Public History

Leveling the Playing Field

2010-03-28T12:43:00.000-07:00

I watched with horror this past weekend as people who identify themselves as members of "The Tea Party" gathered in Washington to what they call protesting, which they apparently believe can be filled with hate, violence and based completely in their paranoid fiction. While they say they are upset over Health Care it did not appear that any of them knew what was in the health care bill, just that it involved the government in some capacity. Now we find out, the majority of the Tea Partiers are either unemployed collecting money from the government, retired and receiving Social Security and Medicare (whoops another government sponsored health care program) or receiving Social Security Disability or Tricare (yet another government sponsored health care program). So, what are they protesting. They don't appear to be protesting anything just advocating hate. Hate, because as the country becomes more and more diverse they fear their white privilege will come to an end.

In times past, legislation passed to make it look like it was leveling the playing field but when you read the fine print it clearly made certain that white privilege would be the law of the land. Simply look at the GI Bill after World War II. A great government program (shoot there is that nasty government again trying to help people improve their lives) that provided educational benefits, housing loans, unemployment benefits, medical care and a variety of other benefits for those who fought in World War II. A nobel effort on the part of Congress, until you dig a bit deeper. Southern Senators and Congressmen made sure there was a clause that states decided who got the benefits. So, if you are a Black man in Mississippi who faithfully served your country oversees and now have the opportunity to improve your lot in life through GI Benefits, you have to get the funds from your state officials. You are pretty much guaranteed they are not eager to give "handouts" to Black people. But let's say they do. You apply for the educational benefits, you can have them, provided you find a college or university that will accept you. There are not enough spots open in the historically Black colleges and universities to allow all the veterans to attend and the white colleges and university won't accept you, so you cannot take advantage of the benefit. Or let's say you found a house and apply for the housing loan. Unfortunately the house you want to purchase is in a neighborhood that won't sell to you because you are Black. Well, there goes the housing benefit. Was this really a bill to level the playing field? No, it was a bill to make sure white men got advantages and benefits from the government to let them enter the middle class. It exemplified the benefits of white privilege.

Now we have a health care bill that will make available affordable health insurance coverage to everyone regardless of income, age or health status. They left out the "only white" part. When the provisions fully go into effect in 2014, it means that everyone has the opportunity to get health care and not have to die from preventable diseases or conditions. They won't have to choose between food and drugs.

It is not health care upsetting the Tea Party people. God knows they will be first in line to take advantage of the benefits. It is the idea that we are a nation founded on the principles of equality. They cannot accept a nation that has grown into itself.

I would suggest to those who are so filled with hate they can't distinguish between fact and fiction, they can't listen to anyone except hate speakers such as Beck, Limbaugh, and Palin, they feel the only way they can compensate for their own short-comings is to put others down with racial and homsexual slurs, and they condone violence as a means of getting their way; that they look inside and see the enemy is them. They do not represent America and they do not represent the ideals this country was founded upon. It is time for them to get with the program, or as I was often told during the Bush years, then just leave.

History in the Schools and Texas

2010-02-13T09:10:00.000-08:00

On February 11, The New York Times reported on the activities of the Texas State Board of Education and we should all be very afraid. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?pagewanted=1 The Texas State Board of Education has an unusually powerful impact on what is taught not just in Texas but in the entire United States. A few years ago they went after the science curriculum imposing their will of intelligent design (a code name for creationism) be taught in a nationwide effort to remove the science of evolution. Now it is time for the history curriculum to fall under their axe.

Their current plan is to rewrite United States History and make the claim that the founders of our nation were devout Christians and founded the nation on biblical principles. For anyone that has even a minimal foundation in US History and a basic understanding of our founding fathers they know this is an absolute lie. Our founders were not devout Christians. In fact they were devout atheists, agnostics, or deist. They were most definitely not devout Christians much less fundamental Christians. George Washington, like many of the Masonic Order, believed there was a grand architect, Thomas Jefferson went so far as to rewrite the Bible removing any reference to God, and Benjamin Franklin believed that if a religion was good it would survive on its own principles and if not it would perish. These are not men who founded their beliefs, ideas, and visions for the new nation on Christian Biblical precepts.

Many hours of debate were spent defining the role of religion in the new experiment of the United States and the result was the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Due to the dangers our Founding Fathers knew existed in intermingling religion and state functions they made sure that it was understood there was a wall of separation between church and state. They expressly stated this in the First Amendment to the Constitution. In fact, James Madison, the writer of the Constitution stated, "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." Granted there was a faction of Christians who wanted the United States to be founded on Christians principles but they were soundly defeated by more rational voices.

There is no doubt religion played a role in the foundation of this nation, but that is exactly what it was - a role. It was not the foundation. It would be impossible to teach United States History without teaching about the religious thought that infiltrated various communities, but it would be reprehensible to teach that religion was the basis for our founding documents.

In order to understand the mentality of the Texas Board of Education, we must understand that they are questioning academic scholars on the point that separation of church and state even appears in the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, it is important to realize that the arugment is not being fought with a group of rational thinkers, but a group that has decided what they want to believe without regard to any facts.

Since we apparently have become a country of lemmings where we simply do as we are told and critical thought is an archaic activity, this turn of events will be devastating to the continuation of our government. If we do not understand the basic principles upon which our country was founded then there is no way to continue to exist as a nation which protects liberty and freedom.

I fear what is happening to this country wrapped in the cloak of doing God's work. If the Texas Board of Education succeeds in their efforts to rewrite the founding of this nation, we will lose the basic vision of what this country is about. The America I know offers hope, opportunity and the chance to be who you are and be respected for the contributions you make to the community. It is not a country that determines your worthiness by testing your belief in their definition of God.

46664

2010-02-11T17:31:00.000-08:00

If the number in the title means anything to you, you are probably over the age of 45. 46664 is the prison number of Nelson Mandela who 20 years ago today became a free man. Mandela is one of those people who rise above human imperfections and makes all of us better people. Orginally sentenced in November 1962 to five years in prison for leaving the country illegally and inciting workers to stay away from their jobs, he was later convicted, while in prison, of sabotage and sentenced to life at hard labor in apartheid South Africa.

The most illustrative example of Mandela's unique qualities is the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Upon his release, extraordinary expectations were placed upon him. He was elected President of a divided country and had to chart a path that would lead to a democracy in which the black majority and white minority could live together.

During the fight to end apartheid many atrocities were committed including torture and death. Atrocities were committed against all people, women, men, children and the elderly. No one was immune. Many people disappeared never to be seen or heard from again. Many, like Steven Biko, died while in custody. Somehow Mandela had to find a way to begin the healing process for a country that had been torn apart in the most violent ways.

In 1995, Nelson Mandela mandated the formation of Truth and Reconciliation Commissions. The purpose of the Commissions was to grant amnesty for the people of South Africa who had participated in acts of torture and murder. The individuals who testified before the Commissions had to apply for amnesty first. If the application was accepted, the individual testified in front of the Commission and the public stating the crimes they committed and taking responsibility for them. The Commissions allowed victims to have a chance to be heard and validated and the perpetrators to hear the pain they had caused. It also allowed families to discover what happened to those who had disappeared.

The Commissions have been both criticized and praised. Some have said the perpetrators of crimes did not truly take responsibility for their actions. Others have said the Truth and Reconciliation Committees prevented the country from dissolving into civil war. There are recommendations that the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions should be replicated in the Balkans, Rwanda, and other countries that have suffered unspeakable acts of horror.

Not everyone received amnesty. It was up to Commission members to determine if the actions of particular individuals were such that could be forgiven through public testimony or if they should stand trial. Not all crimes can be forgiven. Truth and Reconciliation Commissions are never recommended for perpetrators of genocide. Some crimes are too horrific to not be dealt with through the criminal courts.

The end result of the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions was it began the healing process that continues to today. While living conditions, wages, unemployment, access to clean water and sanitation is still unequal in South Africa, some progress has been made to increase the opportunities for blacks. South Africa must also address the fact that 25% of the population is infected with HIV or dealing with the diseases associated with AIDS. South Africa has been hit hard by world wide recession. Despite all the obstacles in their way they have managed to make some progress toward a more equal society.

Today is a day to celebrate. We need to celebrate the example that Mandela has provided for all of us. Of all people in the world, Mandela had every right to hate and seek revenge, but he chose the path of forgiveness.

To Mr. Mandela I say thank you. Thank you for making the world a better place.

The Filibuster

2010-02-10T17:23:00.000-08:00

The filibuster is a strategy used in the US Senate to prevent a bill coming to a vote by the floor. Thou some believe the filibuster is in the Constitution, it is not. It is enacted under Rule XXII of the Senate. It states that one or more Senators may speak on any topic for any length of time. To end a filibuster there must be a cloture vote which requires 60 votes. That is why the press would have you believe that work of the government has come to an end with the election of Sen. Brown. That is not exactly true. Senators are not obligated to vote along party lines so it would be possible to have a cloture vote even though the current Senate make-up is 59 Democrats and 41 Republicans.

One of the most famous filibusters in recent times was in response to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Since the bill had already passed the House it was not necessary for the bill to go to the Senate Judiciary Committee first. It could be introduced directly to the full Senate, an option not often used, with a vote to place it directly on the Senate calendar. The reasoning behind this manuever was to make sure the bill was not killed in committee.

The filibuster was started by Senator Richard Russell, a Democrat from Georgia, on March 9, 1964. (Remember in the 1950s and 60s, the Southern Democrat was very much a segregationist.) The opposition block, consisting of eighteen Southern Democrats and John Tower, Republican from Texas, believed that if they could block the vote long enough public support would falter and the bill could be defeated. The Southern block was hoping George Wallace would do well in the Presidential primaries showing the American public wanted to uphold segregationist policies.

Senator Russell devised a strategy in which the filibuster team would operate in six three man teams. One team would hold the floor, one speaking with the other two preparing to speak, while the other two teams rested for their turn to hold the floor. For 57 working days the filibuster group held the floor. The final speech by Senator Byrd lasted 14 hours and 13 minutes. Senator Russell followed up with some closing remarks.

Senator Dirksen, a Republican, worked behind the scene non-stop with his Democratic colleague, Senator Humphrey, to get the required number of votes for cloture. On June 10, 1964, in front of a packed Senate chamber, Senator Dirksen spoke, invoking the words of Victor Hugo, stating the Civil Rights Bill was an "idea whose time had come." The cloture vote was taken and the filibuster ended. The 1964 Civil Rights Bill passed without the full support of the Democrats in the Senate.

So, when we are told that the Democrats in the Senate have lost their ability to vote on cloture they are right. There are not 60 Democratic votes anymore but that does not mean that the two parties cannot work together and assemble enough votes for cloture and do what is right for the people instead of being held hostage by a few Senators.

Just imagine what our society would be like if Senator Dirksen had not done the right thing regardless of party lines. Perhaps our current Senate could learn a lesson from the 1964 Senate.

Campaign Finance

2010-02-08T13:45:00.000-08:00

Campaign finance has once again hit the spotlight with the recent US Supreme Court 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in which the majority of the Court decided that corporations have the same free speech rights under the First Amendment that individuals do. The result of this decision will be millions, if not billions, of additional corporate money funneled into political campaigns. It may not come directly from corporations, who might be hesitant to identify with a specific political figure or ideology, but it will be deployed through their trade associations and other avenues to the candidates they support.

This issue is not new. William McKinley's campaign manager, Mark Hanna, stated "All questions in a democracy are questions of money," while running a $16 million campaign, receiving direct contributions from corporate treasuries in exchange for a big business policy agenda.

In Theodore Roosevelt's 1905 State of the Union address, he warned of the dangers of the large corporations effect on society. "The fortunes amassed through corporate organization are now so large, and vest such power in those that wield them, as to make it a matter of necessity to give to the sovereign--that is, to the Government, which represents the people as a whole--some effective power of supervision over their corporate use. In order to insure a healthy social and industrial life, every big corporation should be held responsible by, and be accountable to, some sovereign strong enough to control its conduct." Roosevelt called for a ban on all contributions to any political committee for any political purpose. This call to arms resulted in the 1907 Tillman Act.

The Tillman Act specifically prohibited direct contributions from corporations and businesses to political parties and election committees. As with all well-intentioned laws, a work-around was quickly discovered. Corporations gave employees substantial bonuses with the understanding that the bonus would be donated to the company endorsed candidate.

Since 1907, a variety of campaign finance reforms laws have passed, requiring everything from full disclosure of where money came from to limits on how it can be spent. Corporations have formed PACs (political action committees) financed by donations to wield their political power. More recent legislation has stipulated time periods in which political ads financed by PAC's can be shown.

The historical issue has always been how to protect elections from the undue influence of wealthy, powerful corporations. The 2010 Congressional races will let us know the extent of the impact of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Welcome

2010-02-07T17:23:00.000-08:00

Welcome to Public History Commentary. You may wonder what public history is so let me provide a brief definition. Public history is the history you encounter everyday but might not realize it is history. Public history is not a march through the dead presidents or war dates but the history that is in your back yard, your community, your nation or the world. Public history is the stuff we need to look at so we don't make the same mistakes.