was slavery in New York and in other northern localities? Why don’t students learn that Free Blacks and people who escaped from slavery played a crucial role in the abolitionist movement and that African Americans have fought in every war in the United States even before its inception, that 200,000 Black soldiers and sailors fought in the Civil War to end slavery and the right to be full citizens of the nation of their birth?
The hardest part about teaching APâ African American studies course is getting students to relearn the history that was taught to them over and over again since they entered school. Black people were slaves, the Civil War happened, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, Reconstruction took place, African Americans got some rights, then skip to the Civil Rights Movement, and that’s Black history. But there is so much more to African American history. Students truly do not understand that African Americans as a people continuously strove to be accepted as valuable contributors to this great nation. Even when they were told to “go back to Africa,” they stayed and fought for equality. It is hard to teach history in a society that try to erase the African American past by making it seem Un-American to shed light on the contributions of Black people to this county.
As a society we have prevented students of color from learning the truth about their heritage and culture and permitted all students to believe in a factionalized past. As a corrective, APâ African American studies is not just a class for students of color. Ideally, African and African American history should be interwoven into World History and United States history classes, not just relegated to an elective. Black history truly is both World and U.S. history.
It is challenging for many young people to see the correlation between history and the world that we live in today. I started a lesson on sugar being the driver for enslavement in the Americas showing students newspaper headlines discussing chocolate companies using child slave labor and asked students would they still eat chocolate knowing where it came from. Many of the students had to think long and hard about it, but eventually most of them confessed that “yes, they would still eat it.” After a gallery walk showing various documents about the correlation between sugar and enslavement and economics, we came back together to have a discussion. I asked my students how the legacies of sugar plantations and slavery continue to impact economic disparities and race relations today? A student raised her hand and said, “what we see is that enslaved people were working for free and that their enslavers were making loads of money because of their hard work.” I asked, “What does that mean for the Black community today?” Another student responded, “Well this means that many Black communities don’t have the same amount of money as white people because they got rich while we didn’t get anything.”
Another student added, “Well that is the reason why so many Black people have struggled to make generational wealth. It is almost as if we started at a different place” and then another explained “they basically had a 300-year start.” This is the reality that people who criticize the APâ African American studies curriculum are afraid of students uncovering; uncovering how this history continues to play out in America today.
Some people fear the acquisition of knowledge because they know that with knowledge can come change. The APâ African American studies course should not be labeled controversial or Un-American; in fact, it is the exact opposite. African Americans fought to be a part of this country and continue to fight for the country to stand true to its democratic values of all people having the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The course does not blame students for the past but rather brings them into the conversation about how we can continue to hold America to its promise by including the history of all of the people who helped to build this great nation. Thank you.
Students Hunger for Cultural Knowledge
By Romelo Green
My name is Romelo Green. I am a social studies teacher in the South Country Central School District located on Long Island, Bellport, New York. I teach 11th-grade U.S. History & Government and 12th-grade AP U.S. Government & Politics. In both courses, African American history is a component of the course framework. Being a social studies teacher in the contemporary societal and political landscape presents various challenges. As historians and educators, we are entrusted with the responsibility of addressing topics that can often be sensitive and complex. It is imperative that we present these subjects in a balanced manner, offering to our students various perspectives. Many of these topics are deeply rooted in political discourse, requiring us to navigate these discussions with care. Moreover, we face the ongoing challenge of countering the misinformation that our students see daily through various social media platforms. We also must remain informed about rapidly evolving current events. We must be equipped to respond to our students’ questions with a neutral stance. Additionally, it is essential for us to remain compliant with state standards, ensuring that we cover all mandated material effectively, and thereby preparing our students for state assessments.
As an African American growing up, I did not hear many lessons pertaining to the deep roots of my own culture. This would include my high school and college experience. Many of the more nuanced topics in (African) American history were only brought to the surface for me once I became a teacher and began to conduct my own research, or through collegiate circles within my own department. This would include the Tulsa Race Massacre, the Haitian Revolution, the true history of policing in America, and the fact that Africans sold other Africans into slavery. I almost never heard of the achievements of African Americans except for the popular few who are always brought to light at certain points in American History (MLK, W.E.B Dubois, Malcolm X, etc…) The drastic omission from our curriculum and our textbooks leaves us with a very limited view of the African American experience.
When we learn about our culture in a public setting, it is usually generalized and only discusses the traumatic experience of African Americans rather than highlighting the achievements of individuals representing our culture. In my school some of the teachers (who are here with us in the audience today) conducted a study using focus groups to try and create a more culturally responsive classroom. Through their research they found that students representing various cultural groups have high interest in learning more about their own culture, however, the students stated that when it is taught in the classroom it is either generalized or just taught wrong. In other words, they know more about their own culture than their teachers.
What I see is that we have two factors at play.
Our students hunger for cultural knowledge.
Many teachers are unable to conduct such discourse freely and/or accurately.
For example, the legacy of slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow laws, and the Civil Rights Movement are pivotal components that require a sensitive and comprehensive examination. Inaccurate or incomplete teachings risk perpetuating misunderstandings and stereotypes. What we then need to do is find a balance where teachers are enabled to speak freely in the classroom providing students with facts and hard truths about historical cultural experiences. The students need to be inspired to think critically and be leaders of inquiry-based research. As such, the role of the teacher extends beyond mere instruction to include being a facilitator of dialogue, ensuring a supportive educational environment that encourages critical thinking and open discussion, while carefully steering conversations to be constructive rather than polarizing.
A teacher’s freedom of speech in the classroom is one that is of great complexity, although we all have freedom of speech under the first amendment, our right to freedom of speech in educational settings is not absolute. The question then becomes what must we do as educators? With greater political pressure from the media, parents and the community, how do we still educate and fulfill the students’ drive for knowledge, while maintaining accordance with school or state policy? I think this is where we lean on our students and allow them to be leaders in the classroom. Allow our students to ask the questions and conduct the research, allow them to present information to each other and to hear the perspectives of their peers. As I mentioned our job is now to facilitate and ensure dialogue proceeds in a constructive manner. In order to do this successfully, our students need lessons on misinformation, fact-based research, and evaluating reliable sources. All of which is in alignment with NYS standards. Our teacher preparation programs also need modules on culturally responsive teaching, equipping our prospective teachers with the tools needed to navigate sensitive material respectfully and effectively.
Lastly, professional development for educators is also essential. Teachers need training and resources to confidently navigate the difficult and often sensitive topics inherent in African American history. By investing in their development, schools can create more informed educators who are better equipped to address the diverse needs of their students.
Emphasizing Cultural Relevancy and Providing Different Cultural Perspectives
By Nefe Abamwa
Good morning, my name is Nefe Abamwa. I teach 9th and 10th grade Global History, as well as Pre-AP World at Bellport High School on Long Island. Today’s panel is geared towards the challenges of teaching African American history and how to make the content more relevant. However, I believe it is also a part of a larger conversation on how to make the classroom culturally relevant as well.
As a first-generation Nigerian-American, my culture has greatly shaped me. My parents immigrated from Nigeria to America in the 80’s and early 90’s for better employment opportunities. My father became an accountant for the NYC Comptroller’s Office, while my mother became an RN, ultimately practicing at Pilgrim State Psych Ward. They’ve always emphasized and instilled the value of education in my siblings and I. We were raised to view education as an essential tool for success and advancement. Nigerians often tend to joke that we have three options for careers; to either become a lawyer, doctor, or engineer. In our culture, an advancement in education and an outstanding career is nothing short of an expectation. Growing up in a household and with family where these values were the norm, you could understand the confusion I faced when I began to attend Amityville Public Schools. A district notoriously known for violence, poor academics and administration, and its low-income community.
Throughout my educational career in Amityville, there were many issues I observed that made an impact on me, in regard to the staff and students. I noticed a cultural disconnect between teachers, who were predominantly white, and students, who were predominately black. I noticed that many of my peers did not value school and did not seem to understand, or care, that it could lead to endless opportunity and an escape from their environment. Lastly, the most impactful observation I noticed was that many students and staff were very ignorant and uneducated about African culture. Unfortunately, many of these observations continued to trend throughout my college, postgraduate, professional, and personal life overall. From interactions with colleagues, college professors, church members, peers, and most recently a NYSUT a union member; African culture and history tends to be stigmatized, stereotyped, and homogenized. As I faced these experiences, I would often have conversations with my parents unpacking these interactions and how disappointing it was to have these encounters so often. During these discussions, my parents would share their own experiences in America, where they too have faced racism and ignorance from people of all races, backgrounds, and levels of education.
My cultural values and upbringing, compared to my educational experiences, inspired me at a very young age to go into education. I felt there was a strong need and lack of support for students in low-income communities that may not have proper guidance otherwise; I wanted to show students of color that there are opportunities beyond their environment; and I wanted to make the classroom experience more culturally relevant. I began to instill these changes during my student teaching assignment in a 6th grade classroom at Washington Middle School in Meriden, Connecticut. The demographics there were very similar to Amityville Public Schools, as were the observations I made initially throughout my primary and secondary educational experience. In my class, I began a daily segment at the beginning of the period called “Figure of the Day”. “Figure of the Day” started off as a daily 5-minute black history lesson, during Black History Month, after learning that students knew very little about any historical black figures. These 5-minute sessions would often unintentionally run over time due to the conversations and engagement it brought out of students. Soon enough, students were so intrigued, they would request people they wanted to learn more about. Eventually, that grew into wanting to conduct their own research and present their own projects. And it ended with us expanding “Figure of Day” to cover other races and cultures, well after Black History Month had ended. With each lesson presented, whether it was from me or their peers, I could tell each student found a connection, was inspired, and genuinely excited by what they were being taught because not only was it interesting, but very relatable. Many would go home and discuss what they learned with their parents and share more with their peers the following day.
During my first year at Bellport High School in 2020, I taught my very first Global 10 class. To describe that experience as challenging would be an understatement. 10th graders and 6th graders are quite different, as you can imagine. And this was during covid. Half of my students were in person, half of them online and I’ve never met, and engagement was at an all-time low. That year I decided to conduct a project to reflect on revolutions, a prominent topic in Global 10. Throughout the year, students learn about many revolutions including the French, Haitian, and Latin American revolutions, as well as unifications such as the German and Italian. All of these movements highlight the effects of nationalism, or pride in one’s country or culture. I wanted to show that many of the issues that lead to revolutions still endure today. At the time, the #EndSARS movement was occurring in Nigeria. This was a campaign to stop police brutality led by the Nigerian youth and made international news. I felt learning about this movement was a great way to connect students to issues outside of America as well as bring awareness to some African culture and societies. Students watched a cover of Childish Gambino’s “This is America” called “This is Nigeria”, which highlights political, economic, and social issues Nigerians face. Then, my students produced questions to ask one of my cousins in Nigeria about his experience there. He was able to respond to the questions with a series of videos. Through this and document analysis, students realized many of their own experiences and issues were similar. Many were also surprised to learn that my cousin had an iPhone and could make videos. For these students, this project helped humanize a continent that is often seen as lesser than and irrelevant.
Lastly, during the Imperialism unit, for Global 10, I emphasize the long-lasting effects of White Man’s Burden and eurocentrism, as many students are unaware of how these concepts influence many aspects of our lives. I include how these concepts have impacted the world’s view of anyone that is not a WASP. This is done through document analysis, where students study different events, letters, and political cartoons. I teach them to focus on tone, POV, and how images are portrayed. When conducting these lessons, it’s easier to find the British view of imperialism versus Africans. For African perspectives I use sources such as Jomo Kenyatta’s “Gentleman of the Jungle”, documentaries, primary documents, and my own parents and grandparents’ experiences of living in Nigeria and having government positions while under British occupation. We discussed how Europeans had many negative impacts, disregard and ignorance towards natives because they had different lifestyles and only cared for profit. We also study how ignorance and stereotypes play out in modern society, pop culture, and their own personal lives today. These activities often lead to discussions about common stereotypes and misconceptions about different races, cultures, and religions. When beginning these activities, students are often embarrassed and resistant to participate at first; but it opens up important dialogue about why it is dangerous to think that way. I find that not only are most students genuinely intrigued by history behind many of these misconceptions and stereotypes, but they often notice that these lasting impacts have affected them as well. What is most rewarding is when they are able to identify and call out these issues in their own lives and well after the lesson has been taught.
As a social studies teacher that emphasizes cultural relevancy and providing different cultural perspectives, I fear retaliation, being silenced, or accused of pushing certain agendas. I believe teachers must maintain a certain level of academic freedom and it is an absolute necessity for students to learn how to have hard and constructive conversations without having to agree with one another, especially in today’s climate. Unfortunately, I never experienced a teacher that brought these things to my attention but, I was fortunate enough to have a support system and grow up in an environment where I had exposure, which then fostered my own curiosity. I would like to pay that forward and not only be a support and role model for students, but to help them make the connections and realize the importance of education.
Focus on Mass Struggle, Not Just the Black Elite
By Adam Stevens
“Is Black resistance the highest form of Black excellence?” During Black history month the past few years this has been the focusing question in the Black history class I teach at Brooklyn Technical High School. By February we have been together since September, and the range of opinion on this question is wide. The room crackles with intellectual energy. Scholarship and emotion combine to produce forceful arguments. Radical and conservative traditions contend. Outside the classroom we are saturated by a media environment where images of Black wealth are iconic, think Beyonce and Jay-Z. From time to time these Black images compete for our attention with images flowing out of what I’ll call a Black radical or activist tradition – think ‘End Racism’ appearing in NFL end zones or black screens on social media in the wake of the killing of George Floyd.
Inside our K-12 school buildings Black achievement is generally embodied in homage to great Black individuals, our unspoken mission is to lift our students out of the working class into the middle class or to keep them firmly planted in the American middle class. We may even provide a platform for a handful to become truly rich, to achieve ‘generational wealth.’. This unspoken mission is shared by parents, and if we are being honest, we hold it as a mission for our own children as well.
Our schooling involves an implicit renunciation of working-class life; under capitalism, workers are not winners. Yet workers are what most of our students will be. Black history in the United States is, by and large, the history of a working people. I have my students read passages from Barbara Fields’s seminal essay “Race, Slavery and Ideology in the United States.” Fields is careful to remind us that plantations in the American South existed to produce cotton first, not white supremacy. In small groups my students are taken aback by a passage that describes the numerous recollections of planters, overseers and enslaved persons of circumstances where the ‘smooth running’ of the plantation required the planter taking the word of the enslaved over that of the overseer, or of overseers being dismissed because of their management practices.
The power of economic development and class goals continued after the end of slavery. During a century of Jim Crow, a Black middle class and Black elite clawed their way up out of economic precarity, even as state-sponsored and vigilante racist terror haunted them. In the post-Civil Rights Movement era, a Black middle class was consolidated. In April of 1968 elite institutions threw open their doors to the Black in a cynical but consistent response to the mass uprisings after the shooting of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in April of 1968.
Should curriculum focus on the history of a Black elite? The tenets of ‘social history’ seek to ground historical investigation in the lived reality of the masses of the people, to get us away from understanding history as the work of ‘great men.’ When the masses are white, the rules of American racism have meant that we are studying a group that, over time, has experienced great chances for uplift, for rising in social status. Social history of the white working-class rests on a certain implicit substrate of hope. The problem in Black history is that for the whole era of slavery and much of the period after that ‘hopeful narrative’ is by definition closed.
This continent would not house a world power if it were not for the stolen labor and amassed capital of the slavery era. Silence on slavery and its afterlife suits a ruling class that would have us forget this one fact. This is why the hysteria over Critical Race Theory. Forget slavery. Forget Jim Crow. Forget George Floyd. The U.S. ruling class knows what they did to get where they are, what they do to stay there, and they don’t want the next generation being reminded of it.
In the face of these stark facts of history and given the political headwinds, teaching of Jim Crow by retreating into the salve of figures of Black Excellence such as Madam CJ Walker feels safer not just in the face of conservative school boards, but as a way to boost the morale of a room where the course material can otherwise feel like a catalogue of Black suffering. Of course, by neglecting struggle, we don’t know what to do with Nat Turner, let alone John Brown, or Paul Robeson, or Claudia Jones, or W.E.B. DuBois.
That’s why historians and teachers matter so much. We need historians and teachers who can foreground the majesty of the Black struggle for liberation, for justice. We need historians and teachers who invite us to have pride in the broad masses of our ancestors, not just the elites. We grasp intuitively, perhaps, that it was the action of these broad masses that formed the motive force behind every great liberation movement of our history. Black history as hero worship of great leaders disempowers every student who can’t see themselves becoming the next Martin Luther King. This problem is one that King grappled with himself on the day he died, there in Memphis, binding himself more closely to the cause of the sanitation workers of that city. He was building a Poor People’s Movement with a strong anti-imperialist element. The images of those Black workers with signs reading “I Am a Man” are iconic but they are iconic as protesters, not just as workers.
Eugene Genovese (Roll, Jordan Roll, Book Three, Part Two) helps my students understand slavery as a world where far more choice was exercised by the enslaved than we are given to imagine. I teach the returning veterans from World War I and World War II whose refusal to accept the business as usual of Jim Crow. Their energy gave birth to a Harlem Renaissance and a Civil Rights Movement. To see Black workers gathered in their masses, politicized, in motion against racism as the most powerful force in history, to see honor and glory in joining such a movement, this is an alternative view of Black Excellence and approach to curriculum. Teaching the struggles of ordinary Black people for dignity and equality is the curriculum focus we need to empower our students to survive and defeat the growing threats of fascism and war and to avert climate disaster.
Virtual Reality as part of Inquiry into the Boston Massacre
Russell G. Hammack, Elizabeth K. Wilson, Lisa Matherson
One of the major catalysts that began the American Revolution was the Boston Massacre. This event enraged the local colonial citizens after the increase in taxation and occupation of Boston by the British military. In March 1770, local citizens began to protest against the British by throwing snowballs and rocks on King Street (Reid, 1974). During this event, several British soldiers led by Captain Thomas Preston were detached to quell the conflict (Kellogg, 1918). However, the arrival of the British soldiers only further angered the colonials on King Street. Whether ordered, or unintentionally discharged, the British soldiers fired on the crowd. “On this, the Captain commanded them to fire; and more snowballs coming, he again said, damn you, fire, be the consequence of what it will (The Boston Gazette,1770, p.1). This resulted in the deaths of five colonists, including Crispus Attucks, and the wounding of six others (The Boston Gazette,1770). This article aims to provide social studies teachers the resources using virtual reality experiences as part of an investigative lens to teach the Boston Massacre while integrating the C3 framework of inquiry-based instruction.
Background
In 1767, the British government passed the Townshend Acts, which placed an additional tax on imported goods to the American colonies (Hinderaker, 2017). Although the British crown considered the tax a success, protests and boycotts began throughout the colonies, specifically in Boston. To end the colonial protests, the British government responded in 1769 by sending nearly 2,000 British soldiers to occupy Boston and enforce the tax mandate (Hinderaker, 2017). “Reports of fighting between soldiers and civilians had been a staple of the Patriot press during the period, but, for the most part, local publications portrayed civilians as the victims of military aggression and praised the town and its leaders for restraining their anger at the abuse” (Messer, 2017, p. 509). By 1770, resentment for the British occupation exploded, resulting in the Boston Massacre. “By this fatal manoeuvre three men were laid dead on the spot and two more struggling for life; but what showed a degree of cruelty unknown to British troops, at least since the house of Hanover has directed their operation, was an attempt to fire upon or push with their bayonets the persons who undertook to remove the slain and wounded” (The Boston Gazette,1770, p.1).
Inquiry-based learning
Inquiry-based learning involves student-led investigations with proposed questions, collecting and analyzing data, and forming evidence-based arguments while the teacher is facilitating the inquiry process (Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn, 2007). Inquiry allows learners to examine authentic problems and enhance their understanding (Wirkala & Kuhn, 2011). Levy, Thomas, Drago, and Rex (2013), affirm that inquiry promotes academic investigation and the creation of evidence-based argumentation. Inquiry-based instruction builds upon disciplinary questioning, investigative evaluation, and reflection to develop and defend ideas and concepts (NCSS, 2013). Inquiry-based instruction centers on analyzing information, using evidence to develop arguments and support conclusions (Monte-Sano, 2010). Despite the framework, having students ask meaningful questions and draw conclusions from various sources leads to increased social studies content knowledge (Grant & Gradwell, 2010). However, inquiry-design should incorporate content-related questions, summative tasks in which arguments are developed, sources to support arguments that are constructed, and taking informed action where students take action on a contemporary issue (Grant, Swann, & Lee, 2017).
Virtual Reality vs. augmented reality: What is the difference?
The birth of VR and AR, as cited within most research, began in the 1960s with the work of graphics pioneer Ivan Sutherland (Bolter, Engberg, & MacIntyre, 2021). With the technological advances that have happened since that time, many state what Sutherland created was more aligned to AR than VR, but it paved the way for VR. AR and VR were “twins when birthed as they began as variations of the same technological idea” (Bolter, Engber, & MacIntyre, 2021, p 22).
So, what exactly is AR and VR?
Virtual Reality (VR): “an artificial environment which is experienced through sensory stimuli (such as sights and sounds) provided by a computer and in which one’s actions partially determine what happens in the environment” (Jerald, 2015).
Augmented Reality (AR): “AR allows the user to see the real world, with virtual objects superimposed upon or composited with the real world. Therefore, AR supplements reality, rather than completely replacing it” (Azuma, 1997)
Improvements in computing power, software capabilities, and display technologies allowed VR and AR to become mediums with great promise. Afterall, we have seen what Hollywood has been able to do with this technology. Simply watch a George Lucas or Pixar movie. These possibilities have found their way into the world of education, such as the Boston Massacre which we highlight in this article.
The experiential learning of VR
One aspect of using virtual reality is creating a classroom environment where learners can feel more present in a virtual simulation than in other types of traditional learning (Kafai, 2006). Virtual agents allow a personalized learning experience tailored to individuals that might otherwise be expensive or unreachable (Baylor & Kim, 2005). These three-dimension virtual experiences provide sensory information for a more realistic and engaging immersion experience (Pstoka, 1996; Walshe & Driver, 2019). Thus, the user can be part of the virtual environment by performing actions (Bardi, 2019). This type of environment promotes learning about the past through the delivery of digital media and incorporating specific exhibits and artifacts from different historical sites (Harley, Poitras, Jarrell, Duffy, & Lajoie, 2016). “By using realistic virtual depictions of dangerous crises, learners can experience the chaos and affective stressors that are typically accompanied with actual crises” (Bailenson, Yee, Blascovich, Beall, Lundblad, & Jin, 2008, p. 110). This type of augmented reality experience can immerse learners into the past with reeling life settings for engagement (Bronack, 2011). These virtual experiences offer opportunities for student investigations and real-life encounters not experienced in a traditional classroom (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2008). Additionally, 3-D virtual environments can bridge the gap between experiential learning and representation in learning (Jonassen, Peck, & Wilson, 1998).
VR devices
A trip into any store that offers for purchase a VR device will prove that there are a plethora of devices from which to select. The selection choice will depend on the type of experience you wish to have through the use of the device. After researching several articles, reviews, and personal trials, we offer three options below – a high, medium, low, if you will. However, we realize that most educators have very little funding and will look for the cheaper options. The experiences offered by the cheaper options, while not the same as the most expensive, are experiences that can still be valuable to students.
Low
Google Cardboard (https://arvr.google.com/cardboard/) The Google Cardboard is one of the most affordable options at around $10.00. The headset is really a holder for the smartphone, which is where all the content plays. The content available for this headset is mostly free and more readily available than others.
Medium
VR Headset for iPhone & Android + Android Remote 1.0 – for Kids (https://www.amazon.com) This mid-range VR option is $59.99. This headset is a smartphone VR system that supports both apple and android products. The content and applications are also mostly free and more readily available.
High
Oculus Meta Quest 2 – (Meta.com) The Oculus Meta 2, at $399, offers a more robust VR experience in that audio is inside the headset and hand tracking with the controllers. Another option from this device is that you can connect to a PC via a cable to access more experiences from the library of apps and games.
Before purchasing a device, you should review each device and make your selection based on what you wish for your students to gain from the experience.
The IDM
To critically evaluate the Boston Massacre, we propose using a model of inquiry; the Inquiry Design Model (C3 Teachers, 2016). Within this model of inquiry, we plan to implement the richness of a virtual reality experience. “The IDM approach, like the C3 Framework, respected the integrity of the core social studies disciplines but also recognized that authentic learning in social studies classrooms necessitated the interdisciplinary pursuit of a compelling question” (Cuenca, 2021, p.301). For teachers using the IDM, three major components must be considered: developing compelling and supporting questions, exposing students to resources, and developing tasks and informed activation activities (Crowley and King, 2018). “Beginning with a compelling question and standards alignment, the model suggests a series of supporting questions, related formative performance tasks, and sources for completing these tasks” (Molebash, Lee, & Heinecke, p.23, 2019). Cuenca (2021) stated:
Based on the nature of the compelling question, the tasks had different purposes, such as developing research, writing, and/or deliberative skills. Regardless of the purpose of the tasks, the inquiry narratives consistently featured teachers scaffolding tasks to ensure that students were able to address the compelling question they were pursuing. In short, teachers were often asked to facilitate how students organized inquiries to help them progressively become more skilled and independent enquirers (p. 306).
“The assumption is that teachers can take a blueprint and make it their own because they know their students’ strengths, they have their preferred style of teaching, and they understand their teaching context better than a curriculum writer” (Swann, Danner, Hawkins, Grant, & Lee, p.233, 2020). Swann, Lee, and Grant (2018) contend that:
The original IDM blueprint is structured so that students explore a compelling question through supporting questions, formative and summative performance tasks, and a range of disciplinary sources. The inquiry crescendos into an evidence-based argument, which can be broadened through an expressive extension and/or a civic experience. Teachers play an important role in this process by engaging students in the compelling question, scaffolding their source work, and ensuring they are mastering the content and developing skills through the successive formative performance tasks (p.134).
Our IDM
For this specific inquiry-based learning segment, we have decided to use the richness of primary resources infused along with the experiential learning of virtual reality. At the start of the inquiry, teachers can select a topic from their state standards. For this inquiry, we have chosen the Boston Massacre. After selecting a standard and topic, the classroom teacher can begin to develop a compelling question. Our compelling question is: how did the Boston Massacre become one of the sparks that started the American Revolution? The compelling question is an overarching question that will take several days of instruction as part of a learning segment to answer fully. To begin the inquiry with students, there is an introductory activity called staging the question. We decided to have students watch a short video clip and then answer the following question: Who was responsible for the massacre and bloodshed on King Street in Boston?
For each day of instruction, the inquiry is divided into supporting or daily questions. Formative tasks to help answer the supporting questions along with featured resources, such as primary documents and virtual reality resources are used for each supporting question. For the first day, our supporting question is: what events led to the Boston Massacre? Students are asked to construct a timeline leading up to the Boston Massacre, thus, providing information on events and actions before the Boston Massacre. Students are provided with a list of primary resources and applications for developing the timeline. For the second day of the inquiry, students will answer: what were the colonists’ perceptions of the Boston Massacre? Students will be placed into groups, Colonists and British soldiers, and conduct a primary document analysis and watch a VR video on the Boston Massacre using VR headsets. After watching the VR experience on the Boston Massacre, students will be asked to construct a reflective journal on what happened on King Street. This will give students a unique perspective of each group, leading to historical empathy. For the third day of the inquiry, students will be asked: what happened to the British soldiers that killed the colonists on King Street? After examining the featured primary resources, students will be asked to develop a judicial debriefing summarizing the Boston Massacre trial.
To assess students, the IDM offers the opportunity to participate in performance-based assessments geared toward answering the compelling question. Our performance assessment will divide students into three groups: Tensions rising (emphasizing events before the Boston Massacre), the Boston Massacre, and the Boston Massacre Trial. Each group will be assigned the task of conducting a live simulation/reenactment of their event in class. The reenactment should be no longer than 3-5 minutes. In an optional performance-based assessment, as part of the IDM, students will create and design their video of the Boston Massacre using a variety of AR and video resources. For social studies teachers, both assessments could be used as a student option or as a classroom extension.
At the end of the inquiry is the portion that provides tremendous relevancy to the curriculum, the informed action. For this part of the inquiry, we asked students to use their personal experiences with virtual reality and augmented reality and choose a local or community issue of concern. Students will design an augmented reality presentation or show, using Google Street View, displaying the issue in a community forum or school blog. Students might invite parents, teachers, and community leaders to discuss the issue and offer potential solutions.
Inquiry Design Model (IDM) Blueprint™
Compelling Question
How did the Boston Massacre become one of the sparks that started the American Revolution?
Standards and Practices
Social Studies Course of Study- State Standards Grade 5 Standard 7 Determine causes and events leading to the American Revolution, including the French and Indian War, the Stamp Act, the Intolerable Acts, the Boston Massacre, and the Boston Tea Party. Grade 10 Standard 3 Trace the chronology of events leading to the American Revolution, including the French and Indian War, passage of the Stamp Act, the Boston Tea Party, the Boston Massacre, passage of the Intolerable Acts, the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the publication of Common Sense, and the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
Staging the Question
Using a video clip on the Boston Massacre, pose the question to the students, Who was responsible for the massacre and bloodshed on King Street in Boston? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2QNZf_8V_w
Supporting Question 1
Supporting Question 2
Supporting Question 3
What events led to the Boston Massacre?
What were the colonists’ perceptions of the Boston Massacre?
What happened to the British soldiers that killed the colonists on King Street?
Formative Performance Task
Formative Performance Task
Formative Performance Task
Students will construct a timeline leading up to the Boston Massacre; thus, providing information on events and actions prior to the Boston Massacre.
After watching the VR experience on the Boston Massacre, the class will be divided into two groups; Colonists and British soldiers. Based on the students’ perspective of the primary sources provided, including the VR video, students will be asked to construct a reflective journal on what happened on King Street.
After examining the featured sources, students will be asked to develop a judicial debriefing summarizing the Boston Massacre trial.
The teacher will divide students into three specific groups: Tensions rising (emphasizing events before the Boston Massacre), the Boston Massacre, and the Boston Massacre Trial. Each group will be assigned the task of conducting a live simulation/reenactment of their event in class. The reenactment should be no longer than 3-5 minutes.
From using their personal experiences with virtual reality and augmented reality, students will choose a local or community issue of concern. Students will design an augmented reality presentation or show, using Google Street View, displaying the issue in a community forum or school blog. Students might invite parents, teachers, and community leaders to discuss the issue and offer potential solutions. Google Streetview https://www.google.com/streetview/
The purpose of this article is to provide a framework of inquiry, while using virtual reality to investigate the Boston Massacre. By advancing through the inquiry, students can develop a constructivist approach to their own historical knowledge and their personal experiences through the historical immersion of virtual reality (Wadsworth, 2004). In addition, students can further their technology-based skills by developing their own augmented reality video. The informed action portion of the IDM model gives civic meaning by addressing the community issues and problems, thus, promoting active citizenship. By transforming social studies classrooms into places where students can express these civic principles, democratic citizenship begins (Dewey, 1918). Our aspiration is to give social studies teachers the needed instructional resources, especially virtual reality, to be part of the overall historical learning experience for students. By using VR, students can further investigate and build their own historical knowledge.
Bailenson, J. N., Yee, N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C., Lundblad, N., & Jin, M. (2008). The Use of Immersive Virtual Reality in the Learning Sciences: Digital Transformations of Teachers, Students, and Social Context. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 102–141.
Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(1), 95-115.
Bronack, S. C. (2011). The role of Immersive Media in online education. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59(2), 113–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2011.583186
Crowley, R., & King, K. (2018). Making Inquiry Critical: Examining Power and Inequity in the Classroom. Social Education, 82(1), 14–17.
Cuenca, A. (2021). Proposing Core Practices for Social Studies teacher education: A qualitative content analysis of inquiry-based lessons. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(3), 298–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487120948046
Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting Class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. McGraw-Hill.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan.
Grant, S. G., & Gradwell, J. M. (Eds.) (2010). Teaching history with big ideas: Cases of ambitious teachers. Rowman & Littlefield.
Grant, S. G., Swann, K., & Lee, J. (2017). Inquiry-based practice in Social Studies Education: Understanding the inquiry design model. Routledge.
Harley, J. M., Poitras, E. G., Jarrell, A., Duffy, M. C., & Lajoie, S. P. (2016). Comparing virtual and location-based augmented reality mobile learning: emotions and learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(3), 359–388.
Hinderaker, E. (2017). Boston’s Massacre. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.
Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1998). Learning with Technology: A Constructivist Perspective. Merrill.
Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Playing and making games for learning: Instructionist and Constructionist perspectives for game studies. Games and Culture, 1(1), 36–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412005281767
Kellogg, L. P. (1918). The Paul Revere Print of the Boston Massacre. The Wisconsin Magazine of History, 1(4), 377–387.
Levy, B. L., Thomas, E. E., Drago, K., & Rex, L. A. (2013). Examining Studies of Inquiry-Based Learning in Three Fields of Education. Journal of Teacher Education,64(5), 387-408. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248711349643
Messer, P. (2017). “A scene of Villainy acted by a dirty Banditti, as must astonish the Public”: The Creation of the Boston Massacre. The New England Quarterly, 90(4), 502–539.
Molebash, P., Lee, J., & Heinecke, W. (2019). Teaching and Learning Inquiry Framework. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 8(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v8n1p20
Monte-Sano, C. (2010). Disciplinary literacy in history: An exploration of the historical nature of adolescents’ writing. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(4), 539-568.
National Council for the Social Studies. (2013). College, career, and civic life (C3) framework for state social studies standards. Washington, DC: NCSS.
Psotka, J. (1996). Immersive training systems: Virtual reality and education and training. Instructional Science, 23, 405-423.
Reid, J. P. (1974). A Lawyer Acquitted: John Adams and the Boston Massacre Trials. The American Journal of Legal History, 18(3), 189–207.
Swann, K., Danner, A., Hawkins, M., Grant, S. G., & Lee, J. (2020). Zooming Inquiry: Online Teaching with the Pomodoro Technique. Social Education, 84(4), 229–235.
Swann, K., Lee, J., & Grant, S. G. (2018). Questions, Tasks, Sources: Focusing on the Essence of Inquiry. Social Education, 82(3), 133–137.
Walshe, N., & Driver, P. (2019). Developing reflective trainee teacher practice with 360-degree video. Teaching and Teacher Education, 78, 97–105.
Wadsworth, B. J. (2004). Piaget’s theory of cognitive and affective development: Foundations of Constructivism. Longman. Wirkala, C., & Kuhn, D. (2011). Problem-based learning in K-12 education: Is it effective and how does it achieve its effects? American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1157-1186
The Hall of Fame for Great Americans in Bronx, New York opened in 1901. It is now located on the Bronx Community College campus. It currently has 96 busts; busts of Southern Generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were removed. Busts for an additional four people elected to the hall were never installed because organizers ran out of money. You can view a virtual tour of the Hall of Fame for Great Americans. https://www.bcc.cuny.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/virtual-hall-of-fame-website.pdf
National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in Cooperstown, New York opened in 1939 with its first five inductees, Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Christy Mathewson, and Walter Johnson. As of July 2024, the hall honored 244 former major league players, 39 Negro league players and executives, 24 managers, 10 umpires, and 36 “pioneers, executives and organizers.” The Hall of Fame includes one female member, Effa Manley, a Negro League executive. The museum displays baseball memorabilia. https://baseballhall.org/
National Women’s Hall of Fame in Seneca Falls, New York opened in 1973. The inaugural Induction Class included Jane Addams, Marian Anderson, Susan B. Anthony, Clara Barton, Mary McLeod Bethune, Elizabeth Blackwell, Pearl Buck, Rachel Carson, Mary Cassatt, Emily Dickinson, Amelia Earhart, Alice Hamilton, Helen Hayes, Helen Keller, Eleanor Roosevelt, Florence Sabin, Margaret Chase Smith, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Helen Brooke Taussig, and Harriet Tubman. In 2020, it opened to the public in its new home at the former Seneca Knitting Mill. https://www.womenofthehall.org/
A Little Less Famous
North American Fiddlers Hall of Fame is in rural Redfield, New York in the Adirondack region. It is located in a converted farmhouse. It houses artifacts, pictures, AV tapes, records, and memorabilia of old time fiddling & fiddlers and has free concerts. Famous inductees include “Chubby” Wise who recorded nearly 50 albums. https://www.facebook.com/p/North-American-Fiddlers-Hall-of-Fame-and-Museum-100063476745882/
National Abolition Hall of Fame in Peterboro, New York is located near the Finger Lakes region in the building where the first meeting of the New York State Anti-Slavery Society was held in 1835. Currently 28 anti-slavery activists are honored. https://www.nationalabolitionhalloffameandmuseum.org/
National Soaring Hall of Fame and Museum established in 1969 is an aviation museum that preserves the history of motorless flight. It is located on top of Harris Hill near Elmira, New York. https://www.soaringmuseum.org/
National Toy Hall of Fame in Rochester, New York is part of the Strong Museum of Play. It celebrates toys that have inspired creative play and enjoyed popularity. The Magic 8 Ball was inducted in 2018. Millions of the hand-held fortune telling toy have been sold since it was first marketed in 1945.
Bare Knuckle Boxing Hall of Fame is located in Belfast, New York in Allegany County. The museum and Hall of Fame are in the training barns of the great champion John L. Sullivan. Famous Inductees include George Godfrey, “The Leiperville Shadow,” one of the best African American bare knuckle fighters of his era. https://wnywilds.com/listing/bare-knuckle-boxing-hall-of-fame/
D.I.R.T. Stock Car Hall of Fame and Classic Car Museum is located next to the Weedsport Speedway in the Adirondack Park. It honors the achievements of modified stock car drivers. Famous inductees include “Barefoot” Bob McCreadie who broke his back five times while racing. https://www.discoverupstateny.com/packages/3566/dirt-hall-of-fame-classic-car-museum/
International Boxing Hall of Fame in Canastota, New York honors boxers, trainers, and other contributors to the sport. Famous inductees include Muhammed Ali, Carmen Basilo, Ezzard Charles, Joe Frazier, Emile Griffith, Jake LaMotta, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Sugar Ray Robinson, Marvin Hagler, Sugar Ray Leonard, George Foreman, Roberto Duran, and Joe “Newsboy” Brown, who was born in Russia, and boxed at the opening of the Olympic Auditorium in Los Angeles in 1925. http://www.ibhof.com/
International Maple Hall of Fame in Croghan, New York honors people who “excelled in research, development, and leadership in the North American Maple Industry.” Its most famous inductee is Lloyd Sipple of Bainbridge, N.Y. who began making maple syrup during World War II to address a nationwide shortage of sugar. https://maplemuseumcentre.org/post.php?pid=14
National Purple Heart Hall of Honor in New Windsor) New York honors award recipients to “remind us of human sacrifices and the cost of freedom.” Ensign Jesse Brown’s citation (Korea-U.S.N.) reads: “Ensign Jesse L. Brown was the first African American naval aviator. While flying a mission 4 December 1950 his aircraft was hit, causing him to crash land in enemy territory.” https://www.thepurpleheart.com/
Catskill Fly Fishing Hall of Fame in Livingston Manor, New York, preserves the “heritage of fly fishing in the Catskills” and educates the “next generation of anglers.” https://cffcm.com/
New York State Country Music Hall of Fame in Cortland, New York pays tribute to the legacy of New York State and national country music performers. Hall of Fame members include Glen Campbell, Tammy Wynette, and many Grand Ole opry stars. https://www.iloveny.com/listing/new-york-state-country-music-hall-of-fame/2897/
New York State Convenience Store Hall of Fame in Albany, New York was established in 1996 to honor retailers and suppliers for exceptional achievement in and service to New York State’s convenience store industry.” https://nyacs.org/hall-of-fame?layout=adgcreative:grid#
National Stand-Up Comedy Hall of Fame is located in Jamestown, New Yor’s National Comedy Center. Its first inductee’s included George Carlin, Joan Rivers, Richard Pryor, and Robin Williams. https://comedycenter.org/
National Museum of Racing and Hall of Fame in Saratoga Springs, New York was founded in 1950 and is currently located by the Saratoga Race Course. Among the horses inducted here are Man O’ War (1957), Exterminator (1957), Citation (1959), Spectacular Bid (1982), American Pharoah (2021), Secretariat (1974), and Seabiscuit (1958). https://www.racingmuseum.org/
International Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame in Albany, New York was established in 2019. It is located on the mezzanine level of the MVP Arena. Inductees include Bobo Brazil, “Stone Cold” Steve Austin, Bret Hart, and “Gorgeous George” Wagner. International Maple Hall of Fame in Croghan, New York honors people who “excelled in research, development, and leadership in the North American Maple Industry.” Its most famous inductee is Lloyd Sipple of Bainbridge, N.Y. who began making maple syrup during World War II to address a nationwide shortage of sugar.https://maplemuseumcentre.org/post.php?pid=14
Online Halls of Fame
Long Distance Runners Hall of Fame in Utica, New York was formed in 1971. The building is currently closed. Famous inductees include Frank Shorter who won the marathon gold medal at the 1972 Olympics in Munich. This hall of fame can be viewed at https://www.rrca.org/about/hall-of-fame/
New York State Golf Hall of Fame: Famous inductee include Joey Sindelar, a major contender in the U.S. Open and Masters tournaments in early to mid-1990s. Find information and inductees at https://nysga.org/about-hall-of-fame
The University of Chicago Press recently published a unique account of an escape from enslavement in North Carolina decades before the Civil War. The United States Governed by Six Hundred Thousand Despots (2024) by John Swanson Jacobs tells of his escape from enslavement by North Carolina plantation owner and Congressional Representative Samuel Sawyer in 1838 while he and the slaveholder were in transit through the City of New York. Jacobs eventually made it to Australia where his story was published serially in 1855 by the Sydney Empire. It was later republished in 1861 in London, UK under the title “A True Tale of Slavery” by The Leisure Hour: A Family Journal of Instruction and Recreation. The 1861 version of Jacob’s story is available online at the website Documenting the American South.
John Swanson Jacobs was born in 1815 in Edenton, North Carolina, the younger brother of his better-known sister Harriet Jacobs, author of Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl (1861). Harriet Jacobs originally published her book under the pseudonym Linda Brent, possibly to protect those who remained enslaved at home. In the book she referred to her brother John as “William” and Samuel Sawyer, the white father of her two children who “owned” both them and John, as “Mr. Sands.” John Swanson Jacobs, safely in Australia, published under his own name.
In 1838, Sawyer traveled north because he and his fiancé planned to be married in Chicago, Illinois where she had family. He was able to bring an enslaved John Swanson Jacobs with him to New York State because although slavery had been abolished there in 1828, state law permitted enslavers visiting or residing in New York part-time to maintain slaves within their households for up to nine months. This statute was not repealed until 1841.
The following is an excerpt from chapter 5 of A TRUE TALE OF SLAVERY that was published in The Leisure Hour: A Family Journal of Instruction and Recreation (No. 478–February 21, 1861). In this excerpt, Jahn Swanson Jacobs describes his escape from slavery while in New York City.
“THE latter end of the third year after I was sold, my master was elected Member of Congress. I was ordered to get ready for Washington . . . After my master had been there a short time, he went to board with Mrs. P—-, who had two young nieces here, to one of whom he was soon engaged to be married. As good luck would have it, this young lady had a sister living in Chicago, and no place would suit her like that to get married in . . . Everything was ready, and the hoped-for time came. He took his intended, and off we started for the West. When we were taking the boat at Baltimore for Philadelphia, he came up to me and said, “Call me Mr. Sawyer; and if anybody asks you who you are, and where you are going, tell them that you are a free man, and hired by me.”
We stopped two or three days at the Niagara Falls; from thence we went to Buffalo, and took the boat for Chicago; Mr. Sawyer had been here but a few days before he was taken sick. In five weeks from the time of his arrival here, he was married and ready to leave for home. On our return, we went into Canada. Here I wanted to leave him, but there was my sister and a friend of mine at home in slavery . . . I tried to get a seaman’s protection from the English Custom-house, but could not without swearing to a lie, which I did not feel disposed to do.
We left here for New York, where we stopped three or four days. I went to see some of my old friends from home, who I knew were living there. I told them that I wanted their advice. They knew me, they knew my master, and they knew my friends also. “Now tell me my duty,” said I. The answer was a very natural one, “Look out for yourself first.” I weighed the matter in my mind, and found the balance in favour of stopping. If I returned along with my master, I could do my sister no good, and could see no further chance of my own escape. I then set myself to work to get my clothes out of the Astor House Hotel, where we were stopping; I brought them out in small parcels, as if to be washed. This job being done, the next thing was to get my trunk to put them in. I went to Mr. Johnson’s shop, which was in sight of the Astor House Hotel, and told him that I wanted to get my trunk repaired.
The next morning I took my trunk in my hand with me: when I went down, whom should I see at the foot of the steps but Mr. Sawyer? I walked up to him, and showed him a rip in the top of the trunk, opening it at the same time that he might see that I was not running off. He told me that I could change it, or get a new one if I liked. I thanked him, and told him we were very near home now, and with a little repair the old one would do. At this we parted. I got a friend to call and get my trunk, and pack up my things for me, that I might be able to get them at any minute. Mr. Sawyer told me to get everything of his in, and be ready to leave for home the next day. I went to all the places where I had carried anything of his, and where they were not done, I got their cards and left word for them to be ready by the next morning. What I had got were packed in his trunk; what I had not been able to get, there were the cards for them in his room.
They dine at the Astor at three o’clock; they leave the room at four o’clock; at half-past four o’clock I was to be on board the boat for Providence. Being unable to write myself at that time, and unwilling to leave him in suspense, I got a friend to write as follows: — “Sir–I have left you, not to return; when I have got settled, I will give you further satisfaction. No longer yours, JOHN S. JACOB.”
This note was to be put into the post-office in time for him to get it the next morning. I waited on him and his wife at dinner. As the town clock struck four, I left the room. I then went through to New Bedford, where I stopped for a few months . . . The lawyer I have quite a friendly feeling for, and would be pleased to meet him as a countryman and a brother, but not as a master.”
Once free, John Swanson Jacobs moved to New England where he became an active abolitionist. His efforts took him to Rochester, New York and vicinity on a number of occasions and to New York City at least three times, in May 1849, October 1850, and July 1862. On May 11, 1849, the New York Herald printed an account of a speech by Jacobs at an American Anti-Slavery Society meeting where he called on attendees to make it “disreputable” for people who claimed to be Christians to hold other people in bondage. According to North Star on October 24, 1850, Jacobs spoke in New York City calling for active resistance to fugitive slave laws following the seizure of James “Hamlet” Hamilton by slavecatchers and on July 28, 1862, New York Independent reported on an interview with Jacobs where he recounted his experience as a cook on a British ship, with the support of British authorities in the Bahamas, that was attempting to enter the port of Charleston, South Carolina in violation of the federal blockade of Southern ports (252-258). Excerpts from these articles follow.
American Anti-Slavery Society (New York Herald, May 11, 1849)
“A slaveholder named Skinner, who was a skinner in every sense of the word, was in the habit of coming every year, to visit his brother, Re. Dr. Skinner, who . . . lived at 160 Green[e] street; and yet the baby-stealing, women-whipping tyrant never received a rebuke from his reverend brother, at whose table he sat . . . If anyone asked him what must be done to abolish slavery, his answer was, that it must cease to be respectable. They must make it disreputable, and then slaveholders would be ashamed of it . . . If they had less of religion, and more of Christianity, it would be all for the better” (252-254).
Meeting of the Colored Citizens of New York (North Star, October 24, 1850)
“My colored brethren, if you have not sword, I say to you, sell your garments and buy one . . . I would, my friends, advise you to show a front to our tyrants, and arm yourselves; aye, I would advise the women to have their knives too . . . I advise you to trample on this bill, and I further advise you to let us go on immediately, and act like men” (256).
Running the Blockade (New York Independent, July 28, 1862)
“[A] very intelligent colored man, formerly a slave in North Carolina, but recently for several years a resident of England, called at our office the other day, and related facts showing that British vessels are stilled engaged in running our blockade, and that the British officials in the Bahamas are, if possible, more inimical to our Union than are the same class of people at home . . . He shipped as a cook on board the steamship Lloyds, at London . . . ‘for Havana and any of the West Indies Islands’ . . . the captain (Smith) announced to the crew that he designed to run the blockade before Charleston, and offered three months pay extra to such as would remain with the ship . . . Jacobs refused to go to Charleston at any price whatever, and demanded, what was his undoubted right, that he be sent home to London. After various efforts on the part of Capt. Smith to indure (sic) Jacobs to either go to Charleston or to settle and sign a satisfaction, he attempted coercion. He had Jacobs taken before a police magistrate to answer the charge of having deserted the ship . . . The law was all on the side of Jacobs, but the public sentiment of Nassau was so strongly against him, and in favor of the unlawful and contraband trade with the Rebels” (257-258).
“History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again.” – Maya Angelou
Each year I start my students off with a week of lessons to understand why we study history in the first place and to get students specifically to understand why varied viewpoints are so important. This year I had my students reflect on a quote from Maya Angelou and asked them why they thought some political leaders across the United States did not think African American history was important and why they thought this history was considered controversial.
My students responded with the understanding that by learning history we can hope to not repeat it but also that learning this history does not aim to make individuals feel bad for the deeds done but rather understand the historical situations in which our country was founded and the continued history that is shaping the way our country is moving forward today. Despite the pain and suffering lived by many in this country, especially African Americans, it is important to uncover truths about our shared history. The APâ African American Studies curriculum provides students with a chance to do just that; tackle tough questions, tough realities, glean an understanding of the world that they live in today, and it gives them a chance to acknowledge a history that many of them have not learned before.
The APâ curriculum has a fantastic starting with the African Kingdoms of Mali, Songhai, the Hausa States, and much more. Students are able to do a deep dive into the history of Africa that many of them had never been taught about before. A question I get often from my students is “Ms. Hinson why are we not taught this in world history or any other history class?” The truth is that a lot of this history was unknown or kept secret for many years. In my classroom, we delve into the nuances of this history so that students understand how it differs from the traditional documents and writings they usually learn about in Eurocentric history classes. I introduce them to griots and students learn that different cultures pass down history in different ways. Much of the early history we know from African civilizations was passed down orally making it much harder for historians to uncover truths about these societies. My students learned that Christianity was in Africa before European arrival when they study about places such as Lalibela. They learn about trade starting in the 8th century along the East Coast of Africa that connect places with the Mediterranean region and Central and East Asia. Students uncover truths about the Great Zimbabwe and amazing structures, built not by Greeks or aliens, but by the local Zimbabwean people who garnered their wealth from the Indian Ocean trade routes. Timbuktu is not a fictional place, but a nation where trade, advanced institutions of knowledge, and wealth resided.
Before being exposed to this curriculum, my students were taught that Africa was backward, a continent ripe for exploitation. They saw Africa, not as the birthplace of humanity with rich cultures, but rather a place that Europeans conquered and a continent that continues to have issues to this day.
Challenging misleading notions continues as students learn about the African diaspora. Before being exposed to this curriculum, they believed African Americans had no culture and were only brought to the Americas for harsh work and enslavement because of the color of their skin. I overheard an exchange in my classroom in which one student of color was poking fun at another. A West African student asked another Black student, “Hey, where are you from?” The student responded, “Oh well, I am just Black.” The West African student laughed and said “Oh, I’m so sorry y’all don’t have any culture.” That was an eye-opening exchange. I joined the conversation and asked, “What do you mean by that?” The student explained that they never heard of any African American culture and that Black people did not know where they came from. The conversation continued:
“Well why do you think that African Americans don’t know where they come from?”
“Well, I am not sure I guess slavery.”
“Correct, but do you know about all that Black people had to do to overcome of the obstacles of enslavement? Do you know the years of oppression that then followed enslavement that African Americans continued to make strides towards crafting a new identity?”
“The music you listen to is African American culture, some of the pieces of clothing or slang that you use are African American culture. The food that you eat, a lot of is African American culture.”
“Wow I never thought about that.”
“You should take the APâ African American studies course so you can learn more about Black culture!”
The sad reality is that so many of our students think this way. They believe that Black people are a people without history and this misleading notion really stems from the fact that we have not done a good job as a society to unpack these misconceptions. In some states they still teach that slavery was a benevolent work system where the enslaved learned important skills, sugarcoating the reality of what enslavement was. Why don’t students learn that there was slavery in New York and in other northern localities? Why don’t students learn that Free Blacks and people who escaped from slavery played a crucial role in the abolitionist movement and that African Americans have fought in every war in the United States even before its inception, that 200,000 Black soldiers and sailors fought in the Civil War to end slavery and the right to be full citizens of the nation of their birth?
The hardest part about teaching APâ African American studies course is getting students to relearn the history that was taught to them over and over again since they entered school. Black people were slaves, the Civil War happened, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, Reconstruction took place, African Americans got some rights, then skip to the Civil Rights Movement, and that’s Black history. But there is so much more to African American history. Students truly do not understand that African Americans as a people continuously strove to be accepted as valuable contributors to this great nation. Even when they were told to “go back to Africa,” they stayed and fought for equality. It is hard to teach history in a society that try to erase the African American past by making it seem Un-American to shed light on the contributions of Black people to this county.
As a society we have prevented students of color from learning the truth about their heritage and culture and permitted all students to believe in a factionalized past. As a corrective, APâ African American studies is not just a class for students of color. Ideally, African and African American history should be interwoven into World history and United States history classes, not just relegated to an elective. Black history truly is both World and U.S. history.
It is challenging for many young people to see the correlation between history and the world that we live in today. I started a lesson on sugar being the driver for enslavement in the Americas showing students newspaper headlines discussing chocolate companies using child slave labor and asked students would they still eat chocolate knowing where it came from. Many of the students had to think long and hard about it, but eventually most of them confessed that “yes, they would still eat it.” After a gallery walk showing various documents about the correlation between sugar and enslavement and economics, we came back together to have a discussion. I asked my students how the legacies of sugar plantations and slavery continue to impact economic disparities and race relations today? A student raised her hand and said, “what we see is that enslaved people were working for free and that their enslavers were making loads of money because of their hard work.” I asked, “What does that mean for the Black community today?” Another student responded, “Well this means that many Black communities don’t have the same amount of money as white people because they got rich while we didn’t get anything.” Another student added, “Well that is the reason why so many Black people have struggled to make generational wealth. It is almost as if we started at a different place” and then another explained “they basically had a 300-year start.” This is the reality that people who criticize the APâ African American studies curriculum are afraid of students uncovering; uncovering how this history continues to play out in America today.
Some people fear the acquisition of knowledge because they know that with knowledge can come change. The APâ African American studies course should not be labeled controversial or Un-American; in fact, it is the exact opposite. African Americans fought to be a part of this country and continue to fight for the country to stand true to its democratic values of all people having the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The course does not blame students for the past, but rather brings them into the conversation about how we can continue to hold America to its promise by including the history of all of the people who helped to build this great nation. Thank you.
Reviewed by Hank Bitten, NJCSS Executive Director and contributing author.
I am writing to you as a contributing author to Interdisciplinary Teaching and Teacher Education rather than as a reviewer. Through this blog post I am hoping to expand your classroom experience, ask you to begin talking about classroom instruction with your colleagues, and challenge you to develop partnerships or connection groups within and outside of your school. I have the perspective of an educator with more than a half-century of experience as a teacher in elementary, middle, high school, and college classrooms and five school districts.
Public education took a step forward in 1852 when Massachusetts became the first state to pass an Act Concerning the Attendance of Children at School. This was a monumental change because every village and city in Massachusetts was required to have a primary school to teach math and grammar. Students were required to be in school for three months with six weeks or more of continued instruction. Parents who did not send their children between age 8 to 14 to school were fined $20, a little more than a week’s wage for a factory worker. Lessons were passive and based on memory and practice.
Fifty years later in the beginning years of the 20th century, John Dewey dramatically shifted the focus to inquiry and problem-solving. Dewey’s instructional philosophy included brainstorming for solutions, testing hypothesis, experiential learning, and models of student government. His model was revolutionary, emphasized an understanding of the big ideas rather than simplistic true and false or multiple choice answers.
William James, a psychologist, understood the influences of the media on children. Children were exposed to advertising and pictures in newspapers and magazines. The media in the beginning of the 20th century was perhaps just as powerful as today’s social media digital platforms as publications overwhelmed the mailbox of the home instead of the inbox on the phone. James understood motivation, the importance of emotional engagement in learning, and the importance of the educational environment on the character and behavior of students.
My college instruction in the 1960s was influenced by Jerome Bruner. The emphasis was on cognitive growth and a constructivist model of learning. We were taught concepts and how to use relevant experiences to bring meaning to the content in the curriculum. One of the lessons I applied from Jerome Bruner to the teaching of social studies was the influence of culture on how students learn.
My education as a teacher was influenced by the sociologist James Coleman. I developed simulations for understanding the big ideas of revolution, social classes, perspectives, and historical changes. I applied my college experiences of debate, Model United Nations, Model Congress, and Mock Trial to simulations of battles, problems in society, and decisions of presidents. My graduate studies focused on the French Revolution and the insights of The Anatomy of a Revolution by Crane Brinton.
It is in the context of my simulation game, France, 1789, that interdisciplinary instruction became the focus of my teaching of world history, United States History, and African American History. I integrated literature, art, film, and music into my lessons. The engagement of my students was visible and they were applying knowledge and memory to their experiences.
Dr. Jiwon Kim and Dr. Sandra Zak provide a practical guide with explicit examples of how interdisciplinary models in classrooms and school are essential to learning in a Tik Tok culture and why teachers in departments, faculty in smaller schools, and professors of education need to have discussions about the effectiveness of teaching and the extent that students are learning.
The main concern of social studies teachers is that their students cannot write. We observe children asking Google for answers, completing assignment worksheets in Google Classroom, and engaging with short videos on BrainPOP and YouTube. My response to teachers who share with me their observations about how their students are learning in middle school and high school is that they need to be taught how to think before they can write. They need to be asked open-ended questions before they can express what they are thinking. They need to build memory through interdisciplinary learning experiences.
Interdisciplinary education and interdisciplinary instruction are similar and yet very different experiences for students. In Chapter 3, Christine Grabowski presents graphic models for planning and practical examples of interdisciplinary connections between social studies, math, reading, and art. Below are examples relating to civic engagement and spatial recognition.
In Chapter 4, I provide explicit examples for teaching climate, U.S. History, Civics, and world history. Intradisciplinary models with integration of geography, economics, and culture provide students with both relevance and engagement. Below is an example of the diverse contributions of people from New Jersey who have impacted the lives of ordinary people.
Here is an example from social studies for a lesson on the contributions of people from New Jersey and their connections with art, music, science, and English Language Arts: Social Studies 6.1.5. Civics CM.5 Investigate the lives of New Jersey individuals with diverse experiences who have contributed to the improvement of society:
Using an assessment model, students in art could analyze cartoon drawings of New Jersey artists in the context of the skills and learning objectives in the curriculum. For example, Caspar the Ghost and Felix the Cat by Joseph Oriolo (Woodcliff Lake, NJ) and Uncle Wiggily Longears by Howard Garis (Newark, NJ).
Students in music might research the lyrics to America the Beautiful or find connections to New Jersey using the music of Dionne Warwick, Bruce Springsteen, or others. Interdisciplinary connections in science can be taught independently with students understanding cause and effect relationships, the contributions of scientists and engineers, and the places in New Jersey where they originated. Examples include Hellmann’s Mayonnaise (Englewood Cliffs), Trident gum (Morris Plains), and Carrier Air Conditioning (Newark).
In English Language Arts, students can read biographies of people from New Jersey who have made a difference or a significant contribution. For example, Gen. Hugh Mercer, Albert Einstein, George Merck, Carl Lewis, Larry Doby, Yogi Berra, Joe Theismann, Paul Robeson.
In Chapter 5, Dr. Mark Pearcy and I present explanations on why interdisciplinary learning is necessary, models for including this in the education of pre-service teachers, and an example of a school district in New Jersey that has multiple opportunities for high school students. Below is an example of curriculum connections in a World History course.
Perhaps the most important contribution of the collaborative efforts of Jiwon Kim and Sandra Zak are the prompts suggested for discussions between teachers and curriculum directors. The importance of shared instruction, differentiated learning, and partnerships with local and academic institutions is a good beginning. I hope you enjoy Interdisciplinary Teaching and Teacher Education as much as I enjoyed contributing to it!
By LRWP Board Members Missy Holzer and Heather Fenyk
For K-12 students, there is only one New Jersey Student Learning Standard (NJSLS) on rivers: “Use maps to identify physical features (e.g., continents, oceans, rivers, lakes, mountains).” On Monday October 20, Lower Raritan Watershed Partnership Board Members Missy Holzer and Heather Fenyk joined K-12 educators attending the New Jersey Council for the Social Studies annual conference to lead what we hope was the first of many workshops to support educators and students in using maps and rivers to learn about, and connect to, their communities. We now invite K-12 educators from all disciplines to explore curricular materials we shared at our NJCSS2024 session, titled “Using Rivers as a Contextual Bridge to Connect K-8 Students to Their Communities: A First Nations Perspective.” A curriculum guide and all workshop materials, including the powerpoint, bibliography, and detailed teacher and student case study guides, are available at: https://tinyurl.com/LRWP24NJCSS.
This LRWP workshop for social studies teachers emerged from our own place-based, problem-based teaching orientation, and built specifically on our Spring 2024 volunteer eel monitoring program. We centered the lesson around a special case study: “The Mystery of the Missing American Glass Eels,” and also worked to support educator comfort with using maps, particularly topographic maps, as tools for student understanding of change to their local landscape over time. Our aim, as always, is to help educators use local waterways to connect students to their backyards, while developing our next generation of local stewards.
While it may seem unusual for an environmental non-profit to engage with K-12 social studies educators, the LRWP sees great potential to connect with multiple disciplines, including social studies, science, math and art. From the past to the present, and into the future, New Jersey’s waterways were and are vital to our existence. Besides being a continual source of water, our rivers, streams, and canals have implicitly and explicitly shaped our presence in the state. Drinking water, food, transportation (people and goods), industry, energy, and recreation are a few of the services our waterways have contributed to life in New Jersey.
Viewing our waterways from a watershed perspective that includes all the tributaries, rivers, and wetlands within a drainage area, connects communities to each other as much as they connect the flow of water from the headwaters of a river to the sea. Our Lower Raritan Watershed, its lands, streams, and the Raritan River, offer a host of case-based, problem-based, and place-based approaches to formal and informal investigation of these connections from the past, present, and future. The LRWP invites formal and informal educators to connect with us to discuss opportunities to partner for classroom or field based approaches to learning and inquiry.
The Hope of Glory: Reflections on the Last Words of Jesus from the Cross, by Jon Meacham
Reviewed by Hank Bitten
The role of religious belief in world history is both a mystery and a connection to understanding continuity and change over time in history. The major beliefs of Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam have had an enduring influence on civilization for the past five millennium. They are also a critical part of the world history curriculum in New Jersey’s public schools. The Hope of Glory by Jon Meacham is a concise perspective of his personal understanding of the Christian faith, his scholarly research of distinguished individuals across several centuries, his years of nurture through Episcopalian clergy, and an understanding of Jesus Christ as an historical and spiritual leader. It is a useful perspective for educators, especially social studies teachers.
“I am one among that innumerable company and this book is a series of reflections on the Last Words of Jesus from the cross – words spoken on a Friday afternoon that is at once impossibly remote and yet imaginatively close to hand.” (Page 6).
Most teachers have their students read the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) to understand the teachings of Jesus and in my classroom, I asked students to also read from the teachings of Moses (Ten Commandments), the teachings of Confucius (Analects), Lao Tzu, Muhammed (Koran), Siddhartha Gautama (Four Noble Truths), and the Ramayana. The enduring teachings about life, love, humility, forgiveness, relationships go beyond the ideas of our civilization. In fact, they are timeless and have endured more than 50 centuries. It is important that students have a cognitive understanding of the leaders of each faith and for many students in the United States, the Judeo-Christian heritage is familiar through the architecture of temples and churches, holidays and culture, and the experiences of their friends.
“His (Jesus) Sermon on the Mount and his frequently repeated messages, rooted in the scriptures of Israel, about the centrality of love can hardly be improved upon as guides to goodness and generosity. He does not, however, endure because he offered a corner of the Roman dominated world a message of radical love. He endures not only because of what he said but because of who he was – in the words of Peter, “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Christianity’s foundational belief is that Jesus was in fact the “Christ” – in Greek, the ‘anointed one’ – who died and rose again to redeem and restore a fallen world that is to be reborn as what John the Divine called “a new heaven and a new earth.” (Pages 8,9)
The message of the Christian faith, although familiar to many, remains one of mystery. It is the only major religion that is for everyone in the world (the Gentiles). Christianity is not defined by birth, geography, or ethnicity. Jon Meacham states it cleverly: “We are all in a sense, like the Greek philosophers who came to Paul in Athens seeking clarity about the Christian message. ‘May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting?’ they asked him in the Areopagus. ‘It sounds rather strange to us, so we would like to know what it means.’ The apostle then preached the gospel, saying that God through Jesus, ‘will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” (Pages 11,12)
The historical context of the thread of a Messiah that began in Judaism is presented in Psalm 98 and the 35th chapter in the Book of Isaiah. In The Hope of Glory, the thread of this context continues into the context of the Roman Empire and the establishment of the teachings of the Christian (Roman Catholic) church.
“Paul admitted the difficulty” ‘But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness.’ A king who died a slave’s death? A human atoning sacrifice? A resurrected messiah? As Paul asserted in one of the earliest known writings in the New Testament, however, the heart of the matter was just that: Jesus ‘gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from the present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father.’ Why invent something with no historical basis in the preaching of Jesus himself? The Christian salvation story was singular and specific, offering a peculiar religious riff on the extent symphony of Judaism. That the disciples understood Jesus so poorly at the time of the Passion is evidence of the power and prevalence of the existing theology of God’s kingdom, a theology that anticipated an imminent final struggle between the forces of good and evil.” (Pages 22,23)
Students need a reference point in understanding the common and the unique tenets of the major religious beliefs. Each one references love, relationships, a world order, forces of good and evil, and the power of the divine. Some reference an afterlife, a rebirth, a pilgrimage, prayer, sacrifice, a free will, or a mandate of heaven. Teaching with visuals supports memory and thinking. Unfortunately, the role of religion in world history is mostly dependent on text sources, although paintings, mosaics, and architecture are useful for student understanding. Here is a perspective that supports continuity and change in chronology:
“History is what happened in time and space. Theology can be understood as what people think history means in relation to a presumed order beyond time and space. History is horizontal, theology vertical, and their intersection is a motive force behind our religious, national, and personal imaginations. The stories we tell ourselves about who we are, what we love, and how we live are furnished and fired by the factual and the fabled. History and theology are inextricably bound up with each other, and together, I submit, they create truth. Fact is what we can see or discern: truth is the larger significance we extrapolate from these facts.” (Page 27)
It is helpful for students to understand that reading sacred writings is different than reading an historical narrative or primary source. For students, all primary sources are likely the same. The critical insight of Jon Meacham is useful when reading texts from Confucius, Lao Tzu, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.
“It’s certainly true that for the searcher or the believer; the point of reading sacred writings is not the same as reading, say the history of the Punic Wars or of World War II. The texts are directive documents. As the second Epistle of Timothy says, ‘All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (Page 43)
The sacred writings are expressed prophetically, poetically, historically and perhaps with another form of expression. Students need to understand that context matters, and that criticism engages thinking, analysis, and interpretation. Reason and faith are both helpful starting points for an educational conversation.
The thesis of the book is based on the words of Jesus from the cross on Good Friday. For teachers who have their students read selected verses from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7, these words should prompt thinking, analysis, and understanding. The first words spoken from the cross are only written in the gospel of Luke 23:34: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”
These words are similar to the atonement of sins on Yom Kippur in Judaism, the triumph of good over evil in Islam, and the search for the enlightenment in Buddhism. However, the Christian faith has paradoxes and forgiveness of enemies, our persecutors, and people who do evil is one example. The message of forgiveness is what gave momentum to the acceptance of the Christian faith in the Roman Empire by Constantine and the Edict of Thessalonica by Theodosius in 380 C.E..
The second words are from Luke: 23:43: “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.” If your students are engaged with learning history in small groups, the application of the last words of Jesus from the cross fit nicely into seven groups of three or four students. The context of Jesus entrance into Jerusalem for the celebration of the Passover gave reason to speculate over a political or militant uprising to challenge the power of the Roman government in Israel. Jesus was popular and his preaching about the arrival of the kingdom provided hope to the Jewish people in Jerusalem. However, if this was a political plot of revolutionaries, why were none of the followers who were with Jesus arrested or executed? Students need to think critically about the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount or in his parables.
These words of Jesus are beyond our imagination or comprehension. They speak to the depth of the mercy and grace of an all-powerful God. Students will likely focus on the clarity of the first word, ‘Assuredly’, the definition of ‘today’, and the etymology of the word ‘Paradise’. These words have endured twenty centuries and will continue to inspire in the future in the search for answers about the human condition and existence. It is an example of continuity without change over time.
The third words are spoken first to Mary, Jesus’ mother, “Woman, behold thy son!”They are followed by the words, “Behold thy mother!” to one of his disciples. (John 19: 25-27) These words are spoken as commands, a charge to care for another person. There are links here to the religious teachings of right relationships by Confucius, being your brother’s keeper in Judaism, caring for others as reflected in the Eightfold Path and giving alms in the Five Pillars of Islam. The application of these words from the cross speaks to how we understand the meaning and purpose of love and serving others.
The fourth words speak to the human suffering of Jesus on the cross. “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27: 45,46) There is no other religious teacher associated with the major religious beliefs who experienced the pain and fear that was present in the final day of the life of Jesus. Confucius died a normal death, very little is known about the death of Lao Tzu, Abraham lived beyond a full age of people in 1800 B.C.E., Siddhartha likely died from illness after reaching Nirvana, and Mohammed died peacefully in his home. If Jesus knew that He would return to life in three days, what is the meaning of these words? This is the power of the invisible and the mystery of the unknown. In this context, how do your students understand the meaning of this question and the context of how it was spoken? Which visual image has best represented the Christian faith over time: the cross, the empty tomb, or something else?
The fifth words spoken are: “I thirst.” (John 19: 28,29) On the surface, these words are unlikely to engage students in a meaningful discussion or application. Jesus was given vinegary wine on a hyssop branch with a sponge attached to it. The symbolism of hyssop is an important connection to the Passover in Judaism as it was used to sprinkle the blood of the lamb on the doorposts to guarantee God’s protection. Kind David was cleansed in Psalm 51:7 with the hyssop plant. In this context, it is important to emphasize the spiritual cleansing of forgiveness that is a core belief of the Christian faith. The ‘thirst’ is connected to the Passover in Judaism, the importance of how forgiveness changes our lives, and how the church forgives sins through confession, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper. For teachers, using the Sermon on the Mount, in addition to the words spoken in the final hours of Jesus, consider the words of Matthew 5:6, “Blessed Are Those Who Hunger and Thirst for Righteousness” support a meaningful discussion with many questions for deeper inquiry and application.
The next to last words spoken from the cross, “It is finished” are written in John 19:30. The meaning of these words for 21st century Christians is different than what the words meant for the first century followers and the eyewitnesses at Calvary. The Greek word, tetelestai means finished, completed, or accomplished. Paul preached to the Romans, “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested…through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith.”(Page 86)
However, the creeds of the church that were written after the death and resurrection of Jesus have believers professing that all is not finished because Jesus is to return from heaven. Heaven, as mentioned in the Bible, is not a future destiny or a distant place. Instead, it is a hidden dimension in our life. Another way to think about heaven is that it is God’s space. (Page 88) Students will be asking questions about heaven, hell, eternity, war, sickness, and the list will continue. These questions are important for inquiry by teenagers. It is also important to understand that answers are determined by knowledge and the only clear knowledge we have in the Christian religion is to love God and to love one another as ourselves. This is the time to ask the essential question about the role of religion in world history, which is likely in your curriculum. There is mystery in all the major religions and students need to understand this difficult concept.
The final words spoken by Jesus are written in Luke 23:46: “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” The eyewitnesses watching the hours of Jesus dying were left with sadness and confusion. They expected a kingdom, a new earth and a new heaven. They only saw darkness. The most scholarly theologians are unable to fully explain the meaning of redemption. The religions of Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and the teachings of Daoism and Confucius also leave students with unanswered questions. The common thread in each religion is the universal search for grace, a better world where good triumphs over evil, and hope!
The religious faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have become politicized as people in different periods of historical memory have persecuted, attacked, interpreted morality, and defined culture. The tenets of their foundational beliefs have endured trade, prosperity, the Crusades, scientific discoveries, schisms, epidemics, Age of Reason, imperialism, World Wars, a journey to the moon, and genocides. It is important for students of world history to understand how ordinary people live their lives with the same questions we are asking.
This is why we teach the role of religion in history.
njcssjournal 