Breaking News: Segregationist, federalist, kingmaker, lousy historian, fashion maven, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court William Rehnquist has died. Can’t say I’m looking forward to the Dubya gang getting to pick a new Chief Justice. Nope, not at all. Update: Dahlia Lithwick weighs in, and the nomination calculus begins anew. Update 2: It’s Roberts for Chief.
Tag: Eric Foner
Empires and Shadows.
A couple of NYT book reviews of local interest: Columbia’s Eric Foner peruses the first transcribed volume of the LBJ tapes, Johann Hari reviews Irresistible Empire by Columbia historian Victoria de Grazia, and college acquaintance Nell Freudenberger takes a gander at Stewart O’Nan’s The Good Wife.
Radicals of the Republic.
If it’s post-MLK day, it must be the beginning of the spring semester here at Columbia…and this term I’ve returned to America’s shores from East Asia. (How McArthur-esque.) So, for the next few months I’ll be TA’ing “The Radical Tradition in America” for the inimitable Prof. Eric Foner, which I’m greatly looking forward to (despite ending up with Thursday night section times that are less than ideal…but ah well. I can’t blame anyone but myself for that.) Since most of my work this term on the dissertation (on, put very simply, Progressive persistence in national politics, 1919-1928) is going to involve senators, governors, magazine editors, and other inner-circle types (“They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom, for trying to change the system from within“), I’m hoping the objects of study here — individuals and movements working to effect change outside the confining parameters of legislative politics — will make for a nice, dynamic, and thought-provoking counterpoint, and one that will help me shore up my own thoughts on civic republicanism, both in its persistence and its possibilities for renewal.
After the Fall.
“When Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States in the 1830s, he was struck by Americans’ conviction that ‘they are the only religious, enlightened, and free people,’ and ‘form a species apart from the rest of the human race.’ Yet American independence was proclaimed by men anxious to demonstrate ‘a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.’…[I]t is our task to insist that the study of [American] history should transcend boundaries rather than reinforcing or reproducing them.” Eric Foner, in a wide-ranging 2003 essay recently posted on HNN, contemplates the direction of American history after 9/11.
Channeling Taney.
Columbia historian (and one of my interlocuters two weeks hence) Eric Foner takes a gander at William Rehnquist’s new book on the disputed 1877 election, and, aside from the obvious Bush v. Gore overtones, discovers that the Chief Justice’s grasp of history is as backward as his jurisprudence. “The scholarship on which Rehnquist relies is almost entirely out of date and his grasp of the complex issues of the Reconstruction era tenuous…That the Chief Justice of the United States sees national protection of blacks’ rights as a punishment imposed on whites is disheartening.” Hmm…let’s hope Rehnquist doesn’t decide to regale us with his thoughts on Dred Scott anytime in the future.
Ghosts of the Past.
Historian Richard Rubin pieces together the racialized local history surrounding the Colfax riot, the bloodiest single episode of Reconstruction. While I found the article intriguing, I’m not sure which history professors he was consulting. Eric Foner‘s Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution — the first place one should go for Reconstruction-related queries — touches on the Colfax riot (albeit briefly), and I seem to remember it receiving more treatment in William Gillette’s Retreat from Reconstruction. At any rate, an interesting and somewhat perturbing read.
Marked for Revision.
In the wake of Dubya’s recent insults with regards to Weaponsgate, Alexander Keyssar makes the case for revisionist history, using the work of Eric Foner as an example.
Oz the Great and Terrible.
Karl Rove, alleged architect of the Iraq war (and recently exposed as an Eric Foner fan in Nicholas Lemann’s New Yorker piece this week) steps out from behind the curtain to revel in the adulation of New Hampshire. If he only had a heart.
One Bad Apple.
Alas, our recent Columbia teach-in on the war, which included some of the university’s leading luminaries in all departments, was singlehandedly derailed by the asinine comments of one anthro prof, Nicholas De Genova. Said De Genova, “The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military…I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus.” He also argued that all self-proclaimed patriots are in fact white supremacists. Sigh…it’s freak show guys like this who give the entire anti-war movement a bad name. As you can see, Eric Foner calls the guy idiotic in the article, and Alan Brinkley has also declared his comments “abhorrent” and “immoral.” (In fact, even Columbia’s President has now distanced himself from De Genova.) The point is, this joker in no way speaks for the majority of Americans against the war, although he’s already getting a lot of run in the warblogger nation regardless. And, while I don’t want to disparage an entire department, I’m not entirely surprised he emerged from anthropology – I’ve heard similar rants from other radical post-structuralist and post-colonialist-enamored students over in Schermerhorn.
Card-Carrying Members?
Via a friend of mine in the program, Professors Eric Foner (with whom I’ve taken two classes) and Glenda Gilmore offer a rebuttal to Daniel Pipes’ recent list of academics who hate America. An article like this really doesn’t deserve a response but, simply put, Pipes is a moron. Reading any chapter of Foner’s recent Story of American Freedom — or any of his other books for that matter — belies Pipes’ ridiculous and dangerous charge of anti-Americanism. And finding fault with Dubya’s wag-the-dog Freudian fiasco in Iraq, a soon-to-be-military excursion that has already run roughshod over our Constitution, hardly speaks ill of anyone’s patriotism.
If anything, it’s egregiously anti-American for Pipes to earmark academics who should be constrained from the “outside.” A quote the Daniel Pipes of this world ought to consider: In the words of Cornel West, “To understand your country, you must love it. To love it, you must, in a sense, accept it. To accept it as how it is, however is to betray it. To accept your country without betraying it, you must love it for that in it which shows what it might become. America � this monument to the genius of ordinary men and women, this place where hope becomes capacity, this long, halting turn of the no into the yes, needs citizens who love it enough to reimagine and remake it.“