capricorn152244 wrote:
1. The “Negro Problem” is signalled by Loewen to actually be a “White Problem” wherein the true causes of the failure of Southern Reconstruction go unexamined. In the previous chapter, we could extrapolate the theme to centre around an “Indian Problem” as well. Are there other problems we face currently that are similar thematically if not to the scale seen in chapters 4 and 5? Are we facing a “Rainbow Problem” or a “Yellow Problem” or a “Muslim Problem”? Why or why not?
Didn't Booker T. Washington himself accept the thesis of "too much, too soon" in regard to former slaves taking their places in society? He counseled avoidance of politics and, I believe, the "higher' professions, in favor of trades and small businesses. If I recall correctly, he did not even insist on blacks having the vote. It isn't unlikely that his attitude had something to do with currying favor with wealthy white benefactors of his bootstraps efforts, but he could have partly accepted white judgment of the "failures" of Reconstruction as well.
My sense is that the portion of whites who are truly racist/xenophobic are already on the bottom rung and still losing ground, not having the position of dominance to maintain that whites in the 1870s had. Well educated non-natives have been able to surpass native whites with little education. Immigration battles have dealt a blow to progress toward equality, though. I don't see anything like what obtained after the CW, but rooting out the lingering effects of 200 years of slavery and many decades of Jim Crow (as well as Northern racism), hasn't exactly been a priority lately.
2.
What are the advantages of taking a "problems approach" to US history? What about the disadvantages? Is the adoption of heuristics to teach history acceptable? When? What is the inherent problem in teaching that things don’t cause other things to happen, they just “happen” on their own?
There is nothing wrong with the problems approach if you don't omit important factors in the problem. Obviously racism was such a factor. The point Loewen hammers is that problems have causes that can be discussed, if not pinned down. Textbooks tiptoe around bruising patriotic sentiment, so they can rarely say negative things about the folks that carried the day. The losers are a different matter.
On the other hand, the "happening on their own" view of events can be okay in one sense. What happens is often a surprise to the participants, who directed their efforts toward a much different outcome. Leading students to appreciate the partly chaotic nature of history can make them less apt to fall for simple conclusions.
Do you believe the period Lowell refers to as the “nadir of race relations in the US” is part of a pendulum swing that began with the Civil War? Is that what we’re seeing now internationally - with the rise of political strong men, nationalism, and identity politics? If as many hope we enter a period of renewed global liberalism, do we face another such resurgence in the next 50-75 years? Why or why not?
To me, "pendulum swing" connotes the "things just happen" view of history. Reasons can be given for the failure of the country to remake its democracy after the CW. Did it at bottom have to do with rebound racism? The rights of blacks had never been a strong value generally for white U.S. citizens. Sure, Northeners were happy to accept help from blacks in fighting the Confederates, which emancipation helped fuel. But there was more concern for "healing the wounds of war" through non-punitive peace terms than for completing the emancipation of the former slaves.
The Henry Louis Gates program on Reconstruction goes right along with Loewen's account of the era.
Lowell discusses the US' liberal application of ethnocentric cheerleading, and cites it as a real problem in history instruction, (i.e. “America has done more for equal rights than any other country”). What other fallacies do we hear that qualify as ethnocentric cheerleading? Do you think ethnocentric cheerleading is indelibly good or bad? Why?
Well, credit can be given without going over the top or into unprovable territory, as in the quote above. So I think that encomiums to the nation are somewhat inappropriate in a text book. But go ahead and load up the books with inspiring accounts that just happen to be true, why not? Show them what a great achievement the Marshall Plan was, e.g. Just don't be afraid to bring shortcomings into the light. The kids know they must be there.