MAGA Seeks to Erase Scourged Backs

Escaped slave Gordon (a.k.a. Peter). Photo taken in 1863

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, write to me at rrbates1951@gmail.com. Comments may also be sent to this address. I promise not to share your e-mail with anyone. To unsubscribe, write here as well.

Monday

Few photos from the Civil War era are more iconic than “The Scourged Back,” where scars from a vicious beating can be seen on a runaway slave. Therefore, the image’s recent removal from certain venues is creating a furor amongst historians and archivists. As CNN reports,

On Tuesday, the Washington Post reported that officials at an unidentified national park had ordered that the photo be taken down, along with other signs and exhibits related to slavery. Citing unnamed sources, the newspaper described the move as being in line with an executive order Trump issued in March directing the US Interior Department to do away with content that disparages “Americans past or living.”

In today’s post I will be writing about another work of art featuring a scourged back, one that has also faced censorship as a result. More on Toni Morrison’s Beloved in a moment.

Apparently the removal of “Scourged Back” is controversial enough that the department that runs the National Park Service is now denying the report, although its weasel words do not inspire confidence: “If any interpretive materials are found to have been removed or altered prematurely or in error, the Department will review the circumstances and take corrective action as appropriate.”

There’s no doubt about what Trump himself wants. He has complained that the Smithsonian focuses “too much on how bad slavery was,” and no photo dramatizes more how bad slavery was than “Scourged Back,” which activists in 1863 used to rally support for the abolition of slavery. Abraham Lincoln needed such support to back up his signing of “The Emancipation Proclamation” earlier in the year.

Morrison’s graphic depiction of her protagonist’s sexual assault and subsequent whipping helps explain why Beloved is one of the most banned novels in America. The still bloody scarring is described to Sethe by a poor white woman who helps her to shelter after she has run away and who refers to her as “Lu”:

It’s a tree, Lu. A chokecherry tree. See, here’s the trunk—it’s red and split wide open, full of sap, and this here’s the parting for the branches. You got a mighty lot of branches. Leaves, too, look like, and dern if these ain’t blossoms. Tiny little cherry blossoms, just as white. Your back got a whole tree on it. In bloom. What God have in mind, I wonder. I had me some whippings, but I don’t remember nothing like this.

The beating occurs after Sethe, who is late in a pregnancy, informs her mistress that she has been assaulted by the master’s sons and had her milk sucked from her breasts. As she later tells Paul D, one of her fellow slaves who reconnects with her after the war, her master (“Schoolteacher”) makes her pay:

“After I left you, those boys came in there and took my milk. That’s what they came in there for. Held me down and took it. I told Mrs. Garner on them. She had that lump and couldn’t speak but her eyes rolled out tears. Them boys found out I told on em. Schoolteacher made one open up my back and when it closed it made a tree. It grows there still.”
“They used cowhide on you?”
“And they took my milk.”
They beat you and you was pregnant?”
“And they took my milk!”

In a tender lovemaking scene that is all the more powerful because it comes immediately after this account of unimaginable barbarity, Paul D traces the scars:

Raising his fingers to the hooks of her dress, he knew without seeing them or hearing any sigh that the tears were coming fast. And when the top of her dress was around her hips and he saw the sculpture her back had become, like the decorative work of an ironsmith too passionate for display, he could think but not say, “Aw, Lord, girl.” And he would tolerate no peace until he had touched every ridge and leaf of it with his mouth, none of which Sethe could feel because her back skin had been dead for years. What she knew was that the responsibility for her breats, at last, was in somebody’s else’s hands.

Someone else who treats this back tenderly is the poor white woman Amy Denver, who is taking a significant risk by assisting a runaway slave:

Whoever planted that tree beat Mr. Buddy by a mile. Glad I ain’t you. Well, spiderwebs is ’bout all I can do for you. What’s in here ain’t enough. I’ll look outside. Could use moss, but sometimes bugs and things is in it. Maybe I ought to break them blossoms open. Get that pus to running, you think?  Wonder what God had in mind. You must of did something. Don’t run off nowhere now.

And then:

Sethe could hear her humming away in the bushes as she hunted spiderwebs. A humming she concentrated on because as soon as Amy ducked out the baby began to stretch. Good question, she was thinking. What did He have in mind? Amy had left the back of Sethe’s dress open and now a tail of wind hit it, taking the pain down a step. A relief that let her feel the lesser pain of her sore tongue. Amy returned with two palmfuls of web, which she cleaned of prey and then draped on Sethe’s back, saying it was like stringing a tree for Christmas.

Isn’t it revealing that those book banners who attack Beloved identify with the slave owners rather than Amy? They see themselves as attacked for their racism rather than imagining themselves as the white characters (there are several in the novel) who help this Black woman. The companionship that arises between Amy and Sethe, which includes Amy helping with the delivery of Sethe’s baby, leads to this beautiful moment:

On a riverbank in the cool of a summer evening two women struggled under a shower of silvery blue. They never expected to see each other again in this world and at the moment couldn’t care less. But there on a summer night surrounded by bluefern they did something together appropriately and well. A pateroller [slave catcher] passing would have sniggered to see two throw-away people, two lawless outlaws—a slave and a barefoot whitewoman with unpinned hair—wrapping a ten-minute-old baby in the rags they wore. But no pateroller came and no preacher….There was nothing to disturb them at their work. So they did it appropriately and well.

While many Americans are flabbergasted at the way that MAGA is trying to erase the dark facts of slavery from history, I myself have seen it before. When I was 12 and studying Tennessee history in a segregated school system, barely any mention was made of slavery. Instead, we were informed that the real cause of “the War between the States” (they didn’t call it the Civil War) was economic, as though slavery did not have major economic ramifications. In fact, there was barely any mention of it and no mention at all of Jim Crow.

Nor was it only African Americans who were left out. In the chapter on Andrew Jackson, there was no mention of the Trail of Tears, even though the trail ran right through the school grounds. Nor did our book question the unjust invasion of Mexico carried out by James K. Polk, another slave-owning president from Tennessee.

I wrote last Friday about the moment when I realized, as a child in the early 1960s, the importance of learning about African American history. Only when members of my generation became teachers, professors and librarians did the educational system start acknowledging Black history and Black literature—oh, and the same for women, LGBTQ+ folk, and other minorities. It shouldn’t surprise us, therefore, that people who want to return to the 1950s would be waging these educational battles.

History and literature are never static. Don’t expect the battles to end.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments closed

Dems Channel Inner Lady Macbeth

Jeanette Nolan as Lady Macbeth in Orson Welles’s 1948 film

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, write to me at rrbates1951@gmail.com. Comments may also be sent to this address. I promise not to share your e-mail with anyone. To unsubscribe, write here as well.

Wednesday

As I note in my book Better Living through Literature, allusions to great works can deepen the national conversations we have about important issues. I came across a couple of good examples this past week, one from Shakespeare, one from Henry James.

First of all, there was political commentator Jay Kuo applying an image from Macbeth to urge the Democrats to stay strong against the Trump administration as it trashes the Constitution. The minority party is filibustering a bill to keep funding the government, their aim being to persuade the GOP to reverse the ruinous July healthcare cuts. If allowed to go into effect, these cuts will lead to rural hospital closures and millions of Americans losing their insurance.

Kuo explains why the Democrats should stick to their guns—or, as we’ll see in a moment, to their crossbows:

For our own sanity, and to win elections going forward, we need to begin to let the chips fall where they may with the Trump economy and GOP budget. If that means a government shutdown and even mass firings of federal workers (which is happening anyway even without a shutdown), then we need to make peace with that. Even if it means acceleration of Project 2025, it’s time for the Christian Nationalists to show their true agenda more plainly for the electorate to see and experience. If we are going to face it all anyway, we might as well force their hand now before even more of our remaining guardrails are gone.

Now for the quote from Macbeth:

When we screw our courage to the sticking point, and we hold fast to the truth that the only way out is through, we will also discover what we have sorely lacked till now: a true fighting spirit. We need deep clarity of purpose in our resistance to the fascist takeover. We cannot blink, we cannot falter, we cannot capitulate.

“Screwing our courage” is an image taken from crossbows: when they are wound up to the limit, it’s time to fire. Lady Macbeth resorts to the image when she sees her husband beginning to get cold feet over killing his king, who at the time is a guest in his house. When you floated this idea initially to me, she angrily points out, you were a real man, but now you’re worried whether now is the right time and place for to show it:

What beast was’t, then,
That made you break this enterprise to me?
When you durst do it, then you were a man;
And, to be more than what you were, you would
Be so much more the man. Nor time nor place
Did then adhere, and yet you would make both.
They have made themselves, and that, their fitness, now
Does unmake you.

Then she demonstrates, in one of Shakespeare’s most memorable and terrifying images, what real commitment looks like:

I have given suck, and know
How tender ’tis to love the babe that milks me.
I would, while it was smiling in my face,
Have plucked my nipple from his boneless gums
And dashed the brains out had I so sworn
as you have done to this.

In her subsequent pep talk, she uses the phrase quoted by Kuo:

Macbeth: If we should fail—
Lady Macbeth We fail!
But screw your courage to the sticking place
 And we’ll not fail.

It may be unsettling to think of the Democrats using the Macbeths as a model, especially as many more babies die as a result of Republican measures than Democratic. But in truth, the Democrats have been behaving a lot like King Duncan in recent years, blindly trusting that, in the end, Republicans would act in good faith. As the president increasingly resorts to fascist tactics–and as the Supreme Court increasingly gives him the power to renege on any negotiated Congressional spending agreements–they must use whatever limited power they have left to the fullest. As Kamala Harris recently put it, they must “fight fire with fire.”

While it’s true that Trump and the GOP has considerably more fire power than the Democrats, when the choice is to fight or die, the decision is fairly easy. If Duncan had foreseen what was coming, he would not have gone to sleep that night.

The other literary allusion appeared in an Atlantic by Tom Nichols, former professor at the U.S. Naval War College. Searching for reasons why Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth would bring 800 military leaders and generals together for an in-person meeting in Virginia, Nichols turned to James’s Turn of the Screw for the most plausible explanation.

First, here’s Nichols criticizing the idea:

Hegseth has had a lot of bad ideas, but this one is disruptive and even somewhat dangerous. All of these men and women have real jobs they should be doing. Even if Hegseth is calling this meeting to discuss serious issues of national defense—and so far, the Pentagon has given no such indications—few things are important enough to justify the security risk of putting the entire top U.S. military command, the secretary of defense, and the president all in the same room.

Miles, the seemingly angelic boy in James’s ghost story, disturbs his governess by going outside at night. We’re never sure why—is it to commune with the ghosts of Peter Quint and Miss Jessup, the former gamekeeper and governess?—but the governess can’t bring herself to directly confront him about this act of disobedience. In an elliptical and frustrating interchange with Miles, they get to talking about why he behaves as he does:

“And you can’t say I’ve not been awfully good, can you?”

I laid my hand on his shoulder, for, though I felt how much better it would have been to walk on, I was not yet quite able. “No, I can’t say that, Miles.”

“Except just that one night, you know—!”

“That one night?” I couldn’t look as straight as he.

“Why, when I went down—went out of the house.”

“Oh, yes. But I forget what you did it for.”

“You forget?”—he spoke with the sweet extravagance of childish reproach. “Why, it was to show you I could!”

“Oh, yes, you could.”

“And I can again.”

Here’s Nichols:

In the end, I suspect that Hegseth is trying to bolster his stature by flexing his bureaucratic muscles. He’s disrupting the work and daily life of hundreds of people to emphasize that he has the power to do so. Like Trump himself, Hegseth seems to feel the need to do things that others think are unwise as a way of demonstrating toughness and independence. Both men remind me of Miles, the creepy child in the Henry James novella The Turn of the Screw. When Miles misbehaves, his governess asks him why he would do such a thing. “Why, it was to show you I could!” he says. “And I can again.”

For those who know the book, Nichols’s use of the episode captures just how spine-chilling this moment was, made all the more so by Trump ruminating about using American cities as training grounds for the military and national guard.

Well, we’ve been shown that the president and his secretary could. Which for them, if not for Miles, is the point.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments closed

Social Media’s Siren Call

John Waterhouse, Odysseus and the Sirens

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, write to me at rrbates1951@gmail.com. Comments may also be sent to this address. I promise not to share your e-mail with anyone. To unsubscribe, write here as well.

Tuesday

I’m only just now examining the title of The Sirens’ Call: How Attention Became the World’s Most Endangered Resource, by MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes. He couldn’t have chosen a better literary allusion.

Sirens’ Call is an important contribution to our understanding of the modern world. Here’s the description on its website:

We all feel it—the distraction, the loss of focus, the addictive focus on the wrong things for too long. We bump into the zombies on their phones in the street, and sometimes they’re us. We stare in pity at the four people at the table in the restaurant, all on their phones, and then we feel the buzz in our pocket. Something has changed utterly: for most of human history, the boundary between public and private has been clear, at least in theory. Now, as Chris Hayes writes, “With the help of a few tech firms, we basically tore it down in about a decade.”

Hayes goes on to argue that our attention has become “a commodified resource extracted from us, and from which we are increasingly alienated.” Nor is that all. As Hayes sees it, our very humanity is at stake. As he puts it:

Now our deepest neurological structures, human evolutionary inheritances, and social impulses are in a habitat designed to prey upon, to cultivate, distort, or destroy that which most fundamentally makes us human.

Here’s the poem’s version of the allure and the resulting destruction. Does it describe anyone you know?

If anyone goes near them
in ignorance, and listens to their voices,
that man will never travel to his home
and never make his wife and children happy
to have him back with them again. The Sirens
who sit there in their meadow will seduce him
with piercing songs. Around them lie
great heaps of men, flesh rotting from their bones
their skin all shriveled up.

Hayes is playing the role of Circe, whose warning this is. While I haven’t read Hayes’s book, I expect his advice is similar to hers: while we shouldn’t close our ears to what’s going on, we must find ways to stay true to our purpose. In Odysseus’s case, this involves having his men bind him to the mast of his ship. It’s a necessary precaution since the sirens’ call is impossible to resist.

For some reason, I remembered the sirens’ temptations as sexual, but when I returned to the poem, I discovered that they were instead promising information. They understand their man well given that Odysseus is the wisest—or at any rate, the most cunning—of the Greeks:

Odysseus! Come here! You are well known
from many stories! Glory of the Greeks!
Now stop your ship and listen to our voices.
All those who pass this way hear honeyed song,
poured from our mouths. The music brings them joy,
and they go on their way with greater knowledge
since we know everything the Greeks and Trojans
suffered in Troy, by the gods’ will; and we know
what happens anywhere on earth. (Trans. Emily Wilson)

One can imagine Hayes himself struggling against the ropes, given that he too is brilliant, able to marshal and synthesize a vast array of political facts at a moment’s notice. Social media and the internet, of course, aid him in his work, which is why he wrote this book for himself as much as for the rest of us. He understands only too well the sirens’ call.

Even though it’s doubtful whether the sirens themselves can actually deliver on their promise, the internet can. Never before have we had instant access to “what happens anywhere on earth.” Odysseus struggling in his ropes is like a teenager who has been deprived of his phone:

Their song was so melodious, I longed to
listen more. I told my men to free me.
I scowled at them, but they kept rowing on.

Actually I owe teenagers an apology here. Many adults feel just as deprived when the power goes out, rendering their phones, laptops and MacBooks useless.

Some have offered, as solutions, various versions of the “wax in ears” treatment that Odysseus administers to his men, but that’s ultimately not realistic. Better to find ways to find a balance between self-restraint and openness, as Odysseus does. Hayes’s book helps us remain self-aware as we guard against being devoured.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments closed

DoJ’s Dickensian Assault on Justice

“Phiz,” Fortitude and Impatience (illus. for Bleak House)

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, write to me at rrbates1951@gmail.com. Comments may also be sent to this address. I promise not to share your e-mail with anyone. To unsubscribe, write here as well.

Monday

Of all the red lines that Donald Trump has crossed, ordering the Justice Department to prosecute his enemies may be the reddest (although the competition is fierce). In the case of former FBI James Comey, Trump had to fire a seasoned prosecutor and name a flunky in his place to have his suit brought. Few expect the case to succeed.

Courtroom success may not be the ultimate object, however, as novelist and political commentator Greg Olear observed last December. Applying Dickens’s Bleak House to Trump, Olear predicted that the incoming president would use Jarndyce v. Jarndyce tactics to go after his enemies.

The case, which is at the heart of the novel, is shrouded in fog and driven by avarice:

Well may the court be dim, with wasting candles here and there; well may the fog hang heavy in it, as if it would never get out; well may the stained-glass windows lose their color and admit no light of day into the place; well may the uninitiated from the streets, who peep in through the glass panes in the door, be deterred from entrance by its owlish aspect and by the drawl, languidly echoing to the roof from the padded dais where the Lord High Chancellor looks into the lantern that has no light in it and where the attendant wigs are all stuck in a fog-bank! This is the Court of Chancery…

Jarndyce v. Jarndyce is so complex that it baffles everyone who comes in contact with it:

Jarndyce and Jarndyce drones on. This scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated that no man alive knows what it means. The parties to it understand it least, but it has been observed that no two Chancery lawyers can talk about it for five minutes without coming to a total disagreement as to all the premises.

While the case against Comey is also confusing, at least it shouldn’t last long as long as Jarndyce and Jarndyce, which goes on for generations. If a judge doesn’t summarily throw out the suit on the grounds of malignant prosecution, the former FBI director has the right to a speedy trial. Another difference is that, whereas the purpose of Jarndyce and Jarndyce is for lawyers to make money—”The one great principle of the English law is to make business for itself,” Dickens writes—Trump’s goal is “to sap his critics of time, money, energy, and the will to live.”

That difference being noted, however, the effect is the same. Trump, who loses most of the suits he initiates, understands that the point is not winning them but bringing them. Olear points to the Lincoln Project’s Rick Wilson, who had to hire lawyers to defend him against a frivolous defamation suit. “If the purpose of terror is to terrorize,” Wilson said,

the purpose of lawfare is also to terrorize. The tools and techniques of lawfare, particularly these loonbucket defamation suits, would terrify people without means, experience, and strong legal representation.

Jarndyce v. Jarndyce is miraculously settled at the exact moment that all the money runs out. (Dickens reports that “the whole estate is found to have been absorbed in costs.”) Similarly, we can anticipate that all the lawsuits that Trump is directing the Justice Department to instigate will miraculously vanish the moment he leaves office.

Unfortunately, in the novel some good people are irremediably broken by the experience.

Not the lawyers, however, who have a good laugh at everyone’s expense.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments closed

MAGA’s Heretical Take on Jesus

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, write to me at rrbates1951@gmail.com. Comments may also be sent to this address. I promise not to share your e-mail with anyone. To unsubscribe, write here as well.

Sunday

I have no idea how rightwing Christians like Speaker of the House Mike Johnson reconcile their faith with today’s Biblical readings, which all emphasize the dangers of wealth. On the other hand, for those like Nicaraguan poet-priest Ernesto Cardenal who have embraced liberation theology, these passages are foundational. In “Unrighteous Mammon” Cardenal even alludes to Luke 6:19.

The connecting thread between the readings is crystal clear. The first is from the prophet Amos (6:1a, 4-7):

Alas for those who are at ease in Zion,
and for those who feel secure on Mount Samaria.

Alas for those who lie on beds of ivory,
and lounge on their couches,

and eat lambs from the flock,
and calves from the stall;

who sing idle songs to the sound of the harp,
and like David improvise on instruments of music;

who drink wine from bowls,
and anoint themselves with the finest oils,
but are not grieved over the ruin of Joseph!

Therefore they shall now be the first to go into exile,
and the revelry of the loungers shall pass away.

Paul picks up on the theme in his first letter to Timothy (6:6-10):

There is great gain in godliness combined with contentment; for we brought nothing into the world, so that we can take nothing out of it; but if we have food and clothing, we will be content with these. But those who want to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and in their eagerness to be rich some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains.

Finally there’s Jesus’s story about the rich man and the poor man (Luke 6:19-31):

Jesus said, “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man’s table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores. The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. He called out, `Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.’ But Abraham said, `Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony. Besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.’ He said, `Then, father, I beg you to send him to my father’s house– for I have five brothers– that he may warn them, so that they will not also come into this place of torment.’ Abraham replied, `They have Moses and the prophets; they should listen to them.’ He said, `No, father Abraham; but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, `If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'”

Cardenal specifically alludes to this last passage in “Unrighteous Mammon”:

Unrighteous Mammon (Luke 16:9)
By Ernesto Cardenal
Trans. by Robert Pring-Mill

In respect of riches, then, just or unjust,
of goods be they ill-gotten or well-gotten:
                                      All riches are unjust.
All goods,
                     ill-gotten.
If not by you, by others.
Your title deeds may be in order. But
did you buy your land from its true owner?
And he from its true owner? And the latter…?
Though your title go back to the grant of a king
                                            was
the land ever the king’s?
Has no one ever deprived of it?
And the money you receive legitimately now
from client or Bank or National Funds
                           or from the U.S. Treasury,
was it ill-gotten at no point? Yet
do not think that in the Perfect Communist State
Christ’s parables will have lost relevance
Or Luke 16:9 have lost validity
                                and riches be no longer UNJUST
or that you will no longer have a duty to distribute riches.

Cardenal embraced the Sandinista revolution against dictator Anastasio Somoza and served for a while as minister of culture for the new regime (for which Pope John Paul II suspended him). While in office, he campaigned for “revolution without vengeance” and would eventually break with the government when it turned authoritarian. In 2019, a year before his death, he was rehabilitated by Pope Francis.

Whatever compromises Cardenal made with worldly authority, they don’t come anywhere near those of the MAGA Christians who supported Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” apparently no longer seeing it as their duty to distribute riches. They are not certainly not listening to Moses and the prophets, nor to Paul and Jesus. While I don’t expect them to embrace Cardenal’s Christian Marxism, they appear to be going out of their way to conform to lifestyles that these figures railed against.

Rev. Samuel Barbour, the North Carolina social activist, has accused MAGA Christianity of heresy. It appears that, for them, Christ’s parables have lost all relevance and all validity.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments closed

My Life in Lit – Segregation

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, write to me at rrbates1951@gmail.com. Comments may also be sent to this address. I promise not to share your e-mail with anyone. To unsubscribe, write here as well.

Friday

Today’s weekly installment of My Life in Lit focuses on growing up in the segregated south and how my views of race came into being. As a result, I cover some of the same years that I touched on in last week’s essay.

My earliest memory of racism actually involves myself. I was chanting a rhyme I had undoubtedly picked up in school—“Teacher, teacher don’t hit me, hit that [N-word] behind that tree”—and John Mayfield, the son of the seminarian who lived upstairs, vociferously objected. (Although John was three years younger than I was, he had been well schooled.) Seeing that I had gotten a rise out of him, I kept at it and he kept getting angrier until we settled on a compromise. We agreed that I would substitute the word “tiger.” (Better to scapegoat tigers than people of color.)

I remember being amazed that a word could have such power but also feeling good at how compromise had brought us into agreement. Perhaps “tiger” reminded me also of the book Little Black Sambo, which I had loved when I was younger. In any case, I didn’t associate the N-word with actual people.

That didn’t last. I heard the N-word a lot growing up, although not from my parents and their friends. (Nor would those racists in the administration and on the faculty, of whom there a number, have publicly used it—upper class racism differs from lower class racism in the language used, although it has its own toxicity.) As a result, the word almost felt natural when my father read me Huckleberry Finn at ten or eleven. By that time, however, I knew that racism was bad and felt aligned with the progressives in our community.

I have a vivid memory, at age ten, of visiting the two-room Black schoolhouse (four grades in each room) to drop off some books. The local NAACP, which my parents belonged to, had purchased biographies of George Washington Carver and Harriet Tubman, both of which I read before we handed them over. It was summer so no one was in the building, but I remember seeing worn copies of Dick, Jane, and Sally. They had undoubtedly been passed on after Sewanee Public School was through with them, and I was aware of the contrast between the world they depicted and the shabby classroom I was standing in. I could see why it would be more important for the kids to read about Carver and Tubman. In other words, thanks to my parents, I was beginning to step into another perspective.

It helped that my father had read us Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird and I had seen the movie as well. Because of a civil rights lawsuit that we were involved in—more on that in a moment–I remember particularly well the discussion Atticus has with Scout about the appellation “N-word lover.” I was called that at least once in my childhood so Atticus’s calm discussion of it was meaningful. The novel helped me formulate a self apart from the community I was part of.  

So did Huckleberry Finn. To appreciate its importance, some background is necessary.

In 1962 four Black Sewanee families and four white brought a suit against our county school board for depriving their children of the right to attend integrated schools, as decreed by the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision. I was one of the plaintiffs in the case. It was one of the few instances in the south of a multiracial lawsuit, and it happened in Sewanee because of the proximity of Highlander Folk School, an integrated conference center nearby where civil rights activists came together to hold workshops. Rosa Parks had attended one of these workshops shortly before she set off the Montgomery bus boycott and Martin Luther King had also been there. Septima Clark, an amazing African American woman and Highlander’s director of education, had helped set up a local NAACP, and the lawsuit grew out of that organization.

Although the KKK was active in the valley, Sewanee is unusual in that the college owns all the land that everyone lives on (some 10,000 acres in all). This meant that the Black families, most of whom worked for the college, were somewhat protected. The top of the plateau was not entirely Klan-free, however, and I went to school with a number of poor, rural whites who resembled the Cunninghams and Ewells in Mockingbird. Indeed, I remember that we, as kids, saw ourselves as fitting into one of three categories: town kids (associated with the college and professional people, most of whom walked or bicycled to school), theolog kids (children of seminarians, who were there for three years), and “bus kids,” who were bused in from neighboring hamlets. Some in this last category lived in tar paper shacks and some relied on the school lunch for their only meal of the day. (I remember witnessing real hunger for the first time in my life.) The bus kids were the most openly racist although I witnessed some racism in the town and theolog kids as well.

Even though Sewanee cushioned the Black families against the Klan, however, they were still courageous for signing on to the suit, as was our African American lawyer, Avon Williams, who was never sure if he would make it safely back to Nashville at the end of a day in court. The NAACP financed the case and was proud, as were we all, when we won. Ronnie Staten was the only Black child in my 7th grade class as integration included only a sprinkling of African American students the first year before full integration in 1964-65.

I remember reaching out to Ronnie during recess on that first day in school. And while I did so because of the lawsuit, I also had in mind the scene where Huck determines to rescue Jim from captivity, even though white society is against it. It’s the most memorable scene in the novel—Huck follows his heart and honors his friendship, even though he believes he’ll go to hell for it—and it bolstered my own values. Although Ronnie would ultimately choose to play basketball with the other boys rather than play outside with me (which was good), it was an important moment for me and hopefully for him.

May Justus, an Appalachian writer who had developed a friendship with Highlander and had become a good friend of our family, would write a book about that encounter, called New Boy in School (Hastings House, 1963). It was groundbreaking in its day and is dedicated to me and my brothers.

I missed full integration the following year because my father had a sabbatical in Paris. Then, when we returned to Sewanee, it was as though segregation still reigned because I attended all-white Sewanee Military Academy. (Kids who wanted to attend a good college generally went to one of the three prep schools on the mountain because the local public high school was so bad.) While I loathed the military, I got a superb education (more on that in a future post). Still, it was sad how I continued to be cut off from Sewanee’s Black children. Although we all lived together in the same small town, it’s as though we were in separate worlds.

Because of the ugliness of southern racism, I wanted to get as far away from the south as I could. I applied to Swarthmore in Pennsylvania, Colby College in Maine, and Carleton College in Minnesota. I ended up at Carleton.

As a child, I assumed that segregation would always be the way things were. As a result, whenever I walk into a classroom and see white and Black students sitting together as though it is the most natural thing in the world, to this day I experience a momentary thrill. They take for granted what once seemed impossible.

It gives me hope.

One other work: Speaking of fiction that gave me some outside perspective, there were also Herman and Verman, the Black brothers in Booth Tarkington’s Tom Sawyer-like Penrod books. At one point, seeing the tangles and follow-up punishments that Penrod and his friends get into, Herman shakes his head and says, “Man, man! Glad I ain’ no white boy!” (from “Georgie Becomes a Member” in Penrod and Sam).

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments closed

Read for Fun, Not for the Test

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, write to me at rrbates1951@gmail.com. Comments may also be sent to this address. I promise not to share your e-mail with anyone. To unsubscribe, write here as well.

Thursday

It probably can’t be said enough that the first job of language arts teachers should be to “instill the joy of reading.” So say professors Jonna Perrillo and Andrew Newman in a recent 74 Newsletter article, arguing that testing “gets in the way” and that “the top-down pressure to measure up on test scores saps the time and energy needed to promote reading for pleasure.”

Although an alarming national study recently revealed that reading for pleasure has declined precipitously over the past 25 years, Perillo and Newman acknowledge it may not entirely be due to testing. After all, teaching to the test has been the case ever since English became a secondary school subject. Teachers have also been complaining for that long since “too many have experienced a radical disconnect between how they are asked or required to teach and the pleasure that reading brings them.”

To be sure, there are teachers who buy into the program. I think of Charles Dickens’s M’Choakumchild, the humorless school master in Hard Times (1854) who bleeds the life out of his charges. If you’ll forgive an aside, mention of the Scottish taskmaster gives me an excuse to share a Bluesky tweet from my English professor son, which had me laughing earlier today. While it’s proper to take literature seriously, we need also to remind ourselves that it can be a lot of fun:

Henry James: The advantage, the luxury, as well as the torment and responsibility of the novelist, is that there is no limit to what he may attempt—no limit to his possible experiments, efforts, discoveries.
Dickens: this guy is named “M’Choakumchild”
James:
Dickens: he be chokin them childs!

Most English teachers I know are not M’Choakumchild’s but humanists who became teachers because reading is essential to their lives. They fit the description that Perrillo and Newman set forth:

Throughout [history], many teachers felt that preparing students for college was too limited a goal; their mission was to prepare students for life. They believed that studying literature was an invaluable source of social and emotional development, preparing adolescents for adulthood and for citizenship. It provided them with “vicarious experience”: Through reading, young people saw other points of view, worked through challenging problems, and grappled with complex issues. 

Testing gets in the way of such lofty goals. I vaguely recall some literary character from an 18th or 19th century novel associating a Roman author (Ovid?) with constant beatings, since apparently this was seen as the best way to teach Latin. While we no longer apply a switch for memorization errors, in certain ways the situation has gotten worse. Testing has become a constant and never-ending drumbeat.

Perrillo and Newman note that high school English first became a test-driven subject in the late 19th or early 20th century. Even though relatively few Americans attended college, English classes were nevertheless “oriented around building students’ mastery of now-obscure literary works that they would encounter on the College Entrance Exam.”

These early efforts were followed up by the Scholastic Aptitude Test in 1926 and by No Child Left Behind testing in the 21st century. The vast industry of testing that has arisen has only “solidified what was always true: As much as we think of reading as a social, cultural, even ‘spiritual’ experience, English class has been shaped by credential culture.”

Things have gotten so bad, the authors report, that ever growing numbers of students are getting online curriculum packages

that mimic the examinations themselves, composed largely of excerpts from literary and “informational” texts instead of the whole books that were more the norm in previous generations. “Vicarious experience” has less purchase in contemporary academic standards than ever. 

Vicarious experience, or what I call immersion, is key. English teachers know full well, as many politicians and educational bureaucrats do not, that enjoyment of reading—“not just a toleration of it”–“produces better writers, more creative thinkers, and students less likely to need AI to express their ideas effectively.”

The irony is that students would probably do better on tests if less emphasis were put on testing. As Perrillo and Newman note that “the best tool for improved academic performance is engagement” since students learn more “when they become engrossed in stories.”

Sadly, because teachers can’t focus on instilling joy, students are being robbed of a precious tool. By the time they graduate from high school, the authors lament, they have lost the window “for learning to enjoy reading.”

The solution?

Instead of the self-defeating cycle of test-preparation and testing, we should take courage, loosen the grip on standardization, and let teachers recreate the sort of experiences with literature that once made us, and them, into readers.

Put another way, read for fun and the aims of testing will be achieved.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments closed

A Poem Condemning Isolationism

Edna St. Vincent Millay

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, write to me at rrbates1951@gmail.com. Comments may also be sent to this address. I promise not to share your e-mail with anyone. To unsubscribe, write here as well.

Wednesday

Once again I offer thanks to blogger Greg Olear for alerting me to a great poem of which I was unaware. The 1940s America that Edna St. Vincent Millay was addressing in “There Are No Islands Anymore” is disturbingly similar to our own.

Olear puts the poem in context:

A staunch pacifist during the Great War, [Millay] changed her tune after the rise of Hitler, who she correctly pegged—as all the good poets and artists did—as a despotic, genocidal madman. By the time the Nazis rolled into Poland, she was all-in on the fight for democracy, advocating for the United States to enter the war to help Britain and France. Hitler was a menace. He had to be stopped. This was not a war we could afford to sit out.

Then he notes its relevance:

What Millay felt, helplessly watching all this horror, is akin to what we feel now, a Putin’s Russia continues to bomb and drone our democratic allies in Ukraine, day after day after day, while our Hitlerian president makes Ukraine’s president beg like a dog for help we don’t provide enough of. It is infuriating. It is sad. And it is ultimately self-defeating.

Olear is irritated that such poems were dismissed as “propaganda verse” by the modernist poets of her day, not to mention whoever wrote the Millay profile piece for Poetry Foundation. Just because a poem has a political message doesn’t automatically make it bad poetry, even though it can make certain scholars of poetry uncomfortable.  As Olear observes,

Aren’t all poems propaganda? Isn’t all art? If the purpose of art is not to sway, in some form or another, then what is it for? What are we even doing here?

Reading the poem in 2025, it’s hard not to think of increasingly strong hurricanes and rising sea levels brought about by climate change. And although Millay gets the story of King Canute backwards—in bidding the ocean not to rise, Canute was making the point to his subjects that he was not all powerful—it does bring to mind Trump thinking he could dictate a hurricane’s path with a sharpie. In any event, is making a powerful plea to hang together as a community.

With its memorable images and punchy lines, “No Islands” brings to mind John Donne’s “Meditation 17,” in which he declares that no man is an island. Ignore that and we are left to fight alone.

There Are No Islands Anymore
By Edna St. Vincent Millay
Lines written in passion and in deep concern for England, France and my own country. 

Dear Isolationist, you are
So very, very insular!
Surely you do not take offense?—
The word’s well used in such a sense.
‘Tis you, not I, sir, who insist
You are an Isolationist.

And oh, how sweet a thing to be
Safe on an island, not at sea!
(Though someone said, some months ago—
I heard him, and he seemed to know;
Was it the German Chancellor?—
“There are no islands anymore.”)

Dear Islander, I envy you:
I’m very fond of islands, too;
And few the pleasures I have known
Which equaled being left alone.
Yet matters from without intrude
At times upon my solitude:
A forest fire, a dog run mad,
A neighbor stripped of all he had
By swindlers, or the shrieking plea
For help, of stabbed Democracy.

Startled, I rise, run from the room,
Join the brigade of spade and broom;
Help to surround the sickened beast;
Hear the account of farmers fleeced
By dapper men, condole, and give
Something to help them hope and live;
Or, if democracy’s at stake,
Give more, give more than I can make;
And notice, with a rueful grin,
What was without is now within.

(The tidal wave devours the shore:
There are no islands anymore.)

With sobbing breath, with blistered hands,
Men fight the forest fire in bands;
With kitchen broom, with branch of pine,
Beat at the blackened, treacherous line;
Before the veering wind fall back,
With eyebrows burnt and faces black;
While breasts in blackened streams perspire.
Watch how the wind runs with the fire
Like a broad banner up the hill—
And can no more. . . yet more must still.

New life! —To hear across the field
Voices of neighbors, forms concealed
By smoke, but loud the nearing shout:
“Hold on! We’re coming! Here, it’s out!”

(The tidal wave devours the shore:
There are no islands anymore.)

This little life from here to there—
Who lives it safely anywhere?
Not you, my insulated friend:
What calm composure will defend
Your rock, when tides you’ve never seen
Assault the sands of What-has-been,
And from your island’s tallest tree,
You watch advance What-is-to-be?

(The tidal wave devours the shore:
There are no islands anymore.)

Sweet, sweet, to see the tide approach,
Assured that it cannot encroach
Upon the beach-peas, often wet
With spray, never uprooted yet.
The moon said—did she not speak true?—
“The waves will not awaken you.
At my command the waves retire.
Sleep, weary mind; dream, heart’s desire.”

And yet, there was a Danish king
So sure he governed everything
He bade the ocean not to rise.
It did. And great was his surprise.

No man, no nation, is made free
By stating it intends to be.
Jostled and elbowed is the clown
Who thinks to walk alone in town.

We live upon a shrinking sphere—
Like it or not, our home is here;
Brave heart, uncomprehending brain
Could make it seem like home again.

There are no islands anymore.
The tide that mounts our drowsy shore
Is boats and men—there is no place
For waves in such a crowded space.

Oh, let us give, before too late,
To those who hold our country’s fate
Along with theirs—be sure of this—
In grimy hands—that will not miss
The target, if we stand beside
Loading the guns—resentment, pride,
Debts torn across with insolent word—
All this forgotten, or deferred
At least until there’s time for strife
Concerning things less dear than Life;
Than let, if must be, in the brain
Resentment rankle once again,
Quibbling and Squabbling take the floor,
Cool Judgment go to sleep once more.

On English soil, on French terrain,
Democracy’s at grips again
With forces forged to stamp it out
This time no quarter!—since no doubt.

Not France, not England’s what’s involved,
Not we, —there’s something to be solved
Of grave concern to free men all:
Can Freedom stand? —Must Freedom fall?

(Meantime, the tide devours the shore:
There are no islands anymore.)

Oh, build, assemble, transport, give,
That England, France and we may live,
Before tonight, before too late,
To those who build our country’s fate
In desperate fingers, reaching out
For weapons we confer about,
All that we can, and more, and now!
Oh, God, let not the lovely brow
Of Freedom in the trampled mud
Grow cold! Have we no brains, no blood,
No enterprise—no anything
Of which we proudly talk and sing,
Which we like men can bring to bear
For Freedom, and against Despair?

Lest French and British fighters, deep
In battle, needing guns and sleep,
For lack of aid be overthrown—
And we be left to fight alone.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments closed

La Rochefoucauld & GOP Hypocrisy

French moralist François de la Rochefoucauld

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, write to me at rrbates1951@gmail.com. Comments may also be sent to this address. I promise not to share your e-mail with anyone. To unsubscribe, write here as well.

Tuesday

I am an admirer of François de La Rochefoucauld, the brilliant 17th century moralist. So was Jonathan Swift, who in “Verses on the Death of Dr. Swift” wrote,

As Rochefoucauld his maxims drew
From Nature, I believe ’em true:
They argue no corrupted mind
In him; the fault is in mankind.

If some saw La Rochefoucauld as possessing a corrupted mind, it’s because he punctured sentimental accounts of human nature, revealing unsettling truths. Swift’s favorite maxim, which he used when imagining how people would respond to his death, was, “Dans l’adversité de nos meilleurs amis nous trouvons quelque chose, qui ne nous déplaît pas.” Or as Swift translates it, “In the hard times of our best friends we find something that doesn’t displease us.”

I turn to another maxim, #218, to examine Charlie Kirk and MAGA’s response to his assassination since it deals with people who say one thing and act another. “Hypocrisy,” the French thinker writes, “is a tribute that vice pays to virtue.” (“L’hypocrisie est un hommage que le vice rend à la vertu.”)

Kirk paid constant homage to the First Amendment, even as he set up watch lists to hound professors. He was so successful at this double game that, for a while, MAGA was as fervent about free speech as anyone on the Left.

The hypocrisy has become apparent since Kirk’s death.  Political commentator Paul Waldman describes himself as shocked, shocked as he observes that the Trump administration and the American right “may not be quite as committed to freedom of speech as they led us to believe.” Even as they celebrate Kirk as a free speech warrior, they are bent on repressing the free speech of anyone who doesn’t agree with them:

Conservatives are collecting names of ordinary people who said the wrong thing about Kirk to target them for harassment. The attorney general is threatening prosecutions for various Kirk-related speech sins. Her number two at the Justice Department says people who say mean things about the president could face racketeering charges.

Reporters love to call out hypocrisy, confronting hypocrites with past statements and asking how they reconcile them with current behavior. The assumption is that people at least gesture towards virtue and will be ashamed when they are caught out. Or if they themselves are not ashamed, then at least society will insist on virtue and hold them to account.

What happens, however, if hypocrites flaunt their hypocrisy as a badge of honor? They are essentially saying that it’s okay if they suppress speech but not if the Left does. It’s the same kind of impunity we saw in former Fox host Megyn Kelly who, in response to border czar Thomas Holman accepting $50,000 in bribe money, brazenly declared, “We do not care!”

I’m wondering if La Rochefoucauld could have anticipated such impunity. As he writes in Maxim #489, “However wicked men may be, they do not dare openly to appear the enemies of virtue.” Then again, he does anticipate how Trump and his sycophants have gone after Barack Obama and Joe Biden, two of our most virtuous presidents. As the moralist concludes his maxim, “and when they desire to persecute her [virtue] they either pretend to believe her false or attribute crimes to her.”

Another maxim that could be applied to Kirk is #187: “The name of virtue is as useful to our interest as that of vice.” Kirk was able to achieve certain ends by appearing virtuous—which in this context meant appearing reasonable. This appearing took in liberal pundit Ezra Klein, who observed that Kirk “practiced politics the right way.” It’s a dubious assertion, as Ta-Nehisi Coates has pointed out:

Kirk reveled in open bigotry. Indeed, claims of Kirk’s “civility” are tough to square with his penchant for demeaning members of the LGBTQ+ community as “freaks” and referring to trans people with the slur “tranny.”… he defined “the American way of life” as marriage, home ownership, and child-rearing free of “the lesbian, gay, transgender garbage in their school,” adding that he did not want kids to “have to hear the Muslim call to prayer five times a day.” … Kirk habitually railed against “Black crime,” claiming that “prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people.” He repeated the rape accusations against Yusef Salaam, a member of the exonerated Central Park Five who is now a New York City councilman, calling him a “disgusting pig” who had gotten away with “gang rape.” Whatever distaste Kirk held for Blacks was multiplied when he turned to those from Haiti. Haiti was, by Kirk’s lights, a country “infested with demonic voodoo,” whose migrants were “raping your women and hunting you down at night.” 

So what are we to make of Kirk’s success? La Rochefocauld’s Maxim #273 explains it:

There are persons of whom the world approves who have no merit beyond the vices they use in the affairs of life.

As to whether Kirk, with all his energy, charisma, and charm, could ever have developed into a better human being, our moralist gives us every reason to doubt it. “Lucky people,” he writes in Maxim #227, “are bad hands at correcting their faults; they always believe that they are right when fortune backs up their vice or folly.”

Come to think of it, the same could be said of Donald Trump.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments closed

  • Sign up for my weekly newsletter