Breathe deep, and start, to see him pass the door.
His head is bowed. He thinks on men and kings.
Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
Too many peasants fight, they know not why,
Too many homesteads in black terror weep.
The sins of all the war-lords burn his heart.
He sees the dreadnaughts scouring every main.
He carries on his shawl-wrapped shoulders now
The bitterness, the folly and the pain.
He cannot rest until a spirit-dawn
Shall come;—the shining hope of Europe free;
The league of sober folk, the Workers’ Earth,
Bringing long peace to Cornland, Alp and Sea.
It breaks his heart that kings must murder still,
That all his hours of travail here for men
Seem yet in vain. And who will bring white peace
That he may sleep upon his hill again?
____________________
About Lindsay’s poem / Regarding Abraham Lincoln Walks At Midnight statue at West Virginia State Capitol grounds, Charleston, W. Va.
(Vachel Lindsay [1879-1931], U.S. poet born in Springfield, Ill., was noted for his efforts “as a traveling
bard whose dramatic delivery in public readings helped keep appreciation for poetry as a spoken art alive in the American Midwest; he called these performances the “Higher Vaudeville.” With their strong strong rhythms rooted in the American vernacular, revival meetings, the soap box, and the works of Edgar Allan Poe and William Blake, poems such as “The Santa Fe Trail” and “Abraham Lincoln Walks at Midnight” became part of an American literary and cultural revival distinct from literary modernism. This poem, written amid the First World War, is telling through these stanzas:
Regarding Abraham Lincoln Walks At Midnight. This statue, 8 feet tall on a 5¾ foot granite Base, is located on the North side of the state Capitol Building. From the Smithsonian Institution Art Inventories Catalog: “Fred M. Torrey created the original20 inch high model in 1935 after a Vachel Lindsay poem entitled ‘Abraham Lincoln Walks at Midnight.’ Charleston resident Louise Bing contacted Torrey about purchasing a Lincoln sculpture in honor of West Virginia’s centennial celebration. Torrey offered the model of “Abraham Lincoln Walks at Midnight” to West Virginia around 1964-65. Louise Bing raised the $5,000 to purchase the 42 inch bronze model, and then went on to spearhead a drive to raise over $35,000 from the public to have the sculpture enlarged. Contributions from across the state came from school children, private citizens, and the West Virginia Arts and Humanities Council. However, the artist died in 1967, before the sculpture could be enlarged. Bernard Wiepper was commissioned to enlarge the original model to a nine foot plaster model which was then cast in bronze. The sculpture was dedicated on Wes Virginia’s 111th birthday celebration on June 20, 1974.” – https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=23019
‘The most important political office is that of the private citizen.’ – Louis D. Brandeis
‘The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.’ – H. L. Mencken
“A week is a long time in politics.” – Harold Wilson.
‘All people are born alike – except Republicans and Democrats.’ – Groucho Marx
The purpose of the last few blog postings is a discussion of how culture influences the rise of U.S. political leaders.
While this writer, in a previous blog posting stated, “the United States is not Europe,” let’s borrow two concepts or political constructs that, indeed, have European origin, namely,
The Rise of the “Entrepreneurial Leader”
The term, “political entrepreneur,” alive and well in Europe, may provide insight, however.
According to the World Economic Forum,
“Political entrepreneurs are people who create ideas and innovations, and act as new leaders in the field of politics. They are individuals and groups who seek to improve the science and art of politics through disruption. . . (by coming) up with new ways to solve political problems in terms of political philosophy, political technology, political campaigns, and governance.”
Admittedly, entrepreneurship is associated the Zuckerbergs, Musks, Wangs who develop and provide “products and services that fix other people’s problems” through disruption.
The WEF states,
“Political entrepreneurs are a combination of the two: people who build something from nothing to address societal problems. . . global society must figure out how it deals with: the automation of jobs; the shifting of power towards global tech companies – the new industrialists of our day; fake news distorting democratic debate; threats to net neutrality and cyber security; the ownership of citizens’ data, and new forms of labor typified by the gig economy.” (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/the-rise-of-the-political-entrepreneur-and-why-we-need-more-of-them/)
In simpler terms, a United States “entrepreneurial leader,” addressing both historical and emergent concerns of a U.S. electorate struggling to make sense of social and cultural “change-rapidity” deemed as “up-ending” cherished norms and conventions – changes emergent after 9/11, the circa 2008 economic downturn, the aftermath of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the latter ending ignobly – all enwrapped within the milieu of the COVID-19 pandemic, protests regarding the death of George Floyd and the October 2023 Hamas incursion into Israel, respectively.
Ascribed Meaning: is entrepreneurial ‘New’?
Entrepreneurial politics provides the political leader the ability to ascribe meaning and to bring inferred order, in both broad-brush and granular detail, often as personified through accessible and “cut to the chase” messaging to address or even vanquish complex social issues or problems traditional politicians embrace through use of incremental, traditional, contradictory or nuanced approaches.
Aspects of entrepreneurial politics, especially the ubiquity of social media, permeates U.S. politics.
Yet is entrepreneurial politics new?
All The King’s Men, Robert Penn Warren’s novel largely considered to be based on Depression Era Louisiana Governor Huey Long, depicts Long as “a man of contradictions” rather than demagogue, authoritarian, populist, socialist, fascist or other label used to describe his political approach. (https://greatbooksguy.com/2021/04/03/the-dangers-of-populism-in-all-the-kings-men/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Huey_Long)
Ubiquitous ‘Authoritarianism’
Given ubiquitous usage in U.S. news and social media, we must deal with the term “authoritarianism.”
Of course, definitions vary.
The Oxford Review Encyclopedia of Terms:
“Authoritarian leadership refers to any situation where a leader keeps hold of as much power and authority as possible. Also known as coercive or dictatorial leadership, authoritarian leaders tend to keep all the decision-making authority to themselves and make the decisions about policies, procedures, tasks, structures, rewards and punishment themselves. The intention behind most authoritarian leaders is to retain control and they usually require unquestioning obedience and compliance. (https://oxford-review.com/oxford-review-encyclopaedia-terms/authoritarian-leadership/)
Indeed, the origins of “authoritarian” developed in 1939 when a group of researchers, led by psychologist Kurt Lewin, identified different styles of leadership, positing leadership fell into three neat categories:
Research generations later gave rise to the behavioral leadership theory,’ focusing on Leaders’ actions rather than their inherent traits and newer twists, including situational leadership and coach or “manager-less” leadership.
Back to the Europeans
An additional European study, “The New State That We Are Building”: Authoritarianism and System-Justification in an Illiberal Democracy,” concludes much of what is blamed on social media of which this writer is fond of citing, political base disregard for fact-checking political rhetoric –an oxymoron – and the very fact that politicians need supporters, especially funders, and supporters and funders need politicians who may be as much a product of the culture at the time or as the electorate projects upon the political leader.
The research concludes, as especially apropos for the U.S. non-parliamentarian system of multi-party governance what Americans, especially political leaders, already count on:
“. . . (A) large body of research (suggests) that the populace tends to adjust its attitudes to leadership cues.” [i]
“Nevertheless, we believe that it is, as in the West the behavior of the political elite that changes people’s attitudes, not media communication per se.” (Author’s emphasis.)
“Those who identify with a party tend to modify their issue stances to conform to their party.”
Is the news media or social media in particular responsible for shaping public opinion?
The researchers conclude:
“(Online) partisan communities of like-minded individuals could be exciting themselves into adopting more and more extreme positions…”
“However, recent results challenge this narrative; at least in Western contexts, exposure to political disagreement on social media is high and social media does not polarize people’s views.” (Writer’s comment – this study was conducted about seven years ago.)
“(The authors say the effects of online propaganda on attitudes) “are, naturally, difficult to completely disentangle from the effects of political leadership. This is especially true if the political leadership is responsible for much of the propaganda.” (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.703280/full Writer’s note: Quotes are embedded in the study, based on cited works.)
Moreover, politicians often combine rhetoric, speechcraft, social media with the additive of what poet T.S. Eliot’s “all truths are private truths,” to tell it “like it is.,” posturing themselves as the “one individual who can or will navigate, minimize or displace bureaucratic, regulatory or process governance – that is, encapsulated as upholding offensive political, social and cultural norms antithetic to both leader and, increasingly, adherents.
Finally, successful politicians claim they can and will be judged by results, which requires message simplification. (There are exceptions, politicians rarely campaign for the need for additional bureaucracy to reach their goals. Those accusations are left to political opponents.)
Trait theory
What we know is that politicians are, well, politicians, speaking primarily to bases that this reader contends the politician creates hoards to himself or herself – that is, loose shifting coalitions of supporters who come to believe in the politician’s “read” of things. Variances occur in messaging and communications.
Is there a difference between those politicians who may be entrepreneurial politicians and those politicians who are labelled autocratic or traditionalist politicians?
What of rhetoric that, in the least, is strident, demeaning, negative, scurrilous or considered ad hominem?
Voters decide the short- and long-term calculus and utility of these leaders’ political rhetoric, based on scales and degrees of engagement or non-engagement.
Judicial bodies parse how behaviors relating to elections, including whether campaign rhetoric is a trope or whether campaign rhetoric becomes a prompt for unsettling – even violent – actions when spewed into a larger frame than political campaigning to political bases.
Self-investment
What about these dimensional considerations:
Do entrepreneurial or traditionalist leaders transcend ‘self’ or persona to a greater extent than authoritarian leaders – that is, once elected, the key consideration?
Can it be said the entrepreneurial or traditionalist political leader, admittedly heavy invested in self or persona, may invest equally if not more in problems-solving as a means to transcend self or persona, providing the entrepreneur capacity to use political leverage to facilitate innovation or creativity to solve policy problems?
Can it be said be said the autocratic leader becomes, especially to her or his base, the one or sole individual who embodies the capacity, largely through the politician’s self, to both identify and readily deal with policy issues more so than the entrepreneurial or traditionalist leader?
In that the entrepreneurial leader, the traditionalist leader and the authoritarian leader invests themselves or personas in the political process, is the prevailing variant one of degrees of commitment regarding the politician’s projection of – rather than policy or governing process to achieve objectives – self as epitome of the process?
That the electorate struggles with these questions, making broad, jagged and delimiting conclusions as voters, may ensure the health of the U.S. Republic in a time of unprecedented change.
Moreover, pollsters conclude undecided voters in toss-up states largely will determine the outcome of federal elections, given the U.S. Electoral College process.
The voter as a political consumer, however, can invest her or his vote to ensure the entirety of the elected executive and legislative branches of government at all levels are beholden to voters rather than politicians who invest in voters.
The responses I received to the May 29, 2024, ‘The future belongs to crowds: The rise of American ‘civil religion’ blog encompassed five strands, namely:
If the intent were to discuss Christian nationalism [i]the blog doesn’t live up to expectations. The examples proffered were use of U.S. Christian ‘heritage,’ primarily cultural Christianity, to advance a civic Christianity that, melded with politics, satisfies the needs or objectives of certain strains of Christian thought as normative for policymaking at various governance levels. I used the posting of “In God We Trust” or similar mottos in or around public buildings or in public places, including public schools. Louisiana’s recent foray to post the Ten Commandments in classroom belies this sentiment with a ready, ‘bring on the lawsuits,’ which acknowledges the questionable predicament this places on the state.[ii] Supporters see posting of the Commandments within a frame of advancing Christian principles as foundational for law.[iii] Another point: Does this action establish a de facto state church much as the nation displaced in the late 18th Century or which Europe also abandoned in large part?[iv] After all, we’re told the religious were motivated to come to America because of freedom from state-sponsored religion or, at least, due to persecution for religious beliefs?[v] A final strain is that too much can be read into Christian nationalism – within 30,000 Protestant faith expressions,[vi] are we heading to internecine religious wrangling (or, maybe more)?[vii]
While the blog focused the rise of Evangelicalism, the departure from mainline churches also occurred within a political vein – that is mainline church “hierarchical”: support of political causes which, in the 1960s – 1990s became normative despite loss of members in mainline churches. In other words, church engagement is okay as long as the political dynamic is satisfied. For another perspective, refer to Gazette-Mail Op-ed. Here’s the link.[viii]
In that no World War battles were fought on U.S soi – exemptions provided – what about “9/11,” which was followed by economic panic circa 2008, and the COVID-19 pandemic? The listing, including 9/11, weren’t “invasions,’ although these events “invaded’ the American political and cultural psyche, giving rise to Christian nationalism – that is, as a defense mechanism for dealing with an unchartered, scary world.[ix]
Have American values been trampled by ‘left-thinking’ ideology, institutionalized by bureaucratic and “process” government, undergirded by law, rule or judicial decree, creating imbalance and division, with progressivism falling from favor, although enjoying institutional legal or regulatory protections – protections which demand faith-based responses.[x]
Where is the nation headed? Is the U.S., experiencing the ideological divide other much-older democratic nations – “Old Europe,’ being the pejorative term – face, resulting in the move to secularized nationalism[xi] with Christianity seen as a problem rather than a solutions.[xii](See Zeitgeist) Does nationalism, as a world-wide movement, become a pseudo-religion? [xiii]Will the U.S. embrace nationalism as informed by civil religious tenets? Have we, as a people, lost faith in our institutions, which are bound by process and bureaucracy, meaning the nation, in a vexed state, wants newer solutions to address weighty ennui? What of the adage, ‘this too shall pass?’ Perhaps, although we’re probably a generation or two away from the death of 1960s political thought context ungirding societal institutions.[xiv] Has social media, in replacing conventional dissemination of information, resulted in truncating difficult, perplexing issues into collapsable “bytes” that make sense? Stated differently, a generation’s accepted truth may be viewed differently by successive generations, meaning context is not universal. Within this milieu, emergent political leaders or functionaries must parse, displace or disturb use of conventional or traditional policy approaches, being seen as a political policy entrepreneur bearing problem-solving solutions that are inconsistent, established on norms other than data, facts, figures, statistics or conventional political rationality. Thus, is the emergent political leaders’ role to embrace truths that are more polemical rather than precedent with bureaucratic institutions or customary approaches? Does the approach amount to embracing alternate policy ideals and ideologies to satisfy political base loyalists? This line of thought sees institutions needing to prove relevance through accelerationism[xv] and, to borrow a phrase from the 1960s, the possible need to ‘burn the village to save the village’[xvi] – hence, the blog headline, ‘the future belongs to crowds.’[xvii]
Finally, what about research that shows the nation’s citizenry may be less divided in terms of core American values?[xviii]
Should this have been my starting point?
Next time: accelerationism within the framework of ‘pseudo-authoritarianism’ or ‘pseudo-absolutism’ as interpreted by entrepreneurial leaders through personified politics.
[vi] Interestingly, AI-generated analysis says the figure is inflated, including a cited higher 47,000 figure. This entry from Wikipedia may be a good place to start: n.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members#:~:text=Broadly%20speaking%20Protestantism%20has%20four,tens%20of%20thousands%20of%20denominations.
[vii] The strife Martin Luther had unwittingly unleashed led to a chaotic series of wars that would last more than a century. Throughout the 1500s, Europe’s princes and kings jockeyed for power, using religion as their excuse. It culminated in a bloody free-for-all called the Thirty Years’ War that raged from 1618 to 1648. While the war involved many countries, it was fought mainly on German soil. Much of the battle gear, ramparts, and folkloric reenactments tourists see today in Germany dates from this war. Casualties were devastating as a third of all Germans were killed. On the Catholic side, the pope was supported by the powerful Holy Roman Emperor. The emperor had Europe’s leading army and was more than willing to march into Germany and put down Protestants. As these wars — with a mix of political and religious agendas — raged across Europe, princes grabbed for power while the people violently sorted out their deep-seated religious frustrations. Polemical; there are other sources / https://classroom.ricksteves.com/videos/the-religious-wars-spawned-by-the-reformation#:~:text=The%20strife%20Martin%20Luther%20had,raged%20from%201618%20to%201648.
The 1647 Massachusetts Colony “Old Deluder Satan Act” required communities with more than 100 families or householders to establish grammar schools. Colony leaders saw the grammar schools as a means to ensure children acquired the basic literacy skills that would enable them to gain knowledge of the scriptures and thereby “confound the devil.”[i]
As time progressed, the United States public education system inculcated an historic patriotic-religious admixture reenforced to varying degrees through legal, social and societal structures and norms, including church affiliation and attendance throughout the nation., which remained strong until a few decades ago.[ii]
In terms of a harbinger, however, the U.S. Supreme ruled in 1943 students cannot be forced to salute and pledge allegiance to the U.S. flag. [iii] Some 19 years later, the high court rejected school officials’ sanctioned prayer and devotional Bible-readings. [iv]
Harvest Time Church of God
Rise of the ‘nones’
The contemporary iteration of the Christian Charismatic Movement, which shares some faith similarities with Pentecostalism, [v] occurred in 1960. [vi] Evangelical Churches had a strong emergence in the 1970s. In fact, the 1976 U.S. presidential election was termed “the year of the Evangelical.”[vii] (“Evangelicalism” is a term encompassing wide swaths of Christian belief and practices. [viii])
Eventually, some conservative Fundamental Christian churches,[ix] along with consenting Evangelical churches and branches or “breakaway” bodies of mainline churches, embraced conservative politics to “right” societal leanings or movements seen as affronts to these churches’ Biblical understandings or of social issues, especially abortion access, which the U.S. Supreme Court “legalized” in 1973, forming an easy alliance with the Roman Catholic Church to promote “pro-life” legislation.
Despite expectations by their leaders, neither movement nor flourishing mega-churches, largely an outgrowth of Evangelicalism, staunched decline in church attendance. Moreover, during the past several decades, pollsters document a steady rise in those persons who don’t identify with traditional religious affiliation – so-called “nones” [x] with a concomitant increase in personalized or individualized Christian beliefs, meaning one identifies as Christian without bona fides of organized faith practice or assembly – culturally Christian. [xi]
This development leads some researchers and pundits to conclude new groupings of Evangelicals are emerging, although a New York Times account includes reporters’ interviews of persons saying they had lapsed in regular church attendance. [xii]
Comparisons with Europe prove “jagged”
The fancy to compare developments in U.S. Christianity to European Christianity, especially in terms of Church attendance, is a jagged proposition primarily because the U.S. is not Europe.
The United States’s religious experience includes an often-articulated desire for one to practice his or her religion – or no religious practice – without governmental cooption, although legislative bodies and courts prescribe lawful boundaries that respect largely judicially-articulated church/state entanglements. [xiii]
Another difference: Wars and struggles between nation/city states, provinces, empires and monarchies emerged in wake of the Protestant Reformation. Historically, European soil is soaked with blood[xiv] from myriad revolutions, wars, including two World Wars, pogroms, genocides, the Nazi Holocaust, state-induced famines, ethnic, religious and cultural strife, leading European intellectuals and not a few political leaders to become fed up with God and Christianity,[xv] although churches remain open and Europeans embrace Christian practices such as baptism often desiring church weddings and funerals. [xvi]
American religious expression, unfettering itself from state-supported churches in the early days of the nation, prompts religious diversity. Most importantly, however, American soil, while soaked with the blood of the American Revolution, the War of 1812, Mexican-American War (Battle of San Jacinto near Houston) and the American Civil War, warded off direct invasion by enemy forces during both World Wars, although Wake Island, Guam and the Aleutian Campaign in WWII may “qualify,” according to some historians.” [xvii]
Civil religion and cumulative effects
Are we at a place where U.S. Christian “identity” is embraced decidedly by traditional church affiliation wherein Christians are admonished to “not neglect to meet together” (Hebrews 10:25) as well as civil religion trappings, including:
Governmental invocations and benedictions, which may include representatives of other faiths;
Displays of Christian faith adherence by athletes, celebrities and other influencers;
Legislative enactment of bills requiring display of national religious mottos in public places;
Continued church affiliation/attendance by Christians whose expressions of faith may include emphasis on ministries to address social issues or to advance societal justice causes, which attract brigades of volunteers?
(More to the point: Has “Christian identity” always been a pliant term open to one’s self-definition or practice or non-practice, including civil religion emphases? To what degree should this be the ‘lead’ question? Many persons of other faith expressions may contend Christian faith fares well, despite internecine conflicts, in informing governmental policy, mores and customs in West Virginia and the United States.)
Loss of Biblical Literacy
In other words, U.S. Christianity, if ‘admitting’ greater recognition of civil Christian religion and if church attendance continues its precipitous decline which Gallup notes at 30 percent, [xviii] what might be the cumulative generational effect in terms of U.S. society, culture, politics, arts? How does diminished Biblical Literacy[xix] – see term in the Endnote – bode for the nation in terms of societal response to complex social issues or questions? Will a potential void in Biblical grounding make some Americans susceptible to rhetoric and demagoguery by who bear tidings from a ‘Gospel’ of their making, including social media influencers, technocrats, politicians or political leaders? Or, has this always been the case with, perhaps, social media reliance being the predictive arbiter?[xx]
No matter, today’s Christian expression occurs in a world that may, unfortunately, lack peace or stability because of the rise of competing global powers, nationalism, myriad geopolitical pacts and reliance on war, fear, panic, terrorism, prompting the question whether the Age of Enlightenment is closing.[xxi] Has the sky fallen for some peoples?
“Is The truth today the truth tomorrow”
Moreover, voices generationally removed from 20th Century World Wars, the Nazi Holocaust, state repression throughout the world, nuclear threats and atrocities may decline conventional U.S. interpretations of these events, which begs the question: “Is the truth today the truth tomorrow?” [xxii] We may need to get used to newer historical thought interpretations along with entrepreneurial, “crowd,” spectacle politics, the notion “Summer of Love” politics and bipartisanship may be DOA in halls of government; and the rise of the sentiment only entrepreneurial political leadership will steer us to calmer seas by displacing traditional or past government stances or alliances?
Bluntly put, these developments may be evolutionary but their import is intensified by the nation’s divided politics.
While historical precedent is no guarantee, these developments could occur intensify through political populism – perhaps a “safety valve” [xxiii]until settled times occur, allowing the electorate to determine policy outcomes, based on today’s emergent trajectory – no assurance everyone is pleased.
Margaret Mead said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has” [xxiv]– that is by thinking globally, acting locally, let’s ensure a world emerges with largess of personal freedom, liberty and the pursuit of justice.
The May-October 2024 blog editions feature considerations about the cultural milieu in which this year’s elections occur.
These are possible topics to be explored:
“Accelerationism,” both in its original context as well as its “appropriation” by various political groups.
The ubiquity of information, communications, social media and news sources and possible effects on voters’ perceptions of candidates.
Does the decline of bipartisanship best serve a divided or polarized electorate?
Is former U.S. Sen. Ben Sasse’s analysis of the ‘1960s headache’ and its effects on today’s politics ‘playing out?’
Sour grapes and sore losers: Is majoritarianism best fitting for the U.S. as a means to diminish “tyranny of the minority?’
What factors within U.S. Christianity led to the rise of ‘Christian Nationalism?’
Does today’s populism differ from that of the past?
Does decline or lack of support in U.S. institutions result in the rise of personalized or entrepreneurial politics?
Frederick Childe Hassam (1859 –1935), U.S. impressionist painter, noted for his urban and coastal scenes. Along with Mary Cassatt and Henry Twachtman, Hassam was instrumental in promulgating Impressionism to American collectors, dealers, and museums. He produced over 3,000 paintings, oils, watercolors, etchings, and lithographs over the course of his career, and was an influential American artist of the early 20th century. Hassam demonstrated an interest in art early. He had his first lessons in drawing and watercolor while attending The Mather School but his parents took little notice of his nascent talent. He descended from a long line of New Englanders. His mother, a native of Maine, shared an ancestor with American novelist Nathaniel Hawthorne. His father claimed descent from a seventeenth-century English immigrant whose name, Horsham, had been corrupted over time to Hassam. Although not of Mideastern ancestry, he often painted an Islami-appearing crescent moon (which eventually degenerated into only a slash) next to his signature, and he adopted the nickname “Muley” (from the Arabic “Mawla”, Lord or Master), invoking Muley Abul Hassan, 5th a fifteenth-century ruler of Granada whose life was fictionalized in Washington Irving’s novel Tales of the Alhambra.
(The Greatest Display of the American Flag Ever Seen in New York, Climax of the Preparedness Parade in May)
March is Women’s History Month with several contributors discussing how women have advanced – and continue – to advance, lead and guide our state and nation in various disciplines and vocations.
The words expressed are from varying perspectives, of course, but provide lens and insight by which to view issues facing our communities, state and nation. Refer to Opinion
Even before concerted efforts to stifle education and conversations around slavery and racism, we were often presented with a limited picture of Black history: The long, vast, varied history of people classified as the singular monolith of their skin color — distilled and oversimplified into a handful of names, dates and places to be trotted out every February like clockwork.
There is so much more to Black history than we have been taught. There is so much more to the history that we have been taught.
We learn about Harriet Tubman, Ruby Bridges, Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
We know Tubman for her work with the Underground Railroad, but not that she lived a long, full life after the Civil War, including joining the women’s suffrage movement and founding a nursing home.
We know Bridges for being the first Black child to integrate Louisiana schools; but we forget she is alive and well and still a prolific civil rights activist.
We know Rosa Parks for being the face of the Montgomery bus boycotts.
But long before there was Rosa Parks, there was the Women’s Political Council, which had been fighting to desegregate transportation for years and had organized the first bus boycott. That 15-year-old Claudette Colvin and 18-year-old Mary Louise Smith were each arrested (separately) for challenging segregation on Montgomery’s buses. Or that it was the WPC that called for the boycott after Parks’ arrest and that MLK Jr. joined later. Or that the Montgomery bus boycotts lasted over a year. That it was the hundreds of Black women who organized and walked miles upon miles in lieu of using public transportation that made it a success. Or that it was nearly 10 years between this watershed moment and the 1965 Civil Rights Act.
We know MLK Jr. for being the face of the civil rights movement, and especially for his “I Have a Dream” speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. But we don’t learn about Bayard Rustin: King’s right-hand man who turned King into a pacificist and organized the March on Washington — and who was an openly gay Black man in a time when it was dangerous to be either, let alone both.
We don’t learn about the successful Black Wall Street and its subsequent destruction in the 1921 Tulsa massacre: A thriving, prosperous Black neighborhood called Greenwood that was burnt to the ground overnight, destroying homes, businesses, churches and generations’ worth of wealth.
Our U.S. History classes rarely reach Reconstruction, and if they do, they forget to tell us how Black people (though mostly men) became literate land owners with the power to vote and became politicians who served in state legislatures. Until President Andrew Johnson revoked freed slaves’ land, giving it back to its white owners, and allowed states to enact a litany of suppressive laws.
Black history should not be confined to a few famous faces and relegated to one month a year. It must be interwoven into our history lessons, because it is an intrinsic part of our history. Black history is American history, and we must treat it as such.
February 10, 2024 – Opinion, The Dominion Post
Historian Carter G. Woodson
Known today as the “Father of Black History,” Carter G. Woodson (1875–1950) was one of the first Black historians to begin writing about Black culture and experience—and the second to earn a doctorate at Harvard University (W. E. B. Du Bois was the first).
As a young child, Woodson spent much of his time working on his family’s farm in Virginia, and as a teenager, he worked as an agricultural day laborer. But in 1895, he enrolled in Frederick Douglass High School in Huntington, West Virginia, completing four years of coursework in just two years. From there, he continued his education in Kentucky, at Berea College, a school founded by abolitionists, and went on to receive his master’s degree in European history in 1907 from the University of Chicago. Five years later, Woodson would earn his Ph.D. in history at Harvard University, writing his dissertation on the state of West Virginia after the Civil War broke out, titled “The Disruption of Virginia.”
“Before enlightenment; chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment; chop wood, carry water.”
Without resorting to vogue “be(ing) in the moment” and/or the ubiquitous “mindfulness,”[i] the chop wood, carry water approach is typified by the organization eschewing obsessiveness or undue anxiety about future consequences of its decision- making if decisions are grounded in fit, sound, humane approaches that promote or preserve organizational “non-negotiables”[ii] (foundational goals/’ends’) – or the vernacular “hills to die on.”[iii]
Of Sasse, Wenner, Zhou Enlai, Martin Luther
Indeed, former Sen. Ben Sasse (now University of Florida president) concludes the “1960s (produce) a hangover for almost every fight we have today”[iv] – a point stated differently by Jann Wenner, co-founder of Rolling Stone magazine, who said, “I don’t think rock ‘n’ roll changed everything. I don’t think rock ‘n’ roll overturned segregation or the war in Vietnam, but we played huge parts in it (both) consciously and unconsciously…”[v] (Wenner’s interview proved personally costly for other sentiments he stated.) [vi]
Similarly, Chinese premier Zhou Enlai, asked about the impact of the French Revolution, replied, “Too early to say.” The intent of the premier’s comments, made in 1972, are debated. Is his reference to the 1789 French Revolution or to a 1968 student uprising in Paris, which essentially shut down the country for a few weeks in summer 1968?[vii]
“Still plant an apple tree.”
Protestant reformer Martin Luther, when asked about the end of the world, replied, “Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant an apple tree.”[viii]
The Sasse, Zhou Enlai and Luther quotes illustrate that organizations, through their leadership and outputs, leave conscious or unconscious current and prospective imprints,[ix] although entities aren’t alone in this regard:
Circa early 1990s, Canadians, primarily college students, were paid to plant black spruce trees – six feet apart in neat rows – to mitigate environmental effects of timber clear-cutting. Decades later, those plantings may have exacerbated 2023 Canadian wildfires.”[x]
Myriad chemical compounds, considered blessings as introduced, produce environmental or health chaos years later.
“Victors” in 2022 United States Supreme Court rulings relating to Roe v. Wade contend with the potential of fifty-state referenda regarding abortion, which aren’t tallying in their favor. [xi]
And, of course, consider all things COVID-19.
Of course, the “converse” may be true, namely not all “consequences” are bad – think medicinal compounds, having one purpose but aiding with other health conditions.
The paradox of ‘living in the moment’
Organizations are human resource endeavors characterized by both tangible (widgets) or intangible outputs – policy, laws, rules, regulations. (AI, of course, is an emergent consideration[xii] as well as the rise of entrepreneurial tech influencers.[xiii])
Organizations, existing on a continuum, are increasingly urged to become adaptive and entrepreneurial to best compete in an ever-flattening world, although organizational structures don’t always accommodate or sustain entrepreneurship.[xiv]
Admittedly, organizational leadership must be fitted to secure the organization’s short- and long-term viability, including the rise of the generalist leader – the focus of Range: Why Generalists Triumph In a Specialized World.[xv]
No matter, these words of Robert Hunter also ring true:
Everything you (the organization in this case) cherish
Matthew McConaughey’s “persist, pivot or concede,” [xvii] may be applicable when an organization’s trade winds change as policymakers and funders fixate on the organization’s “architecture” – the schema of how organization carries out its mission as having evolved by influences of time and internal and external considerations – to achieve larger policymaker aims.
Faced with change, organizations, often – certainly not always – have temporal “windows” to embrace policymakers’ nudges and boosts[xviii] to refocus policy dynamics. Organizational non-negotiables, however, create homeostasis (equilibrium) even symmetry,[xix] balancing disparate parts within the organization or to hedge the organization’s threats. When policymakers, having higher-charged leverage, namely long-haul funding, or regulatory prowess, seek to rearrange or supplant“ organizational architectural” non-negotiables, organizations often see these developments as threatening core organizational worth and value. Thus, preservation of non-negotiables are greatly magnified often becoming the organizational mission.
Accordingly, is Aaron Tippen’s “You’ve got to stand for something, or you’ll fall for anything,”[xx]the best organizational stance when policymakers, having a broader perspective, seek to reframe the organization prospectively?[xxi]
We’ll explore these considerations in future blog posts. Meanwhile, in the spirit of residing “in the moment,” I recommend Kipling’s “If” as well as provide historical context for a literally fatalistic phrase we hear almost daily. I invite your input as we For existentialists among us, I include a Gertrude Stein quote. Visi
[ii]https://www.mr-sustainability.com/why-how-what-who/clear-non-negotiables#on. The author states, “Clear non-negotiables are the rules everyone in the organization adheres to in order to achieve the cause. They provide clear guidelines and rules for the organization to operate in. They are the framework and basis for cooperation.”
[v]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/15/arts/jann-wenner-the-masters-interview.html Wenner’s complete quote, “Both consciously and unconsciously. Despite the Trump thing, despite the Republican presidents of the last 30 years, which have held back enormous amounts of progress, society has become so much more liberal. I think rock ’n’ roll played a huge role in that. Did it do everything? No. Was it the sole thing? No. But we did a lot.”
[ix] “…(Political) change is fantastically difficult and often takes decades. But the degree of difficulty is only part of the story.” Those of the words of Op-ed columnist David Leonhardt who quotes author Fredrik deBoer who argues progressive social reformers “…also bear some responsibility for their disappointments. Above all, they made decisions geared more toward changing elite segments of American society — like academia, Hollywood and the national media — than toward passing new laws and changing most people’s lives.” For Leonhardt’s article, refer to https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/26/briefing/me-too-black-lives-matter-occupy-wall-street.html Also refer to
[xvi]https://www.azquotes.com/quote/594040 Hunter, a U.S. lyricist, singer-songwriter, translator, and poet, best known for his work with the Grateful Dead, died in 2019.
[xvii]https://greenlights.com/#book (Crown / Crownpublishing.com, New York, N.Y. 2020 (Penguin Random House LLC), p. 14. Of “persist, pivot, or concede,” McConaughey says, ‘It’s up to us, our choice every time.”
[xxi]David Epstein states, “Everyone is digging deeper into their own trench and rarely standing up to look in the next trench over, even though the solution to their problem happens to reside there. Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World
