Category Archives: Social Studies

Historians Against the War: Links to Recent Articles of Interest

Historians Against the War: Links to Recent Articles of Interest

“Serial Catastrophes in Afghanistan Threaten Obama Policy”
By Juan Cole, Informed Comment web site, posted January 4

The $30bn Pair of Underpants
By Mark LeVine, Aljazeera.net, posted January 4

“Obama’s Post-Modern War of Attrition”
By Andrew Bacevich, CounterPunch, January 1-3 edition, originally published in New York Daily News

“Catcher’s Mitt: Obama, Pakistan and the Afghan Wars to Come”
By Graham Usher, Middle East Report Online, posted December 31

“The Moment That Changed Afghanistan”
By Stephen Kinzer, The Guardian, posted December 28

“The Revolution Will Be Mercantilized”
By Ali Ansari, The National Interest online, Posted December 21
on the Revolutionary Guard in Iran; the author teaches history at St. Andrews University

“The Best Argument for the Afghan War – and What’s Wrong with It”
By Jon Wiener, The Nation blog, posted December 17

“Obama’s Indecent Interval: Despite the U.S. President’s Pleas to the Contrary, the War in Afghanistan Looks More Like Vietnam than Ever”
By Thomas H. Johnson and M. Chris Mason, Foreign Policy, December 10

“Was Kosovo the Good War?”
By David Gibbs, Tikkun, July-August 2009
The author teaches history and government at the University of Arizona

HAW recommended articles: Afghanistan looks like another Vietnam

“New War Order: How Panama Set the Course for Post-Cold War Foreign Policy”
By Ted Galen Carpenter, American Conservative, February 1, 2010 issue

“In War, Winners Can Be Losers”
By Lawrence S. Wittner, History News Network, posted December 21

“Grinding Down the U.S. Army”
By William Astore, TomDispatch.com, posted December 15
The author is a retired Air Force colonel who now teaches history at the Pennsylvania College of Technology

“With Obama’s Strategy, Afghanistan Looks Like Another Vietnam”
By George McGovern, Washington Post, posted December 13

“Beware Presidents’ Use of History”
By John Prados, Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations, posted December 8

“Afghanistan: Mirage of the Good War”
By Tariq Ali, New Left Review, March-April 2008
This breaks our rules of only recent articles, but one of us ran across this article recently and found that it provides valuable background to today’s events.

Historians Against the War statements on Military Resistance and Escalation in Afghanistan

The HAW Steering Committee has voted to adopt the following two statements related to the war in Afghanistan.

Statement on military resistance:

This statement was submitted by Staughton Lynd and approved by the HAW Steering Committee. Correspondence on it should be sent to another member of the Steering Committee.

Historians Against the War supports soldiers in the United States military who refuse to fight in Afghanistan, either as conscientious objectors or on the grounds that the United States is committing war crimes forbidden by Nuremburg and the Army Field Manual, such as the use of drone aircraft in Pakistan.

Statement on Escalation in Afghanistan:

This statement originated in a draft suggested by Herbert Shapiro, emeritus history professor at the University of Cincinnati. It was amended somewhat in discussions within the Steering Committee and adopted.

Historians Against War (HAW) expresses its opposition to the escalation of the Afghanistan War announced by President Obama in his December 1 speech at West Point. Once again we are told the United States must increase its commitment of human and material resources in support of a government, steeped in corruption, that fails to demonstrate support of a majority of its country’s population.

In his speech, President Obama took issue with any claim that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. The two conflicts are not carbon copies of each other but there are distinct similarities. And if we go on with the Afghan War it may be that we have not fully learned the lessons of Vietnam.

The Vietnamese would not yield to a counter-insurgency that believed sending increasing numbers of troops, dropping more and more napalm upon them, and flying more bombing runs was a formula for victory. They would not yield to a strategy that could not distinguish between soldiers and civilians and pretended that a discredited Saigon regime had the support of the people over whom it ruled.

In Afghanistan we once more follow the path of escalation, inflicting “collateral” damage on a civilian population and propping up a corrupt government. In the present war we once more adopt a “guns not butter” policy, making war while undermining our ability to devote the resources needed to make the economic reforms so urgently needed at home.

Afghanistan’s own recent history provides further reason for opposing the Obama administration’s current course of action. The Soviet experience of the late 1970s and early 1980s dramatically reinforced Afghanistan’s role as the “graveyard of empires.” At the same time, U.S. intervention in the form of aid to the most reactionary anti-Soviet forces helped lay the groundwork for the emergence of al-Qaeda.

HAW urges a change in direction. We need an Afghanistan policy that includes a full, early, and orderly withdrawal of U.S. military forces, economic assistance to Afghani civil society, and a relinquishment of any project for permanent U.S. bases.

Rouge Forum News #15

Screen shot 2009-12-15 at 5.02.04 PM

The latest issue of the Rouge Forum News is available here as a pdf.

Adam Renner, editor of the Rouge Forum News, previews the issue below:

FROM THE EDITOR

In its more than decade of existence, the Rouge Forum has attempted to contribute to the conversation on social justice within national organizations, in union halls, in K-12 schools, in colleges/universities, at work places, and in community organizations. It has attempted to bring a reasoned analysis to contemporary issues using an historical lens, a sense of the total, and, often, pedagogical strategies. It has produced an appreciable amount of scholarship among its members—sometimes award winning scholarship—and has among its membership winners of academic freedom awards.

Undoubtedly, the Rouge Forum has become a relevant voice for social justice, particularly related to education. We hope to amplify that voice and continue to develop its relevance in the days to come. Recent events, tethered to their historical predecessors, indicate there is little time to dither.

One of the best things about the Rouge Forum, particularly those who have been able to take part in conferences and joint actions, is the sense of community. My partner and I remarked a few years ago at the conference in Detroit that we felt like we were home. We were among comrades who, while we didn’t agree on everything, seemed to have a congruent idea that things need to change and a relatively common idea of what that might look like. We could at least outline the picture.

Times together, such as these, assure us we are not crazy—that another world is not only necessary, but possible. Our work is continuing to figure out how we support one another, how we can have a voice in our particular locations, and how we craft and apply a vision of what is more just, more human, and right. Community. Voice. Vision. Connect reason to power, as Rich would say. Go.

And in that go-ing, we need sustenance for the journey—sustenance in the form of community and consciousness (ever-deepening, ever-evolving), but also hope. The hope I/we suggest is not naïve hope. It is hope grounded in struggle, connected to others. It is hope that is participatory. It becomes the essence of who we are. It is a politics of prefiguration that suggests if we want democracy and we want justice, then our actions, to the extent possible, will need to bear these out. It is to understand the journey/struggle not as precise, but as punctuations of imperfections, of hypocrisies that bring us back to the start, such that we can begin again.

This idea of the politics of prefiguration is espoused by a thoughtful theorist on hope: Rebecca Solnit. Her text, Hope in the Dark, pushed me to find hope in the struggle—in fact, catapulting me into that struggle. Solnit has enlivened that sense again in her recent essay in TomDispatch entitled Learning how to Count to 350. Re-citing a history of action in the streets and reasons to hope (in the face of all the reasons to despair), Solnit suggests, “To survive the coming era, we need to re-imagine what constitutes wealth and well-being and what constitutes poverty.” Considering the dismal performance of communism in the 20th century (often more totalitarian and capitalist than liberatory) and the fact that global capitalism was brought to its knees last year, she suggests we’ve got work to do to (re)imagine the world.

And, we—that is, people of conscience—must occupy that void. Else, something else will. The steel-toed rhythm can be heard goose-stepping just inside the ear’s horizon. I submit we’ll need to step into that space sooner than later.

I’ll see you at the barricades.

We’ll have to resist what is more than likely coming next—find a voice, speak truth to power, take to the streets, take over a building. Escalate. Extending Rich’s metaphor from earlier work, we lambs look good to the wolves who regroup in the penthouses of their nearby woods (whose fuel is nearly spent) and in the corporate board rooms overlooking ever-drying creeks (more parts pollution than potable). They’re finished buying what we have, as how much more cheaply can our labor power be had? Now, they plan to just take it.

And, they will use a god to convince you they are right. They will call on him, attempting to scheme us into doing the same (a little deposit of flesh now, and your children’s flesh, for an eternity of made-up bed time stories, “Now I Iay me down to sleep….”).

I’ll keep my soul, whatever is left of it, thank you very much.

I’m looking, instead, for what Solnit calls a moment of creation—moments for which democracy, social justice, creativity, freedom, take one step forward.

Solnit is good at flipping the script, looking at the underside of the paper and seeing the scribbling of possibility. What she submits is an alternative read to the corporate media prophets (or is that profits?). We would do well to listen. Hers is not a naïve re-rendering or postmodern apologetics. My take is that Solnit’s proposition is grounded in the real. The alteration takes into account the work that is being done, often diminished by our popular discourse and corporate media. This alternative understanding helps us realize that others are struggling, voices are shouting, a history of resistance leads us to this moment of possibility.

Revolutionary praxis remains our guide: the simultaneity and dialectic of self change and the changing of society.

We should understand what it’s going to take for that moment of creation. Those moments: when we realize the politics of divide and conquer have gotten the best of us (color/class/gender/sexuality-coded inequalities); when we realize that we that we are killing others (bought and paid for bombs with our signature on them), killing babies, mothers, difference with our own babies barely able to know differently in capital’s schools (the militarization of schools); when we realize that our knowledge has been regulated by corporate interests to keep us docile and ignorant (high-stakes testing) in order to prepare us for jobs we will more than likely hate (alienation) so we will seek pleasure in (fetishize) commodities, that is, things, and our social relations will be mediated by reality TV and video games.

Try Wendell Berry’s recent poem on for size at your upcoming holiday celebration to bring the above into sharp relief. You may not be invited back (which may or may not be a bad thing…)

When we recognize these issues as material reality, a moment will emerge. A moment (consciousness grounded in the real) that must lead to another moment (courage to change) in which we will need to figure out how to live differently (protest, resistance, occupation, freedom schools, sustainable living, new solidarities). Moments in which we own our labor power: the free development of each creates the conditions for the free development of all, since we will all recognize our interdependence and the strength of our difference.

More than likely, these moments will blur–because the barricades will not only be in the streets, but they will be in our work places, in our schools, in our churches, in our homes, in our community centers. Consciousness will merge with courage will merge with consciousness will merge with a more materialist understanding of reality, which will lead to how we can re-imagine wealth, well-being and poverty in the coming era.

We must. The wolves are hungry.

But, the lambs are plentiful. And, we will realize that we far outnumber the wolves when conscious because we will see and do differently.

When we see differently, we won’t be divided so easily. When we see differently, we won’t abide by mystical explanations of injustice; we will see it for what it is. When we see differently, we’ll stop looking at the deadness of the center and instead explore the possibility at the periphery. When we see differently we won’t believe the mythology of national holidays intended to white-wash history and to, more importantly, mark the beginning of a new holiday season of debt and guilt built by the capitalists. Just look on the rez. How did Thanksgiving work out for those who welcomed the newcomers? Can we call it what it is, please: a celebration of genocide. And, we are still killing them (see the December, 2009, Harper’s Magazine article about life on the modern reservation). Christmas could use an RF News issue all its own…

When we see differently, we will note the possibility of solidarity born in moments of creation where we understand richness as fullness (of life and community), in the bread broken amidst laughter AND tears, in the totality discovered, in one more sunrise.

The Rouge Forum seeks this fullness.

Struggle. We must. Eyes open. Spirit fully engaged. Hands ready for the work.

See you at the barricades…

…On the way to the barricades, might I recommend a choral reading of this quarter’s Rouge Forum News? Our 15th issue has another exciting line-up of essays, which are broken up by other provocative reading: poems by Gina Stiens and Colin Ross, Rouge Forum broadsides, an editorial from Paul Moore, and art from Bryan Reinholdt. I’d recommend making posters of it. And T-shirts.

We have two featured essays in this issue, one from Wayne Ross, which takes up the issue of patriotism, the other, a timely piece from Mary Barrett, Maria Hornung, Amber Kelly, and Katy Sutton, which looks at the possibility of medicine as a human right.
In our section on war and militarism, Travis Barrett reports on three aspects of institutionalized oppression, and what we might do about it, and Matt Archibald analyzes zero-tolerance, neoliberal ideology, and the growing militarism of our society.

In our schooling and curriculum section, Rich Gibson sets us straight on the way to analyze/critique the current takeover of US schooling by the elite; Nancye McCrary, Doug Selwyn, and I chronicle various approaches we’ve taken at our universities to promote democracy; and Delana Hill applies Paulo Freire and dialogical action directly to her classroom.

As always, we look forward to your feedback, either directly (arenner@bellarmine.edu) or at our blog: www.therougeforum.blogspot.com.

Adam Renner
Louisville, KY

Racial Gaps in Bowl Teams’ Academic Performance

The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida reports that large racial gaps remain in the academic performance of football players who will appear in bowl games this year. Among the findings on 67 teams (with one still to be determined):

  • 57 colleges (up from 56 in 2008‐9) or 85 percent had graduation success rates of 66 percent or higher for white football players, which was more than 2.8 times the number of colleges with equivalent rates for African‐American football athletes.
  • 21 colleges (up from 19 in 2008‐9) or 31 percent graduated less than 50 percent of their African‐American football athletes, while only two colleges graduated less than 50 percent of their white players.
  • Seven colleges (up from five in 2008‐9) or 10 percent graduated less than 40 percent of their African‐American football student‐athletes, while no college graduated less than 40 percent of their white football players.
  • 14 schools (up from 12 schools in 2008‐09) or 21 percent had graduation success rates for African‐American football student‐athletes that were at least 30 percent lower than their rates for white football student‐athletes.
  • 35 schools (up from 29 schools in 2008‐09) or 52 percent had graduation success rates for African‐American football student‐athletes that were at least 20 percent lower than their rates for white football student‐athletes.

Four schools had graduation success rates for African‐American football student‐athletes that exceeded their rates for white football student‐athletes: Connecticut (five percent higher), Troy (seven percent higher), Southern Miss (eight percent higher), and Rutgers (four percent higher). That was down from five schools in the 2008‐09 study.

Only Texas Tech and Troy had overall graduation success rates for football players that were better than the overall student‐athletes’ GSR. Only Cincinnati and Connecticut had equivalent graduation success rates between the football players and overall student‐athletes.

TIDES Director Richard Lapchick highlighted that, “If there were a national championship based on graduation success rates among bowl teams, Navy and Northwestern would have played for the National Championship. Both teams graduated at least 92 percent of all football student‐athletes and at least 83 percent of African‐American football student‐athletes. If there were a national championship based on APR [NCAA’s Academic Progress Rate] scores, Stanford and Air Force would battle each other with APR scores of 984 and 983, respectively.”

Why liberals kill and other links to articles recommended by Historians Against the War

Links to Recent Articles of Interest

“Obama’s Folly”
By Andrew Bacevich, War in Context website, from the Los Angeles Times, December 3

“The President Has Drawn the Wrong Lessons From His Understanding of the History of War”
Interview with Andrew Bacevich on Democracy Now, posted December 2

“Obama’s Surge: Has the President Been Misled by the Iraq Analogy?
By Juan Cole, Salon.com. posted December 1
A detailed analysis of circumstances that gave the Iraq “surge” the appearance of success, and of how circumstances in Afghanistan are different.

“Afghanistan: The Roach Motel of Empires”
By Zoltan Grossman, AfterDowningStreet.com, posted December 2

“Afghanistan Fact Sheet: The Numbers Behind the Troop Increase”
By the National Priorities Project, posted December 1

“A Better Way to Kill? Human Terrain Systems, Anthropologists and the War in Afghanistan”
By David Price, CounterPunch.org, posted December 1

“It’s Obama’s War Now”
By Gary Leupp, CounterPunch.org, posted November 30
The author teaches history at Tufts University; despite its title, the article is mainly historical.

“The Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan Through CIA Eyes: Lessons for the United States Today”
By Bennett Ramberg, Huffington Post, posted November 24

Bill Moyers’ Journal, November 20 – on escalation in Vietnam
Public Broadcasting System, November 20
On Lyndon Johnson’s decision making on Vietnam in the mid-1960s, using excerpts from President Johnson’s taped phone conversations with top advisors. The video of this program can be accessed here.

“Why Liberals Kill”
By Thad Russell, The Daily Beast, posted October 17
a broad-brush analysis of the liberal foreign policy tradition from a libertarian conservative perspective

Suggestions for inclusion in these lists are welcome: they can be sent to jimobrien48@gmail.com. Members of the working group for this project are Matt Bokovoy, Carolyn (Rusti) Eisenberg, Jim O’Brien, Maia Ramnath, and Sarah Shields

Lastest article links from Historians Against the War

Links to Recent Articles of Interest from HAW.

“History Promises Disaster in Afghanistan for Blind America”
By John R. MacArthur, Providence Journal, posted November 18
(by the publisher of Harper’s Magazine)

“Washington’s Welcome Indecision”
By Mahir Ali, Znet, posted November 18

“Who’s Afraid of World Government?”
By Lawrence Wittner, History News Network, posted November 16
(The author teaches history at SUNY Albany,)

“Haunted by Gorbachev’s Ghost”
By James Fergusson, truthdig.org, posted November 15 (from The Independent)
(on parallels with the Soviet experience in Afghanistan)

“Obama, Learn the Lessons of Vietnam – from JFK, not LBJ”
By Larry Berman and Edward Miller, New York Daily News, posted November 13
(Miller teaches history at Dartmouth College)

“Why the Afghan Surge Will Fail”
By Conn Hallinan, Foreign Policy in Focus, posted November 12

“The Fifty-Year War”
By Jonathan Schell, The Nation (November 30 issue), posted November 11
(on domestic politics as the link between US decision-making in Vietnam and Afghanistan)

“Cold War Without End: America Never Had a Post-Communist Revolution”
By David Brown, Antiwar.com, posted November 10

“Drone Race to a Known Future: Why Military Dreams Fail – and Why It Doesn’t Matter”
By Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch.com, posted November 10

“Sen. George McGovern on the Presidency from Lincoln to Obama”
Interviewed by Robert Scheer, Truthdig.com, posted November 6

Suggestions for inclusion in these lists are welcome: they can be sent to jimobrien48@gmail.com. Members of the working group for this project are Matt Bokovoy, Carolyn (Rusti) Eisenberg, Jim O’Brien, Maia Ramnath, Sarah Shields

Call for manuscripts: The Lure of the Animal: Addressing Nonhuman Animals in Educational Theory and Research

Call for Manuscripts: Special Section of Critical Education

The Lure of the Animal: Addressing Nonhuman Animals in Educational Theory and Research

Special Section Guest Editor:
Abraham P. DeLeon
University of Texas at San Antonio

Critical Education is seeking manuscripts that address the question of the nonhuman animal in educational research, theory and praxis. Examining the representations of nonhuman animals provides opportunities to explore ideology, discourse, and the ways in which the construction of nonhumans mirrors the representation of the human Other in contemporary and historical contexts. Schools are filled with social practices concerning nonhuman animals, whether that is the food served in the cafeteria, dissection in Science classrooms, or representations in textbooks. Linked to an agenda of social justice that has emerged in the educational literature over the past decade, the treatment of nonhuman animals needs to be addressed by critical theorists in education that seek to change structures of oppression for all of life on this planet. Traditional representations of the animal persist (unfettered desire, wild, barbaric, brutish, and savage), despite the fact that we know little outside of Western empirical science. To be animal then is to be wild and something apart from supposedly human traits of rationality, language, and logic. In turn, this allows highly exploitive and torturous industries to emerge and flourish that exploit nonhumans. However, ruptures existed that threw into question what it meant to be human, such as the case of wild people and feral children. As the category of human is often reified in educational scholarship unquestioningly, this provides a unique opportunity to deconstruct these categories and their exclusionary functions.

The recent literature surrounding eco-pedagogy and critical animal studies (Andrzejewski, et. al., 2009; Best, 2009; Bowers, 2001; Kahn, 2008; Martusewicz & Edmundson, 2005; Riley-Taylor, 2002) and the cultural politics of nature (Shukin, 2009) begs us to examine how the question of the animal is tied to the larger project of educational theory and practice. Published over a series of issues, this section will allow scholars to explore what this means for education. Some possible topics can include:

  1. Have schools largely ignored nonhuman animals in historical and contemporary contexts? If so, why and in what specific ways?
  2. How is the cafeteria implicated in relationships of domination over the nonhuman body?
  3. What do intersecting oppressions (racism, speciesism, classism, sexism) mean for educational theory and practice?
  4. Do anthropocentric ideologies emerge in educational, theory, practice, or policy? How does anthropomorphism emerge in traditional forms of curriculum or textbooks?
  5. What have been the roles of nonhuman animals in schools historically?
  6. How can critical educational theory respond to the paradox of the “animal”?

The guest editor seeks theoretical, conceptual, and qualitative papers addressing the central theme and any work submitted will be peer-reviewed.

Nonhuman animals need to be accounted for within the broader educational literature and this special section allows scholars to explore this important and timely topic.

Any questions can be directed to Dr. Abraham DeLeon, University of Texas at San Antonio, abraham.deleon@utsa.edu.

_________________________________

Critical Education is an international peer-reviewed journal, which seeks manuscripts that critically examine contemporary education contexts and practices.

Please see, http://m1.cust.educ.ubc.ca/journal/index.php/criticaled/index for more information and submission information.

Call for papers: Neoliberalism and public education

CALL FOR PAPERS

Educational Studies Special Issue:
Neoliberalism and Public Education

Guest Editors: Richard D. Lakes & Patricia A. Carter
Social Foundations of Education
Georgia State University, Atlanta
Email: rlakes@gsu.edu

Increasingly neoliberal economic policies are transforming the delivery of
public education. In the current era of marketplace reforms the idea of
the public has been supplanted by a private ideology of risk management;
whereby, under individualization, students as consumers are taught
responsible choice strategies designed for competitive advantage in the
so-called new economy.

Under Keynesian economics, which held sway in the U.S., Britain, Canada,
and Australia from the 1930s to the Thatcher-Reagan era of the 1980s, the
public sought to ameliorate inequities stemming from race, class and
gender bias, but under neoliberalism the state has shifted to promoting a
meritocratic myth of governing the self. As old collectivities and their
support structures such as working-class labor and unions have begun to
disappear under advanced capitalism so too have their counterparts within
the school system.

In this special issue we seek manuscripts that explore the devolution of
public education under neoliberalism. We are interested in scholarly
papers that trouble the notion of risk in an educational environment of
competitive capitalism, the nature of specialized curriculums that are
devoted to social advantage, the ways in which schools have outsourced
services and privatized operations; and the assaults on teachers’ rights
through de-unionizing practices, the dismantling of seniority, and the
erosion of benefits. We are interested in case studies of neoliberal
designed school-based reforms as well as accounts of teaching about
neoliberalism in the social foundations classroom.

To submit manuscripts please use our online submission and review system
at Manuscript Central: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/heds.

Be sure to include a note that your submission is for the Special Issue on
Neoliberalism and Public Education.

Deadline for manuscript submissions: June 1, 2010.