Obama's Historical Significance (As taught in an Af Am History class)

Tomorrow in my African American History class, I am going to teach about Obama's historical significance (and the significance of his historical point of view). I thought you might be interested in my lesson plans and my prezi. I would of course appreciate your feedback before class tomorrow.



The reading for the day is Obama's 2008 Speech on Race, sometimes titled "A More Perfect Union." After discussing the content of the speech itself, we will ask what philosophy of history Obama is constructing in this speech. One of the questions on their take-home final is "Houston Bryan Roberson argues that African Americans have a distinctive history that runs counter to U.S. History. Agree or disagree and explain why." Obama, in contrast, argues not only that African American history is definitively American history, but also that US History has been a history of upward progress--of becoming a more perfect union; "This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected." He identifies the kind of history espoused by Roberson and Jeremiah Wright as "a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America." This is an even stronger pushback to Roberson's viewpoint than our textbook's.

Our textbook, by Darlene Clark Hine et al., suggests in its epilogue that African American history is a central part of American history, but that African Americans make up a "nation within a nation." In these lines, Obama argues that African Americans need not be separated as such: "What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time" At the same time, he recognizes the distinct culture of black people, particularly as it is expressed in black churches like that led by Jeremiah Wright.

After discussing these varying interpretations of the trajectory of African American History, we will ask two questions--what has Obama's presidency meant for African Americans and has it ushered in a "post-racial America. For the first question, I am suggesting there are symbolic meanings and functional meanings. For the symbolic, I base my prezi around this image:

In the New York Times article I link to above the journalist remarks, "the photo is tangible evidence of what polls also show: Mr. Obama remains a potent symbol for blacks, with a deep reservoir of support. As skittish as White House aides often are in discussing race, they also clearly revel in the power of their boss’s example." At the same time, I think it is such a profoundly different image of a president--basically bowing to a small child, instead of being a grandiose bombastic face of American aggression.

After speaking about Obama's symbolic power, I will let Tavis Smiley and Cornel West question the tangible results of Obama's policies for African Americans through this video.

For the sake of time, I will probably stop the video after West calls Obama's presidency "disastrous."

After discussing these two different viewpoints on the meaning of Obama's presidency, I will divide the students into groups of 2 and 3 to discuss the idea of "post-racial America." One group will get Toure's ardent dismisal of any sort of ushering in of "post-racial America." The rest of the groups will get one of the pieces of this New York Times' "Room for Debate" entitled "Under Obama, is America "Post-Racial?" The debate is about Obama's lack of race-based policies, which Randall Kennedy has argued continued and increased politics of "transracial universalism."*

Any suggestions before I teach?

I'll let you know how it goes in the comments section.

*added at 1:06pm. In the review of Randall Kennedy's book I link to, he argues that Obama's speech on race was "little more than a carefully calibrated attempt to defuse the public relations crisis precipitated by the Wright affair. Far from frank, it understated the extent of the country’s racial divisions and sought to blame blacks and whites equally for them, when in fact, Kennedy writes, “black America and white America are not equally culpable. White America enslaved and Jim Crowed black America (not the other way around).” The speech was in keeping with the candidate’s wildly successful race strategy, which involved making white voters feel better about themselves whenever possible." I'm going to point this out to students during the first part of the lesson.

Teaching Hip Hop

For my African American History class, I'm trying to decide if it is better to show "Hip Hop Beyond Beats and Rhymes" by Byron Hurt, which interrogates the idea of masculinity being portrayed in hip hop music (from a black man's perspective) or "Dave Chappelle's Block Party," which is much more about black culture and the enjoyment of hip hop (but the musicians are more conscious artists than gangsta rappers). Chappelle goes back to his small Ohio home town and talks to white folks about coming to his block party in Brooklyn in a way that is both poignant and shows some of the cultural differences between rural whites and urban blacks--and it's funny.



I'm leaning towards Chappelle. As my ethnomusicologist friend just noted--students can identify the misogyny in Hip Hop pretty well on their own. Although Hurt does do a nice job of connecting hip hop's masculinity with the American masculinity of Westerns and other popular culture that make heroes out of violent men. But I think it would  be better to show something that illustrates hip hop culture in a broader way, which recognizes its strengths as well.

We will also be discussing black conservatives through Ta-Nehisi Coates' exploration of Bill Cosby's speaking tours, "This is How We Lost to the White Man." I'm wishing I had done more black power in this class. Black conservatism and black power have a relationship, but they are not the same thing. I will modify my syllabus in the future to spend more time on black nationalism and black power.

Added 9:50am CST: These are the questions I will have the students answer during the film.

1. What aspects of American life does Chappelle share during his Block Party movie? What does it mean to be black to him (there can be many answers—think creatively)?
2. In Chappelle’s film, what are the possible meanings of the “n-word?”
3. Thinking about Ta-Nehisi Coate’s article on black conservatives and Bill Cosby, do you think Chappelle is a racial liberal or conservative? Why?

Student creativity when I need to grade their fulfillment of the expectations

I am not a teacher to automatically stifle creativity in order to get all my students to think my way. But I have a student this semester who wants to challenge every assignment and I'm not sure how to deal with them. I think part of the problem is that this is a senior in a 100 level class.Their first paper was an ahistorical metaphor and now their second paper outline wants to primarily use outside sources, when the assignment was to deal with the material presented in class (i.e. not do a research project, which this department doesn't assign to 100 level classes).

How do you assess the line between creativity and fulfillment of the assignment? Is fulfillment a baseline, on which creativity is built, or should creativity be honored no matter what form it comes in? Where is the line between requiring the same expectations of every student and responding to the particular needs of individual students? We say we want students who are concerned more with the learning than with the grade, but what does that actually look like? Will they take such responsibility for their learning that it becomes something other than what you intended for the course (because it is what they want to learn)? How do you provide flexibility while maintaining the cohesion of the course? How do you grade someone who is so far off the grading rubric?

Exams or Reading responses?

A couple of semesters ago I taught a methods course, with the end goal a massive research paper. I used reading responses in that class rather than exams. I became enamored of the reading response. It seemed like they were engaging the materials in a more nuanced way than if I just expected them to read for class, without any kind of evaluation.



Now that I've employed reading responses for a couple of semesters, I am rethinking them for next semester, in two diametrically opposed ways. I don't like how students can fixate on a small section of the text and then it is totally unclear whether or not they read the whole text or just opened the book and read one page and wrote about that. Or else, the good students, to avoid this problem, end up writing many pages of text, which is not really the point either. I also worry that I am not giving sufficient amount of feedback on their responses. That said, I do think it is easier to deal with ideas and larger issues in writing than in multiple-choice tests. (I am teaching a 300 level history course and a 100 level course next semester). So here are my ideas:

1. There is George Gopen's idea in his article "Why So Many Bright Students and So Many Dull Papers?" where students write two page reading responses and then write one page responses to each other. I read the material, but do not grade it other than keeping track that they did it. Their reading journals are a big chunk of their end grade, but they only get that end grade. They can come in and talk to me if they are concerned about where their grade is headed, but otherwise I don't give any feedback. All of their feedback comes from their peers. This means they get real feedback every week, even when I am swamped and can't provide much more than a "good" or "this needs work." It also means they have a real audience and their ideas have consequences.

I am intrigued by this idea (mostly for my 300 level class), but there are a few things I am concerned about:

• Students will not call each other on problematic statements b/c they are all at the same basic level of development. For example, when a student came into class last week and said something along the lines of "Du Bois converted to communism, and communism is bad, so is Du Bois a bad guy?" most people agreed with the underlying assumption, with only one lone voice suggesting that maybe we shouldn't automatically dismiss communism in that fashion. 
• Students will be overwhelmed by the amount of writing required.
• Students have a research paper due at the end of the semester, and I was planning to have some of the weekly assignments be proposals, outlines, annotated bibliographies, etc. That means that the fundamental work of getting students to read won't be there. And they probably need my feedback on those assignments in order to prepare their papers. 

2. The other option I'm playing with is to dump reading responses and do surprise reading quizzes once a week or so. We give out common multiple choice quizzes in Paideia and the grades are all over the place. But it is a pretty clear evaluation of if students have comprehended the material. Or they could be short answer/id questions. But this gets back to my time in evaluating and responding.

Thoughts? How do you evaluate whether students do the reading? Is vibrant discussion (and/or socratic questioning) enough?

Do you do midterm/final/paper in 300 level classes? Or analytical papers/midterm/final in 100 level classes? Or analytical papers/reading responses/final?

Tim's Light Reading (9-15-2011)

1. Rocky Balboa and America's Mid-1970s Identity Crisis

Ted McAllister reflects on Rocky as a film having more meaning than we might otherwise attribute to it. Here's a part of McAllister's conclusion:

Audiences could identify with the film as it at once gave expression to the frustrations and the ideals of many Americans—it pointed to what had gone wrong with the nation even as it pointed toward the ideals Americans invested in their nation. In 1976 many people yearned for a renewed sense of pride in the United States even as they had come to distrust their government and the many elites who, they believed, had brought it to ruin. In the coming years many Americans looked for leaders who understood their point of view, who could take America out of the hands of various elites, and who could project an image of a strong and prosperous America. This new populism made possible a political realignment that sundered the New Deal coalition that had dominated American politics since 1936.

As you can see from the last line, a large part of McAllister's essay deals with the 1970s conservative populism. He also relates the film to the American Bicentennial celebration.

2. The Meaning of Wal-Mart

An old colleague from my days at Loyola Chicago, Mark Long (now a history instructor at the University of Central Florida), reminded me of this excellent piece, appearing in 2004 in The New York Review of Books, on Wal-Mart's place in the history of labor and business. After reading the review, authored by Simon Head, I was struck by how it captured---nay captures---a large slice of the meaning of Wal-Mart to our society. Sure, the article is mostly negative, ignoring the company's ability to bring us "goods" at low prices. But that's my experience and memory of the company.

3. A History of Historians in the Public Sphere

This might deserve a post unto itself, but here is an essay by Thomas Bender on historians' past presence, and role, in the public sphere.

4. Long-form Reading, Students, and Teaching

I've been pondering, in a low-level way over the past few weeks, Alan Jacobs' take on the decline of "long-form reading" among students. While thinking about Jacobs I ran across this reply. Lee Konstantinou fairly characterizes, I think, Jacobs argument, and offers a reasoned appeal for action rather than the fatalistic sense of inaction---of abandonment---at which Jacobs arrives. I think Jacobs is trying as much to understand his own loss and renewed enthusiasm for long-form reading (from "deep attention" to "hyper-attention" and back again, through a Kindle of all things!) as his students' issues, but Konstantinou still generally gets Jacobs right. Here's a provocative slice from Jacobs' piece (bolds mine):

Over the past 150 years, it has become increasingly difficult to extricate reading from academic expectations; but I believe that such extrication is necessary. Education is and should be primarily about intellectual navigation, about—I scruple not to say it—skimming well, and reading carefully for information in order to upload content. Slow and patient reading, by contrast, properly belongs to our leisure hours.

Yes, I know that the word "school" derives from scholia, meaning leisure. I have tried that one on my students, with no more success than anyone else who has ever tried that one on students. When we say that education is a leisure activity, we simply mean that you can only pursue education if you are temporarily freed from the responsibility of providing yourself with food and shelter. Maybe this freedom comes from your parents; maybe it comes from loans that you're going to devote a good many years to repaying. But somebody is buying you time to read, think, and study. This is not just a legitimate but a vital point, one that every student really should remember. But it can only be misleading and frustrating—trust me, I've learned from experience—to call this leisure, because leisure for us has come to mean "what we do in our spare time simply because we want to." From this kind of leisurely encounter, education, however wonderful, must be distinguished.

5. Herbert Butterfield

Some professional historians may know Butterfield's name because of the term "Whig history"---the fallacious tendency of nineteenth-century historians (and some today) to see all history, and political history in particular, as progressing to some particular present point (i.e. as having a teleology). However, this review of Michael Bentley's The Life and Thought of Herbert Butterfield (Cambridge University Press, 2011) reveals the latter as a much more intriguing character than one might suspect. Butterfield did publish other works (not as much as he wanted), but also caused a scandal due to a love affair. - TL

What is History?

I mentioned a few weeks ago that a professor of mine, Matthew Whitaker, always started each course with the question "What is history?" I've continued that tradition in several of my classes. The trick is to take what students give and spin it out to something more complicated. I'm also trying to decide if I should assign The Historian's Paradox by Peter Charles Hoffer or use it to inform my own answers (I find the choice between what I assign and what I personally read a difficult one. I want students to read everything, when in fact I need to assign only the most compelling and most important).

What students might answer:
*The past
*Writing the past
*People who don't know the past are doomed to repeat it.

Some things I might raise:


*Situating a person/place/thing/event in time and space.
*The science of context (what would be the humanities corollary for those who consider history more of a humanity than a social science?)
*History doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme. (Mark Twain)
*As Varad mentioned in a comment--the past only exists in the present.
*Impossible and necessary. (Peter Charles Hopper)
*As Varad mentioned in his guest post--“The compulsion to coordinate past and future so as to be able to live at all is inherent in any human being.”  Reinhart Koselleck

I think it's important for students to understand the relationship between the past and the present, as well as the way that history writing contextualizes events.

Also, particularly important for the methods class I am teaching in the fall, students need to understand that history is constructed, but that does not mean it is purely relative. Rather, it is based on something "real" that is established through documents and accounts and then written down only through many choices about what to include and exclude.

An assignment I might do the first class to push students to think through the construction of history: I have a student in my seminar who is studying abroad in South Africa this summer. I helped to plan the internship that he is on as part of my postdoc. I was thinking about asking the class to work in groups to briefly reconstruct his trip--what types of sources would they search for? What kinds of questions would they ask? Would it be best to tell it from his perspective? What other perspectives could be taken? There are a lot of online sources, plus one group could interview him during class. Part of the point will be to see how each group emphasizes different elements of his trip based on the sources they found. It will also be a good way to assess where their research skills are at the beginning of the course.

Anything to add to my list of how to explain what history is the first day of a new class?

*Picture from here

What is History?

I mentioned a few weeks ago that a professor of mine, Matthew Whitaker, always started each course with the question "What is history?" I've continued that tradition in several of my classes. The trick is to take what students give and spin it out to something more complicated. I'm also trying to decide if I should assign The Historian's Paradox by Peter Charles Hoffer or use it to inform my own answers (I find the choice between what I assign and what I personally read a difficult one. I want students to read everything, when in fact I need to assign only the most compelling and most important).

What students might answer:
*The past
*Writing the past
*People who don't know the past are doomed to repeat it.

Some things I might raise:


*Situating a person/place/thing/event in time and space.
*The science of context (what would be the humanities corollary for those who consider history more of a humanity than a social science?)
*History doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme. (Mark Twain)
*As Varad mentioned in a comment--the past only exists in the present.
*Impossible and necessary. (Peter Charles Hopper)
*As Varad mentioned in his guest post--“The compulsion to coordinate past and future so as to be able to live at all is inherent in any human being.”  Reinhart Koselleck

I think it's important for students to understand the relationship between the past and the present, as well as the way that history writing contextualizes events.

Also, particularly important for the methods class I am teaching in the fall, students need to understand that history is constructed, but that does not mean it is purely relative. Rather, it is based on something "real" that is established through documents and accounts and then written down only through many choices about what to include and exclude.

An assignment I might do the first class to push students to think through the construction of history: I have a student in my seminar who is studying abroad in South Africa this summer. I helped to plan the internship that he is on as part of my postdoc. I was thinking about asking the class to work in groups to briefly reconstruct his trip--what types of sources would they search for? What kinds of questions would they ask? Would it be best to tell it from his perspective? What other perspectives could be taken? There are a lot of online sources, plus one group could interview him during class. Part of the point will be to see how each group emphasizes different elements of his trip based on the sources they found. It will also be a good way to assess where their research skills are at the beginning of the course.

Anything to add to my list of how to explain what history is the first day of a new class?

*Picture from here

Off-Topic Methodology Bleg: Teaching History Backwards

For about a month I have been pondering a radical revision to the way I teach U.S. survey courses. After witnessing students becoming more interested in the subject matter as we move closer and closer to the present, I have been wondering about getting this material to them earlier. For awhile I thought about a substantial introductory teaser unit. Perhaps by showing a solid documentary (e.g. *The Weather Underground* or *Fog of War*) and working over material from the 1960s to the present, for a few weeks, I might get them sufficiently excited to understand the virtue of working from the distant past to recent times. But I'm not happy about the potential for an abrupt content change in moving from the 1990s to, say, the 1890s. This has led me to think about conducting an entire twentieth-century survey, next year, in reverse chronological order. Yes, I may teach a survey backwards.

There are two reasons for this. First, something internal and theoretical. I am intensely interested in the notion of an "archaeology of the present." To me, this is real, relevant (I see you wincing), and a radical change from the way most history is taught. It's fun to work from the news backwards.

My second reason for considering a reverse-chronological presentation is external. For students, meaning first-years and uninterested upperclass folks, I am convinced that the best way to show the 'relevance' (again, that dreaded word---for some) of history is to demonstrate that remnants of the past exist in everyday life. When I say everyday I mean materially and intellectually. I really do think that tracing ideas and topics backwards will give students a firm, personal, and empirical anchor for thinking about the past. I believe, or hope (depending on my mood), that this will excite those not previously enthused. Perhaps this is where I'm riding the line of gimmickry. My feeling is that this approach gives the students an anchor in things they know---never a bad idea when trying to stimulate skeptics. Anecdotally, I asked students in one of my upper-division courses for their reaction to this idea. Around 90 percent thought it could work, though one said she had a high school teacher who tried this and failed miserably.

Methodologically, I am aware of the pros (and here) and cons (and here). By following the links, particularly number two of my 'pros', you'll see that what I am proposing is not new; the idea dates to around 1971, and probably earlier. As for the cons, of course I don't believe I will get fired for this---or else I would not consider the change. Fears of traditionalists history professors and methodologically conservative skeptics also won't dissuade me.

I understand, however, the fears of presentism. In the study by Misco and Paterson, titled " An Old Fad of Great Promise: Reverse Chronology History Teaching in Social Studies Classes" (again, link #2 in the pros above), I think that some of their proposals border on the fallacy of presentism. You can't simply study history in its full breadth and contextual uncertainty by working backwards from the interests of students. I think the draw in teaching history backwards is viewing causation as something of a mystery, as an inductive process, which linear (i.e. textbookish) presentations avoid---to their detriment.

If I don't do this, it will be because I decide either (a) it won't work or (b) I don't have the time, this coming year, to institute the change with the necessary energy. I suspect (b) will rule my decision, but am curious to hear from others who have either done this or thought about it.

So here are my questions for USIH folks: How will this fail? What are the philosophical problems with teaching history inductively? What are the methodological issues? What am I downplaying or not considering? - TL

Off-Topic Methodology Bleg: Teaching History Backwards

For about a month I have been pondering a radical revision to the way I teach U.S. survey courses. After witnessing students becoming more interested in the subject matter as we move closer and closer to the present, I have been wondering about getting this material to them earlier. For awhile I thought about a substantial introductory teaser unit. Perhaps by showing a solid documentary (e.g. *The Weather Underground* or *Fog of War*) and working over material from the 1960s to the present, for a few weeks, I might get them sufficiently excited to understand the virtue of working from the distant past to recent times. But I'm not happy about the potential for an abrupt content change in moving from the 1990s to, say, the 1890s. This has led me to think about conducting an entire twentieth-century survey, next year, in reverse chronological order. Yes, I may teach a survey backwards.

There are two reasons for this. First, something internal and theoretical. I am intensely interested in the notion of an "archaeology of the present." To me, this is real, relevant (I see you wincing), and a radical change from the way most history is taught. It's fun to work from the news backwards.

My second reason for considering a reverse-chronological presentation is external. For students, meaning first-years and uninterested upperclass folks, I am convinced that the best way to show the 'relevance' (again, that dreaded word---for some) of history is to demonstrate that remnants of the past exist in everyday life. When I say everyday I mean materially and intellectually. I really do think that tracing ideas and topics backwards will give students a firm, personal, and empirical anchor for thinking about the past. I believe, or hope (depending on my mood), that this will excite those not previously enthused. Perhaps this is where I'm riding the line of gimmickry. My feeling is that this approach gives the students an anchor in things they know---never a bad idea when trying to stimulate skeptics. Anecdotally, I asked students in one of my upper-division courses for their reaction to this idea. Around 90 percent thought it could work, though one said she had a high school teacher who tried this and failed miserably.

Methodologically, I am aware of the pros (and here) and cons (and here). By following the links, particularly number two of my 'pros', you'll see that what I am proposing is not new; the idea dates to around 1971, and probably earlier. As for the cons, of course I don't believe I will get fired for this---or else I would not consider the change. Fears of traditionalists history professors and methodologically conservative skeptics also won't dissuade me.

I understand, however, the fears of presentism. In the study by Misco and Paterson, titled " An Old Fad of Great Promise: Reverse Chronology History Teaching in Social Studies Classes" (again, link #2 in the pros above), I think that some of their proposals border on the fallacy of presentism. You can't simply study history in its full breadth and contextual uncertainty by working backwards from the interests of students. I think the draw in teaching history backwards is viewing causation as something of a mystery, as an inductive process, which linear (i.e. textbookish) presentations avoid---to their detriment.

If I don't do this, it will be because I decide either (a) it won't work or (b) I don't have the time, this coming year, to institute the change with the necessary energy. I suspect (b) will rule my decision, but am curious to hear from others who have either done this or thought about it.

So here are my questions for USIH folks: How will this fail? What are the philosophical problems with teaching history inductively? What are the methodological issues? What am I downplaying or not considering? - TL