An Educational Mandate from the Election of Donald Trump

11/9/2016

The "what comes next" question looms large this morning. I'm still processing my own feelings about what exactly just happened in the United States and what it will mean for me, my family, my friends, and my country. I expect that it will take me (and many others) a while to do that processing: it's early, and things feel very raw right now.

Many of my friends, like me, will go to work and teach today. I'm betting that very few, if any, really want to do it. I know I didn't. But while I was getting the kids ready for school and trying to wrap my head around what all this means, I was somewhat surprised to realize that Donald Trump's victory last night has served to stiffen my resolve about being a good educator. I know that this is a frustrating moment (and, for some, a very frightening moment), but this is not a time to shrink away.

I'm going to talk more, not less, about race and the history of race in the United States.

I'm going to talk more, not less, about critical thinking and the process of discriminating credible from non-credible explanations.

I'm going to talk more, not less, about the importance of constructing evidence-based understandings of the way the world works.

The yard of a motivated rural voter.

It's fairly clear that it was white America's enthusiasm for Trump that put him into office. His supporters included significant majorities of whites in general (58%), white men (63%), white women (53%), and whites without college degrees (67%). Whites with college degrees were split, with 54% of males and 45% of females voting for Trump. While certainly not all of Trump's supporters are white supremacists, it is undeniable that he certainly drew strong majority support from the angry white racists in this country (and they weren't shy in their support, as this video taken right here in Columbia illustrates). My gut feeling is that, when all the data are on the table, the wave of support that put Trump over the top in so many areas of the country will be linked to highly motivated, white, rural voters who believe that Trump thinks like they think and feel what they feel. Those aren't quite the same words I used last night as I watched the returns come in.

I teach at a major university in the state where the Civil War began. I teach a mostly white undergraduate student body (African American enrollment at USC Columbia is about 10%, significantly lower than percentage of the population in the state). That's my audience. My goal is not to get my students to think what I think, but to help them develop the tools they need to understand the realities of a complex world, to understand why our interpretations of the past are relevant to societies today, and to be able to independently discern when they are being fed a load of baloney.

Jason Colavito's post this morning discussed the parallels between "fringe" history and the growth of the culture that elected Donald Trump. He's right, and there are an amazing number of deep and disturbing parallels. My wife could attest to the number of times I said "I've seen this before" while watching Donald Trump spin a lie, dodge a question, or double down on the conspiracy card. The levels of conspiratorial thinking that blanket "fringe" history are startling similar to those that are present when you delve into the thoughts of some Trump supporters. It's frightening.

And it's not something we can just responsibly choose to not talk about because it's not pleasant. Race still matters in this county. The sources of ideas still matter in this country. Agreeing to attempt to understand and live in a reality together still matter in this country.

Dr. Henrik Williams, a world-renowned runologist, joined my Forbidden Archaeology class this morning via Skype to talk about the Kensington Rune Stone. After what happened last night, it seemed strange to be discussing the details of a rock with some carvings on it -- most people in the world have probably never heard of it and only a very few of those who have probably really care if it's an authentic medieval artifact or not. So why are we talking about it? For the students, it's not a conclusion about the rock that's important (nothing changes for them tomorrow whether or not the Kensington Rune Stone is real or fake) but understanding the process of how you determine whether something is real or fake. I think that's a skill set that was severely underemployed during this last election cycle.

As educators, we need to fight harder than ever to give students the knowledge, confidence, and skills they need to seek, produce, and insist upon maintaining a world with some objective realities.

We have the ability to be constructive and not just angry. To quote Tim Kaine quoting William Faulkner: "they kilt us but they ain't whupped us."

And now it's back to work.

28 Comments

GEE Torresso

11/9/2016 10:03:46 am

Thank you Andy

Peter Geuzen

11/9/2016 10:22:50 am

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

The only ones left with any confidence at all are the New Dumb. It is the beginning of the end of our world as we knew it. Doom is the operative ethic. – Hunter S. Thompson

I don't think it's as doom and gloom as Hunter once said, but it's still pretty bad.

Bob Jase

11/9/2016 11:58:20 am

Trump - because Reagan and two Bushes didn't teach Americans anything about making stupid choices.

Uncle Ron

11/9/2016 02:08:29 pm

Trump - because Obama and two Clintons taught Americans what it's like to be governed by politicians unfettered by the rule of law.

Graham

11/9/2016 06:34:59 pm

"...As educators, we need to fight harder than ever to give students the knowledge, confidence, and skills they need to seek, produce, and insist upon maintaining a world with some objective realities."

Good sentiment, but you will have your work cut out for you, having waded through a swamp of humanist papers arguing that there is no such thing as an 'objective reality' I know that you are going to get a lot of flack for teaching that idea because many of the authors seem to think that 'objective' reality is inherently racist/sexist.

Andy White

11/10/2016 06:06:22 am

Fair enough, but I'm going to be hard to budge from the position that facts exist and that identifying them is part of understanding reality. Call me an idealist, I suppose.

Graham

11/10/2016 05:30:35 pm

As am I, but having watched MLKs dream of people being judged by their character rather than skin color be replaced on the Left with the notion that character can be instantly determined by Skin colour/Orientation (Something the Right never abandoned if you think about it), I am fast loosing faith in peoples ability to do good.

Good luck with your plans. It is the right course, but as I have said before the pushback, even from the groups that should be supporting you is going to be horrendous.

Andy White

11/11/2016 12:01:16 pm

I think you're overthinking this a little bit. All I'm really saying is that critical thinking skills and more emphasis on understanding the history of "race" in this country would be additive. I'm not going to get pushback by discussing those more in my classes.

Joe Scales

11/11/2016 09:36:06 pm

There was an excellent discussion on today's Morning Joe where Michael Moore gave pushback to your above conclusions in regard to race, and I suppose racism, deciding the election in Trump's favor. It was after a Princeton professor went on a similar course as yours professor, but may have been somewhat more animated in doing so. Fact however, and critical reasoning, were brought forth by the host buoyed by Moore who let him know it wasn't uncloaked racists that pushed Trump to the win, but voters in swing states that formerly supported Obama in previous elections. The professor was left speechless.

I'm an independent, and have always been. Watch out where partisanship takes you. That's more of the danger in my view as it allows you to make rather hasty generalizations and your own confirmation biases pursuant to your cause.

Harold Edwards

11/9/2016 07:42:02 pm

Dover Beach by Matthew Arnold

The sea is calm tonight.
The tide is full, the moon lies fair
Upon the straits; on the French coast the light
Gleams and is gone; the cliffs of England stand,
Glimmering and vast, out in the tranquil bay.
Come to the window, sweet is the night-air!
Only, from the long line of spray
Where the sea meets the moon-blanched land,
Listen! you hear the grating roar
Of pebbles which the waves draw back, and fling,
At their return, up the high strand,
Begin, and cease, and then again begin,
With tremulous cadence slow, and bring
The eternal note of sadness in.

Sophocles long ago
Heard it on the Ægean, and it brought
Into his mind the turbid ebb and flow
Of human misery; we
Find also in the sound a thought,
Hearing it by this distant northern sea.

The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth’s shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.

Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

Joe Scales

11/10/2016 08:15:19 am

The more partisan you are, the stronger the penchant you'll have for intellectual dishonesty. The more likely you'll tend to paint with a broad brush against those with whom you differ. In case it escapes you, as you transverse this plane, I'll give the only gift I can in letting you in on the hallowed secret of life. Quite simply put, you're not going to be liked by everyone. You're not going to be able to change them. They're not going to do what you think they should do. The trick is... that secret if you will... is to figure out a way to get along with them regardless.

Scott Williams

11/10/2016 08:25:57 am

Good on you, Dr. White,

11/11/2016 05:56:18 am

Politics, can seem like mental clutter keeping people from realizing that true change starts at home on a personal and individual level. Concerned about the environment? News People can talk about climate change or the dangers of coal mining until they are blue in the face but a lot of those same people go home to a huge house with three a car garage and four bathrooms heated and cooled by two or three separate power guzzling HVAC systems. They drive to work in one of their disposable vehicles exchanging it for a new one every two years, eat almost every meal out consuming tons of wasteful packaging. Many complain about energy consumption yet choose to live in cities where miles and miles of streets and roads are lit all night long every night of every year. Many complain about groundwater contamination and droughts yet fail to realize that every city is a concrete funneling system transporting huge amounts of oily storm water straight into our oceans and freshwater streams that in a more natural environment would have fallen on plants and trees and systematically returned to the ground water supply.
When will people realize that it's not just about politics, it's also about personal responsibility. If we all sit around avoiding personal responsibility and wait for our politicians to save us, instead of ourselves, we will be waiting forever.

Lemmiiwinks

11/11/2016 05:02:19 pm

Trump spin a lie or dodge a question? I think you meant Hillary.

E.P. Grondine

11/12/2016 07:22:47 am

Hi Andy -

Why not stick with Native American archaeology?

You can cover racism during the contact period, the conquest, and the development of the plantation economies.

As far as the current election results, look up Newt Gingrich, his attack machine "Judicial Watch", and the assortment of billionaires who fund it.

You also have the hackers, not only Julius Asasnge, the distributor, but the others.

As a general principle I note that people believe what they want to believe, until reality intrudes. There was far more to this election than simple racism.

Andy White

11/12/2016 04:16:38 pm

Okay . . . I'm a bit surprised by the negative reaction to the ideas that: (1) race could somehow be relevant to understanding this election; (2) critical thinking is important and has been under-emphasized; (3) a college professor would want to talk about either of those things in anthropology classes.

I think you're blind if you can't see that race is important to the moment that we're in as well as the entire narrative arc of American history, the emergence of anthropology as a science, and nearly every aspect of "fringe" archaeology and history. Race is not just relevant but integral to all these things -- you can't really understand them if you don't discuss race.

I teach in the social sciences, not physics or chemistry. It's not partisan to discuss how American physical anthropology started (with Samuel Morton's polygenism) and explain why how we interpret human variation makes a difference. It's not partisan to try to understand how humans categorize other humans. Far from being "outside my field," I would argue that it's exactly my field. You can't be an anthropologist and pretend that none of this stuff matters.

As I said in the post, race and racism wasn't the only thing that was important in this election. But I think it's pretty undeniable that it was a component. Try explaining to the jubilant David Duke and the KKK that racism was not a factor.

Only Me

11/12/2016 06:36:53 pm

Andy, I want to apologize beforehand if I offend you, but I have a question for you.

You said, "It's fairly clear that it was white America's enthusiasm for Trump that put him into office." I think it obvious it was black America's enthusiasm for Obama that put him into office. Whites were also involved in that same enthusiasm on the basis of electing the first black president.

I bring this up because I'm curious if you had the same reaction to Obama's election that you had for Trump's. I find it odd the former promised to "fundamentally change America" and was celebrated for it, while the latter promises to "make America great again" and has been labeled as the harbinger of doom. Neither man had any political experience of note. Is the general reaction so different because the former is black and the latter is a rich white man? I certainly hope this isn't the deciding factor.

Based on the above, I encourage your pursuit of your three stated goals. When candidates are elected and judged due to race, it doesn't look too good for the future.

E.P. Grondine

11/13/2016 05:31:11 am

Hi Andy

"It's not partisan to discuss how American physical anthropology started (with Samuel Morton's polygenism) and explain why how we interpret human variation makes a difference. It's not partisan to try to understand how humans categorize other humans"

You can certainly add that to the list I set out above.

Physical Anthropology evolved in societies and reflected those societies beliefs.

Europeans had a lot of problems trying to fit Native Americans into their religions and world views.

Andy White

11/13/2016 05:37:09 am

And that's true all over the world. The Age of European Discovery was a time when Europeans encountered people all around the world who neither looked nor acted like themselves. They had to figure out how to reconcile the existence of those peoples and cultures with their worldview. The results were often not pleasant. The narrative of white supremacy was used to justify the removal, extermination, and/or subjugation of non-white peoples all around the world.

E.P. Grondine

11/13/2016 05:49:35 am

HI Andy -

Please keep in mind that when you feed a baby or young child you break the food up into small portions. The same thing goes when teaching your students.

Bite size portions, essential to the class, their interest.

Joe Scales

11/13/2016 07:56:47 am

"Try explaining to the jubilant David Duke and the KKK that racism was not a factor."

That would be association fallacy. You could frame a similar association fallacy in regard to voter registration being pushed by one party for convicted felons. Would that make them the criminal party, or were they simply trying to get as many votes as possible.

I have no problem discussing racial issues. It's politics that'll hamper your blog.

Andy White

11/13/2016 09:03:40 am

An example of association fallacy from Wikipedia:

"John is a con artist. John has black hair. Therefore, all people with black hair are con artists."

The parallel in this example would be:

"The KKK are racists. The KKK supported Trump. Therefore, all people who supported Trump are racists."

That isn't what I'm saying at all.

The first two parts of that statement are surely, true, however. And they beg the question of why the KKK and other white supremacist groups supported Donald Trump. It wasn't a random phenomenon, but had to do with something they saw in Trump's message. It is worth thinking about and trying to understand that.

Joe Scales

11/13/2016 12:17:12 pm

There are numerous forms of association fallacy as it is a type of hasty generalization and can be mixed with ad hominem. You are taking an extreme minority, in this case the KKK, and broadening their influence and impact to attack a politician you did not support. You then cloak it within a supposed intellectual inquiry. That's just politics really.

It is your blog of course, and if you wish to inject politics that is certainly your prerogative. I just wouldn't want to see it consume the place.

E.P. Grondine

11/14/2016 07:03:00 am

Hi Joe -

A lot of people are trying to figure this election out, including Mainstreet Republicans. If you go back to the historical record,
after Wallace was shot Nixon aggressively went after his supporters.

On the other hand, there were a lot of issues the neither party was addressing, issues upon which Perot and Buchana ran.

But I view this confrontational situation as the result of Newt Gingirch's attack politics, his attack machine, Judicial Watch, and the billionaires who funded it.

Joe Scales

11/14/2016 07:34:01 am

Hi E.P.,
The problem with figuring out this election is that partisans are just putting their spin on it according to their wants and desires. I do understand that it's a topic a lot of people want to get into, but maybe folks might want to lay off the preemptive strikes and save their ire for actual transgressions pertinent to the subject matter at hand; rather than invent them.

flip

11/12/2016 07:25:38 pm

TL;DR
I agree with you Andy and hope you continue to bring important politics topics into the discussion because they need to be talked about and understood, particularly with a historical perspective. ...

I am with you in spirit Andy. As a non-American I watched the election results live for about 6-8 hours straight. At first I was surprised and confused by the initial lead by Trump, and then in shock by the time it was clear Clinton couldn't make up the difference. By the end of it I was more than a little bewildered. I'm still wondering what the hell happened and whether or not the world spun off its axis.

It was clear to me throughout the campaign that this wasn't about the economy so much as a pushback against 'liberal agenda' (feminism, LGBT+ rights, civil rights, secularism, etc). I think you're entirely right to bring racism into the conversation about how you teach and how that teaching affects future voters and they way they think. (I personally would bring in the whole sexist rich playboy thing too)

Despite what the above commentators think, politics can't be separated from history nor culture, since most of politics and culture in the past was designed to segregate certain segments of the population from the 'more important' segments. That has knock-on effects even now. That's what the civil rights movement was about for FSM's sake. History doesn't stop somewhere behind us like a tidal line in the sand.

It is indeed appropriate to talk about race and politics, in the context of history and critical thinking. Otherwise all we're doing is special pleading away the discussion of politics (or race or whatever) as non-overlapping magisteria, where politics can only be talked about with emotional rhetoric, separate from scientific enquiry and methodical reasoning, or you know, a historical underpinning.

I am currently studying history through a local university and I have to say that it surprises me how all of history (in my course) seems condensed into a treatise on how rich white Christian European men have lived. I can't even take a subject on any country's history outside of my own (limited to colonial/native interactions) or Europe. Lip service is given to other cultures, regions, gender, religion and race. This is the whole of a three year course where the majors for history subjects are entirely all about Christian Europeans. The discussion within the classroom doesn't seem to question the information provided or the conclusions given by the lecturers, and no one has bothered to take the time to ask "but what about those other people? How did they live? How did events unfold for them?" I've already read many peer-reviewed articles that seem more like op-ed pieces in both their emotive language and their appeals to post-modernist retellings of primary documents. I'm not entirely sure if I'll learn to analyse history in anything but an intuitive way, as compared to using a critical, scientific method.

I severely wish I could take your subject online, as it combines the critical thinking and scientific methodology, and historical perspectives so sorely lacking in my own. (Plus, it just seems way more fun than stock standard history lessons) I was partly inspired by your site and Jason Colavito's to try history as an educational pursuit, and have really enjoyed your posts on the Swordgate and other fringe topics; but also on arrow flint and Native American culture. It has the right mix of genuine curiousity and exploration, critical thinking, scientific methodology and yes, human personal thought on current politics and culture. In fact, I came here to this site today to remind myself of why I wanted to do a history course in the first place.

Please do speak louder. I am sure I'm not alone in my experiences, and there are people out there who genuinely do change their minds by an intro to critical thinking (like me!) and/or appreciate its inclusion and the willingness to talk about those broader issues that face humans across time and space. It's very clear that some Americans need more critical thinking, not less.

Denise

11/13/2016 11:00:27 am

I too am surprised at the negative reactions here. Anthropology is the study of people....all people and the societies that form around them. People have always struggled against/for technology, climate, religion, politics, creature comforts, etc. etc. History is about people. People are people for better or worse. I tell this to my park visitors all the time (with a smile on my face saying see history is just a big soap opera!). That's my job everyday.

Historical interpretation isn't a simple recital of "facts" its about taking knowledge of the past, bringing it to life in a way a modern audience can understand and appreciate, and how that past still affects them and our society now.

I feel it's important to bring out the good, the bad, and the ugly in a non-judgmental way but in a way that engages and stimulates conversation. The trick is to know how receptive your audience is and what tactics to use. And yes it is an interpretation, its a challenge, and some employees don't understand the difference between interpreting the past and lecturing on the past.

I know I have done my job well when visitors engage with more inquiries, and when I hear them (or one of my co-workers tells me they heard) say things like: "That was fascinating, I never thought of that, so and so makes sense now, etc." What makes it easier for me to do this than Andy is that I have an audience that has come out of their way to visit my park, usually already have an interest, and/or simply love going to National Parks.

My audiences have usually consisted of children's groups and senior citizens. Very different then what Andy is dealing with. After doing what I do in one form or another for almost 30 years, I feel like I want to challenge myself and see if I could really engage with college students and challenge their preconceptions in a constructive way. So Andy I re-offer to you a future date to visit your class (next year or so). I have some ideas about how it could work, but you have a lot on your plate right now...so no worries.

Sharek link

11/16/2016 04:21:09 am

A conflict of culture is what was exhibited on the 8th of November.
These conflicts will worsen as natural resources shrink in the presence of an ever developing human race.

Politics and race are only facets of this challenging future.

An Educational Mandate from the Election of Donald Trump

Leave a Reply.

Archives

Categories