Changing our minds about slavery and race

Eric Foner about Lincoln on MPR

The second thing I heard while driving today also recalled AmCon discussions, this time about the many small choices people made that added up to America's slave system and their ability to live with it and benefit from it.  Eric Foner (long a central author for AmCon) has a new book on Lincoln.  He talked with Kerri Miller about it.   You can listen to the pod-cast.

If you do, you'll hear him emphasizing the Lincoln changed his mind from his early views of slavery when he had little direct experience with the system or with African-Americans to his later views which still reflected the racial attitudes of most white Americans in the mid-19th century.  Foner stressed that Lincoln's encounter with real people, specifically those who visited him in the White House, goes a long way to accounting for his change.  He was careful not to overdraw this, but also offered a hopeful suggestion that people do learn.  We are not merely captive to the views we form early or to those of our contemporaries.

As we approach the 4th of July, Foner's comments about the nature of the Emancipation Proclamation are also of interest.  Comparing it to the Declaration of Independence,  he noted that the EP was a military order lacking eloquence or much in the way of principled reasoning.  Only at the very end is there a reference to justice.  Nonetheless, the order did its work in closing a door.  There is still work to do.

we need more modesty

David Brooks @ Aspen  Thanks to my drive up I-35 to attend the funeral of a friend's mom, I heard most of this talk by David Brooks re-broadcast by MPR.  I was quite taken by his dual assertion that 1) Americans have become increasingly narcissistic in the last half-century or so; and 2) we would live better if we lived among and were people with more modesty.

The first assertion he backed up with lots of numbers from surveys about how people report about themselves and how those numbers have changed over time.  He began, however, by describing a radio broadcast of a variety show broadcast on the evening that the Japanese surrendered in WWII and contrasting it to the behavior of a football player this year.  The broadcast included the host (Danny Kaye?) saying something like, "We are not proud, we are grateful." He also mentioned someone else's comment: "May we be worthy of the peace."  In contrast, the football player did a little victory dance in honor of his score.

Behind the two sets of behaviors, Brooks identified two differing ways of understanding oneself and one's place in the world.  He recognized that the Augustinian view that informed the humility or modesty of the WWII era responses had draw backs, but admired it and them, nonetheless.  He offered several factors that contribute to the shift toward a culture that fosters self-esteem rather than guarding against pride: individualism and technology contribute.  There are losses involved and those losses are communal.  No doubt the end of the talk moves to a constructive proposal or at least a call for change.

Certainly a collection of  folks who care most about being famous are less likely to do the unsung work of tending the fires of community life.

red barn pizza

yum: here is the link to the place
What generates social capital?.
Certainly voluntary associations a la Alexis de Tocqueville.  No doubt bowling leagues a la Robert Putnam.  But let us also consider the possibilities of pizza from a wood fired oven in southern MN on the most perfect summer evening of the year: the air, the music, the food, the company.  Merely the colors: green grass, red barn, blue sky.  These may be the sounds, tastes, and hues that evoke patriotism in its purist form.  This is not a matter of government or ideology, but rather of living in a place and in a time, more sensory than ideological.

Freeway like a river

HOTTEA installation over I-35 on 40th Street Bridge.  Photos and more

Thomas Dunning photo

The text from HOTTEA in the blog linked above suggests that I-35 might function rather like rivers in the pre-automobile, pre-railroad era.  Interesting thought which makes some sense once one has it.  Rivers were used to link places together because they provided a ready means of transportation, but they also separated people who lived on opposite sides of them.  The people across the river were rendered "other,"  unless, of course, there was a spot that allowed fording or a bridge.  Hence settlements grew up at those spots. 

A significant difference: the rivers were there before the human settlements.  At the time the interstate system was constructed, it was more likely to divide (or even displace) pre-existing communities than to offer a "fording place."  Now, decades latter, it has allowed the development of new suburban communities based upon the initial ease of a commute to employment.

This installation uses blue and green yarns reminiscent of the water.

More on What College is For

New Yorker illustration

Louis Menard's article in a recent New Yorker, Live and Learn: Why We Have College, is worth reading because he helps us see that what one thinks college is supposed to accomplish, both for its students and for the nation, determines how one carries out and evaluates the work.  He sets this up by recalling an incident in which a student asked the professor, "Why did we have to read this book?" Throughout the essay he converses with two recent books on higher education and also reviews the history of the enterprize.

Initially he offers up the two theories about what college does: 1) it sorts people ("College is, essentially, a four-year intelligence test.") or 2) it socializes people ("Ideally, we want everyone to go to college, because college gets everyone on the same page. It’s a way of producing a society of like-minded grownups.").  In the first theory grades matter a lot; in the second, not so much.  Although this small quotation might suggestion that theory 2 is only about conformity, Menard allows (perhaps prefers) that the "like-minded" agree that independent thinking is valuable.

Later he offers a third theory: college provides people with the specialized knowledge needed for specific work.  (He uses the term 'vocational' here though I would not.) This theory, Menard asserts, accounts for the growth in the non-liberal arts sector of post-secondary education.  In some degree I think we could consider theory 3 as a variation on theory 1 with the addition of more "tracks" into which people are sorted.

Menard, at the end, identifies himself as a proponent of theory 2 and suggests that holding that view is related to his thinking that "Why did we have to read this book?" is a great question from a student.  Indeed, one wonders if it might not be a great question to ask students after they have read the book.

Nation as imagined

We spend much effort in AmCon thinking about and talking about "America" and "Americans" and being a little skittish about the possibility of making sweeping generalizations that claim too much.  Reading about nationalism, Lutheranism, and nationalism in Scandinavia (and the Nordic region more generally) I'm reminded of Benedict Anderson's influential assertion that nations are imagined communities.  This paragraph from Dag Thorkildsen ("Scandinavia: Lutheranism and national identity," in The Cambridge History  of Christianity, Vol. 8, p. 342) applies beyond that region and helps to clarify both Anderson's notion and our goals.

"The nation is first of all an imagined community, but it is not an invented community.  It is based on historical raw material, which the intellectual elite shapes to form the concept of the nation.  The nation as an imagined community means that it depends on people's consciousness of belonging to a national community characterized by certain features.  These features create national identity, which becomes an important part also of individual identity. For this reason a national system of education is a central part of nation building.  Furthermore, a national identity describes that condition in which a mass of people have internalized the symbols of the nation, so that they may act as one psychological group when there is a threat to, or the possibility of enhancement of, nation and national identity."

Flag Day and who votes

Flag Day: not really a holiday I celebrate much.  Generally the news of the day is a rehearsal of a legend about Betsy Ross.

However, today this story caught my eye.  At Dupont Circle in Washington, D.C. there is a demonstration in support of giving D.C. residents voting rights.  FLAG DAY IN THE FLESH The guy in the photo is displaying his tattoo of the D.C. flag to show his sympathy with the effort. Coincidentally, President Obama is visiting Puerto Rico and thus drawing other's attention to the long festering question of the status of that island-territory and its residents' lack of representation.

If democracy in America entails, at the very least, the principle that the governed have a right to vote and to be represented in governance by those whom they have elected, then both the residents of D.C. and those in Puerto Rico certainly can use Flag Day as an occasion for their cause!  And, it might be worth mentioning that when Betsy Ross stitched that first "Stars and Stripes" she was not eligible to vote.

Your right to undistracted shopping. . . .

. . . is not one found in federal legislation.  But it is declared on a sign outside Trader Joe's in Woodland Hills, California.  I did not stop to take photo of the sign and now I'm states away so can't just zip over to take one.  Nonetheless, I'm still pondering about this sign and the right it promised.  The finer print specified that in protection of its' shoppers' right to undistracted shopping Trader Joe's would not permit any sort of soliciting, petitioning, or other distracting behaviors in front of the store.  This is possible, of course, because Trader Joes is a private enterprise although we might think of being in the store buying groceries as being out in public.  Because the store is a private enterprise its owners and mangers can restrict what goes on there.  What they want to promote is shopping, more to the point, buying groceries, so they will prohibit other activities that might inhibit shopping.  In so far as being asked to consider political issues might inhibit shoppers' purchases, this makes commercial sense.  And, in so far as I do not have an obligation to take a minute "to save the environment" or listen to any other plea from my fellow citizens, there is a certain appeal to being promised distraction free shopping.

But I also began to notice all the potential distractions inside the store: signs calling my attention to deals, nutrition labels, those loud shirts the staff wears, foods I did not come looking to buy.  Not to mention the distractions I brought with me for which that information might be useful.

I take the point of the sign.  If I lived nearby I might even find the promise an appealing one.  But I'm also pretty sure that it can be filed along with other inflated promises that play to my more selfish self than to my better intentions to be an engaged citizen.

Trains in CALIFORNIA

TWO THINGS TO REPORT
1 I went to the Oakland Museum of California where I enjoyed the whole historical exhibit.  I got a couple of ideas for AmCon assignments.  And I was pleased to see as part of the transcontinental railroad exhibit a copy of Gast's painting.

2 Then on Monday I took the train from Oakland nearly to LA.  Our boarding was delayed nearly an hour as three private cars were added to the train.  The trip to Van Nuys took longer than driving would have done, but did allow me to see landscapes that are not  visible from the road.  We passed through NASA land.  I saw fields and fields of strawberries, lettuce, and other veggies.  I was reminded that many people in CA live in small houses surrounded by dry yards and a few plants. 

Lost Followers????????????????????

Followers, what happened to you all?  I think that some mysterious error somehow removed you from my sidebar.  I'd love to have you back.


LATER THAT SAME DAY:  when I logged on in the AmCon faculty workshop you were all there, so perhaps the problem is with this computer.  I'm perplexed, confused, bewildered, etc., but apparently you are not lost.  American Conversation students, I hope you are well rested and well into your summer activities.  Do drop me a line: by US Postal service, by e-mail, via your blog.

Meet some familiar figures: Anne Hutchison and Anne Bradstreet

Geraldine Brooks' new novel, Caleb's Crossing, follows her previous work in taking a small historical fact as the inspiration for a work of imagination.  Like March, this book is set in North America, but in the 17th rather than the 19th century.  Despite its title the tale is told by Bethia Mayfield instead of by her friend Caleb.  The two--the daughter of a Puritan minister and the son of a Wampanoag leader--become friends as pre-teens and remain so through Caleb's tragically short life.  Brooks spins Caleb's story from the small stuff that a student by that name and origin graduated from Harvard in the 1660s. 

Bethia is entirely of her making though drawing upon historical figures including Anne Hutchinson and Anne Bradstreet who both appear in the novel.  Bethia knows, admires, and has memorized Bradsteet's poetry; indeed Bradstreet's example encourages Bethia in her desire to learn.  Bethia's grandfather quit Mass. Bay for Great Harbor (Martha's Vineyard) following Hutchinson's trial and expulsion.  Having heard that story from him, when she lives in Cambridge, Bethia contrives to read the transcript of the trial and later quotes Hutchinson to her advantage when making a case for that desire to learn.  Indeed that exchange with her father-in-law to be reveals Bethia's clear understanding of Hutchinson's position, its differences from her own views, and the practical lesson she takes from Hutchinson's fate.  (Am Con students who have written about Hutchinson will find the page or so particularly vivid.)

I found this book most like Year of Wonders in its clear focus and intimacy.  Both central stories in Caleb's Crossing are compelling: Caleb's strategic crossing from the island to the mainland, from his native culture and religion into the colonists' and Bethia's own geographic crossings and cultural struggles.  Brooks weaves these into familiar information about the colonial era.  The appearance of the two Anne's was not only a delightful surprise, but gave me a new sense of how they might have been regarded by their contemporaries.